In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the principle that common intention among accused persons can develop in an instant, dismissing arguments that such intention must be premeditated. The court also held that the non-examination of independent witnesses does not weaken the prosecution’s case if the testimonies of other witnesses, particularly injured witnesses, are found reliable and credible. The ruling was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih in Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo & Ors. vs. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2012) on September 25, 2024.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a violent altercation that took place on December 12, 1997, in the Taran Tarn district of Punjab. The chain of events began with a minor dispute between one of the accused, Baljinder Singh (A-1), and Puran Singh (P.W.3), a victim in the case. According to the prosecution, A-1’s scooter accidentally collided with P.W.3, leading to a heated argument. In response, P.W.3 slapped A-1, and after a brief exchange of insults, the altercation seemed to have ended. However, within 15 minutes, A-1, along with his brothers (A-2 and A-3) and his father (A-4), returned to the scene armed with weapons, including a 12-bore double-barrel gun, dangs, and lathis.
The accused attacked P.W.3, as well as other victims, including Jit Singh (P.W.4) and Jagjit Singh (P.W.5), in full view of onlookers. The deceased victims, Laddi and Karam Singh, were also caught in the crossfire. A-4, the father of A-1, opened fire with the gun, causing fatal injuries to the victims. The victims were rushed to the hospital, where Laddi succumbed to his injuries the next day, while Karam Singh passed away weeks later, on January 10, 1998.
An FIR was filed against the accused for murder, attempt to murder, and rioting, leading to their trial in the sessions court. The trial court found all the accused guilty under Sections 148, 302, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 27 of the Arms Act. They were sentenced to life imprisonment. This conviction was subsequently upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, leading to the present appeal in the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
The appellants raised several key legal issues in their defense:
1. Common Intention under Section 34, IPC: The appellants argued that the High Court had incorrectly applied Section 34, IPC (common intention), as there was no evidence of prior planning or a shared intention to commit murder. They claimed that the incident was spontaneous and lacked the necessary ingredients of common intention.
2. Non-Examination of Independent Witnesses: The defence also pointed to the absence of independent witnesses in the case, despite the fact that the incident occurred in a public area surrounded by shops and residential houses.
3. Credibility of Injured Witnesses: The appellants sought to challenge the credibility of the prosecution’s key witnesses—P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.5—all of whom were also victims. They argued that minor inconsistencies and the absence of brickbat injuries weakened the reliability of these testimonies.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision
After hearing detailed arguments from both sides, the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered a comprehensive judgment that addressed the key legal contentions raised by the appellants.
1. Common Intention Can Arise Instantly: The Court dismissed the argument that common intention requires prior planning. Citing a long line of judicial precedents, the bench observed, “Common intention can be formed just a minute before the actual act happens.” The Court emphasized that common intention can be inferred from the conduct of the accused immediately before, during, and after the incident. In this case, the fact that the accused returned to the scene armed and launched a coordinated attack demonstrated a clear common intention to kill, formed instantly after the initial altercation.
2. Non-Examination of Independent Witnesses: The bench further ruled that the non-examination of independent witnesses does not automatically render the prosecution’s case unreliable. The Court referenced previous rulings that underscore how the testimonies of injured witnesses, if credible and consistent, hold significant evidentiary value. “Reliable evidence of injured eyewitnesses cannot be discarded merely for the reason that no independent witness was examined,” the Court noted, referring to rulings such as Guru Dutt Pathak vs. State of U.P. The bench concluded that the prosecution had established the credibility of P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.5, whose testimonies were corroborated by medical evidence.
3. Credibility of Injured Witnesses: The Supreme Court also upheld the reliability of the injured witnesses, pointing out that minor discrepancies in their testimonies did not detract from the overall veracity of their account. “Injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight, and unless there are substantial contradictions, their testimonies are not to be discarded lightly,” the Court observed. The bench reaffirmed that the testimony of injured witnesses is given high regard in criminal cases, especially when it is supported by consistent and corroborative evidence.
Important Observations by the Court
The Court extensively cited legal precedents to fortify its conclusions, including:
– “Common intention can be formed just a minute before the actual act happens.”
– “Reliable evidence of injured eyewitnesses cannot be discarded merely for reason that no independent witness was examined.”
These observations played a crucial role in affirming the guilt of the appellants under Sections 148, 302, and 307 of the IPC, read with Section 34. The Court rejected the defense’s argument that the appellants had been falsely implicated due to previous enmity with the victims.
The Supreme Court upheld the life sentences imposed on Baljinder Singh (A-1), his brothers (A-2 and A-3), and his father (A-4), affirming the findings of the trial court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Court’s ruling reinforces the principles of instant formation of common intention and underscores that the absence of independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution’s case when other credible evidence is available.
