GURPAL SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 139, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 139 
GURPAL SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of2016) 
DECEMBER 02, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 and s.307 - Family dispute over 
land between informant and appellant who were brothers -
On the 
fateful day, when son of the informant was working in fields, 
appellant started abusing hi111 - Informants son ca111e home and 
complained to the informant - Informant went to the terrace of his 
house and sum111oned appellant - Appellant and his son responded 
A 
B 
c 
to his call and proclai111ed that they would continue to do same -
Thereafter appellant rushed downstairs and brought his gun and 
opened fire which hit the informant on the side of his head - Wife of D 
the informant and friends of the informant rushed to the terrace -
On seeing the111, appellant fired towards them which hit one of the 
friends resulting in his death and injury to another - Conviction of 
appellant by courts below and acquittal of co-accused-son -
Conviction challenged - Held: Evidence of eye-witnesses was 
consistent, coherent and reliable - Medical evidence also proved 
prosecution case beyond doubt - Acquittal of co-accused has no 
bearing on the inculpatory involvement of the appellant - The 
involvement of appellant in the crime was proved beyond doubt -
However, the facts do not lead to the inference that the appellant 
had the intention of eliminating any one of those fired at, though he 
had the knowledge of the likely
fatal consequences thereof - In 
view of the fact situation and also the time lag in between, 
conviction of the appellant 111oderated to one uls.304 Part 1 and 
307 and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The eye-witnesses including the informant have 
offered a consistent, coherent and convincing narration thereof 
which docs not admit of any doubt of their trustworthiness. The 
plea of their family relationship to discredit them does not 
139 
E 
F 
G 
H
140 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
commend for acceptance in the attendant facts and circumstances. 
Noticeably, in course of the investigation, amongst others, the 
12 bore DBBL gun loaded with two live cartridges used for the 
offence had been recovered from the appellant. The site plan 
prepared by the investigating officer also pins the place of 
occurrence as deposed by the witnesses. Further four cartridge 
shells have also been recovered from the said spot. [Para 8][143-
B-C] 
2. The medical evidence reveals injuries on the deceased 
and the injured compatible with the weapon used. The charges 
levelled against the appellant thus have been proved beyond 
doubt. The co-accused has been acquitted in view of absence of 
any incriminating evidence against him. His acquittal, having 
regard to the state of evidence has no bearing on the inculpatory 
involvement of the appellant somuch so, that his conviction in 
isolation is sustainable. The occurrence is of the year 2004 and 
meanwhile twelve years have elapsed. Further, having regard to 
the root cause of the incident and the events that sequentially 
unfolded thereafter, the appellant might have been overpowered 
by an uncontrollable fit of anger somuch so that he was deprived 
of his power of self-control and being drawn in a web of action 
reflexes, fired at the deceased and the injured, who were within 
his sight. The facts do not commend to conclude that the appellant 
had the
intention of eliminating any one of those fired at, though 
he had the knowledge of the likely fatal consequences thereof. 
On an overall consideration of the fact situation and also the time 
lag in between, the conviction of the appellant moderated to one 
under Section 304 Part 1 IPC and 307 IPC. Further, considering 
the facts of the case in particular, it would meet the ends of justice, 
if the sentence for the offences is reduced to the period already 
undergone. The conviction of the appellant is converted to one 
under Section 304 Part 1 and 307 IPC and the sentence is reduced 
to the period already undergone. [Paras 9, 10 and 11][143-D,E-
G; 144-A] 
CRIMIN AL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1145of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2008 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 378-DB 
H of2004.
GURPAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
141 
Yatinder Singh, Sr. Adv.( AC), Arijeet Singh, Ms. Apraj ita 
A 
Anvita, Ad vs. for the Appellant. 
SaurabhAjay Gupta, AAG., Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Saurabh Singhal, 
Nishant Bishnoi, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
AMITAVA ROY, J. 1. The subject matter of scrutiny is the 
judgment and order dated 01.10.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab 
and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 378-DB of 2004 
concurring with the verdict of the Trial Court in convicting the appellant 
B 
for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC while acquitting the co-
accused Harpartap Singh, his son. Following his conviction, the appellant 
C 
had been awarded sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-
with default sentence under Section 302 IPC and five years rigorous 
imprisonment and fine ofRs.2,000/-with default sentence under Section 
307 IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 
The High Court has concurred with the sentence as well. 
D 
2. We have heard Mr. Yatindra Singh, Senior Advocate, learned 
Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, learned 
counse I for the respondent. 
3. The incident witnessing the death of Jatinder Singh and the 
injuries sustained by Lakhwinder has the genesis in a trifle. On a statement 
rendered with regard thereto by Gurdial Singh(PW 1 ), the First Information 
Report was registered against the appellant and his son Harpartap. It
was alleged that over a lingering land dispute between the informant and 
the appellant, who are brothers, on 06.07 .2002, while Jugraj, the son of 
the informant was in his fields, the appellant had hurled abuses to him. 
Jugraj having felt humiliated and anguished, on returning home, complained 
about the same to his father Gurdial, the informant. The houses of the 
brothers were adjacent to each other. When the appellant returned 
home from his fields, the infonnant went to the terrace of the roof of his 
house and summoned the former to that of his. The appellant and his 
E 
F 
son Harpartap responded to the call whereafter informant enquired of G 
Gurpal as to why he had abused his son. This enraged the appellant and 
while arrogantly proclaiming that he was not only justified to do so but 
that he would continue to conduct himself as done, rushed downstairs of 
his house and brought his DBBL gun. His son Harpartap, the acquitted 
co-accused was also with him. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 
H
142 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
the exhortation of Harpartap, the appellant opened fire, which hit the 
informant on the side of his head. Meanwhile drawn by the commotion, 
Paramjit Kaur, the wife of the informant, Jatinder Singh and Lakhwinder 
Singh, friends of Jugraj rushed to the terrace. On seeing them, the 
appellant fired from his gun towards them, which hit Paramjit and Jatinder 
on their abdomen and Lakhwinder on his mouth and head. On hue and 
cry being raised, the appellant and the accused fled the scene. 
4. The injured were rushed to the Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, 
Amritsar where they were treated. However, Jatinder succumbed to 
the in j Liries sustained. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet 
was laid against both the accused persons under Sections 302 and 307 
IPC. 
5. The accused persons denied the charge and, therefore were 
tried. The prosecution examined several witnesses including the 
informant, the injured and the doctor who had performed the post-mortem 
examination and had attended the injuries of others involved. The accused 
persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the completion 
of the trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 
307 IPC but acquitted the co-accused Harpartap. Tore iterate, the High 
Court has affirmed the conviction and the sentence recorded by the 
Trial Court. 
6. The learned Amicus Curiae has persuasively argued that the 
prosecution has
utterly failed to prove the charge against the appellant 
which is patently deducible amongst others from the exoneration of the 
co-accused Harpartap, who allegedly had instigated the former to open 
fire on the deceased and the injured. Apart from contending that all the 
purported eye-witnesses are relatives inter se, and therefore inherently 
partisan and thus are wanting in creditability, the learned senior counsel 
in the alternative has urged without prejudice that even if the prosecution 
case, as projected, is accepted in its entirety, no case for murder or 
attempt therefor has been proved and, therefore in any view of the matter, 
the sentence needs to be reduced appropriately. 
7. The learned counsel for the respondent, as against this, has 
urged that in the face of telltale testimony of the injured eye-witnesses, 
supported on all fours by the medical evidence, the charge levelled against 
the appel I ant stands proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus the 
concurrent determinations of the courts below do not warrant any
GURPAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
f AMITAVA ROY, J.l 
interference in the appeal. 
8. We have examined the evidence pertaining to the incident as 
available on records. The eye-witnesses including the informant have 
offered a consistent, coherent and convincing narration thereof which 
does not admit of any doubt of their trustworthiness. The plea of their 
family relationship to discredit them does not commend for acceptance 
in the attendant facts and circumstances. Noticeably, in course of the 
investigation, amongst others, the 12 bore DBBL gun loaded with two 
live cartridges used for the offence had been recovered from the appellant. 
The site plan prepared by the investigating officer also pins the place of 
occurrence as deposed by the witnesses. Further four cartridge shells 
have also been recovered from the said spot. 
9. The medical evidence reveals injuries on the deceased and the 
injured compatible with the weapon used. The charges levelled against 
the appellant thus have been proved beyond doubt. The co-accused 
Harpartap has been acquitted in view of absence of any incriminating 
evidence against him. His acquittal, having regard to the state of evidence 
has no bearing on the inculpatory involvement of the appellant somuch 
so, that his conviction in isolation is sustainable. 
I 0. However, in the singular facts of the case and noticing in 
particular, the progression of events culminating in the tragic incident, 
we are inclined to reduce the sentence
awarded to him. Incidentally, the 
occurrence is of the year 2004 and meanwhile twelve years have elapsed. 
Further, having regard to the root cause of the incident and the events 
that sequentially unfolded thereafter, we are of the comprehension that 
the appellant was overpowered by an uncontrollable fit of anger somuch 
so that he was deprived of his power of self-control and being drawn in 
a web of action reflexes, fired at the deceased and the injured, who 
· were within his sight. The facts do not commend to conclude that the 
appellant had the intention of eliminating any one of those fired at, though 
he had the knowledge of the likely fatal consequences thereof. Be that 
as it may, on an overall consideration of the fact situation and also the 
time lag in between, we are of the view that the conviction of the appellant 
ought to be moderated to one under Section 304 Part 1 IPC and 307 
IPC. Further, considering the facts of the case in particular, according 
to us, it would meet the ends of justice, if the sentence for the offences 
is reduced to the period already undergone. We order accordingly. 
143 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
144 
A 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
11. Ex-consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction 
of the appellant is converted to one under Section 304 Part I and 307 
IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. In 
this view of the matter, as a corollary, the appellant is hereby ordered to 
be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in connection 
with any other case. 
Dcvika Gujral 
Appeal partly allowed.