Hari Singh v. State of Haryana (1993)
1993 SCC (3) 114
Case Summary
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case arose from a fatal altercation on October 7, 1982, between the deceased, Mange Ram, and a group of accused, including Hari Singh and his sons. The incident occurred following a dispute the previous night, where the accused had allegedly teased girls during a Ram Leela event, and Mange Ram had objected. The next afternoon, the accused, armed with blunt weapons, confronted Mange Ram and Ram Kishan at a flour mill. During the altercation, blows were inflicted on Mange Ram using the blunt side of a "Pharsa" and sticks, leading to his death the next morning due to injuries to his skull and other parts of his body. The prosecution alleged premeditated murder, while the defense claimed the fight was sudden and lacked murderous intent.
ISSUES
Whether the altercation leading to Mange Ram's death was premeditated or a result of a sudden fight without prior intention.
Whether the accused acted with a common object to commit murder, as per Section 149 of the IPC.
Whether the injuries caused by the blunt side of weapons indicated intent to kill (murder under Section 302 IPC) or only knowledge of the possibility of death (culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC).
Whether discrepancies in prosecution evidence, particularly the informant's account, affected the credibility of the case.
Whether the rejection of SLPs for some accused (Suresh and Vijender) barred the Supreme Court from granting relief to other accused (Hari Singh, Satbir, and Gulbir).
Determining whether the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower courts were appropriate based on the evidence and individual roles of the accused.
RELEVANT ARTICLES
Indian Penal Code:
Section 302: Punishes murder with death, life imprisonment, and/or a fine, applicable when an act is done with intent to kill or cause fatal injury.
Section 304 (Part II): Penalizes culpable homicide not amounting to murder when the accused knew the act was likely to cause death but lacked intent to kill.
Section 323: Punishes voluntarily causing hurt with imprisonment up to one year, a fine of ₹1,000, or both.
Section 325: Penalizes voluntarily causing grievous hurt with imprisonment up to seven years and a fine.
Section 148: Deals with rioting, imposing a penalty of up to three years, a fine, or both for being armed with a deadly weapon during the act.
Section 149: Attributes criminal liability to every member of an unlawful assembly for acts committed in pursuance of a common object.
Constitution of India:
Article 136: Grants the Supreme Court discretionary powers to hear appeals against judgments or orders from lower courts or tribunals through Special Leave Petitions.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court held that the evidence did not prove a premeditated intent to commit murder. The injuries inflicted were caused by the blunt side of weapons, indicating that the accused had knowledge, but not the intent, that their actions could lead to death. Accordingly, the Court modified the convictions. Satbir Singh was convicted under Section 304 (Part II) IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Gulbir Singh was convicted under Section 325 IPC for causing grievous hurt and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment. Hari Singh, aged 60, was convicted under Section 323 IPC for causing hurt and was sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone. The Court further clarified that the rejection of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) for co-accused Suresh and Vijender does not bar relief for other appellants, such as Hari Singh, Satbir, and Gulbir, under Article 136 of the Constitution.
-Vishwjeet Kumar Choudhary
Assam University, Silchar
Comments