Summary
In its 15 May 2018 judgment, the Supreme Court acquitted Rupinder Singh Sandhu because identification, participation and common intention were not reliably proved. It also set aside Navjot Singh Sidhu’s culpable-homicide conviction because the medical evidence did not establish that his blow caused Gurnam Singh’s death. Sidhu was convicted instead of voluntarily causing hurt and fined Rs.1,000. The complainant’s appeal and attempt to introduce a television-interview CD did not alter that result.
Issues
- Whether reliable evidence proved the second accused’s identity, involvement and common intention.
- Whether the proved blow caused death or established only voluntarily causing hurt, and what sentence followed in this judgment.
Provisions considered
- Sections 299 and 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860Culpable homicide required proof that the accused’s conduct caused death. The uncertain medical evidence did not establish that essential causal link beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 33, 34, 54, 56)
- Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Presence and shared common intention could not be presumed; neither reliable identification nor participation establishing the second accused’s vicarious liability was proved. (¶¶ 19, 29, 30, 31, 32)
- Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860The proved fist blow by the first accused established voluntarily causing hurt. The Court imposed a Rs.1,000 fine having regard to the age and circumstances of the incident. (¶¶ 57, 63, 64)
Held
- The delayed trial identification of the previously unknown second accused, without evidence explaining identification during investigation or a test identification parade, was unsafe on this record. There was also no proof that he attacked the deceased or shared the requisite common intention; his convictions were set aside. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32)
- Relationship to the victim, non-examination of other possible witnesses, non-production of hospital records and non-seizure of the vehicle did not by themselves discredit the eyewitnesses. Their presence was accepted, while the reliability of particular assertions still required scrutiny. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44)
- The first accused inflicted a fist blow, but the medical material did not establish that the resulting injury caused death. The High Court’s exclusive attribution to subdural haemorrhage was conjectural; culpable homicide could not be sustained without proof of causation. (¶¶ 45, 46, 47, 48, 53, 54, 55, 56)
- Investigation lapses and alleged efforts to shield an accused could not substitute for proof. Even assuming the proposed television material admitted participation, it did not resolve the medical causation deficiency; the additional-evidence application was not entertained. (¶¶ 59, 60, 61, 62)
- The first accused was guilty of voluntarily causing hurt. In this judgment, the Court imposed only a Rs.1,000 fine, considering the 30-year interval, absence of prior enmity, lack of a weapon and the circumstances of the brawl. (¶¶ 57, 58, 63, 64)
Result
Accused’s appeals allowed as indicated: Rupinder Singh Sandhu acquitted; Navjot Singh Sidhu’s culpable-homicide conviction replaced by Section 323 conviction and Rs.1,000 fine. Complainant’s appeal dismissed. This records the disposition of 15 May 2018.