1998 INSC 0608
                                             Surjan Singh and Another

                                                           Vs

                                                  State of Haryana

                                        Criminal Appeal No. 833 of 1997

                                       (G. T. Nanavati, S. P. Kurdukar JJ)

                                                      13.08.1998

                                                     JUDGMENT

NANAVATI, J.

The two appellants and one Kashmir Singh were convicted by the trial court for the offences
punishable under Sections 307 and 506 both read with Section 34 IPC, by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Faridabad, in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1988. The High Court confirmed their
conviction. All the convicted accused then filed a special leave petition in this Court. Leave was not
granted to Kashmir Singh. It was granted to the appellants only.

2. The prosecution case against the appellants was that on 31-8-1988 at about 6.00 p.m., they went
to the house of Bhagwan Singh and enquired from him whether he was willing or not to vacate the
house in his possession. Bhagwan Singh told them that as he was the real owner of the house, the
question of vacating it did not arise. Thereupon, the appellants exhorted Kashmir Singh to finish
Bhagwan Singh. Kashmir Singh fired two shots from his pistol and caused injuries to Bhagwan
Singh and Malkiat Singh.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the two injured eyewitnesses and also led
other evidence. After appreciating their evidence, the trial court thought it safe to rely upon it and
also upon the evidence of Latkan Singh, PW 7 and Jagir Singh, PW 8, who had rushed to the place
of the incident on hearing the cries of the injured. The trial court disbelieved the defence case that
someone else had fired at them and caused injuries and that they were falsely involved because of a
property dispute. The trial court convicted them as stated above.

4. The High Court on reappreciation of the evidence agreed with the findings recorded by the trial
court and confirmed the conviction.

5. What was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the evidence of the
eyewitnesses was not properly appreciated by the courts below and the reasons given for accepting
their evidence in spite of many infirmities therein are not proper. Having gone through their
evidence, we find that it does not suffer from any serious infirmity. Their evidence was correctly
appreciated by the trial court and the High Court was right in confirming the findings recorded by
the trial court. All the three accused had gone together to the house of Bhagwan Singh and the way
they acted thereafter leaves no doubt about their acting in furtherance of their common intention. As
they have been rightly convicted under Sections 307 and 506 both read with Section 34 IPC, this
appeal is dismissed.
6. The appellants are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. They are ordered to surrender to custody to
serve out the remaining part of their sentence.