This Supreme Court's analysis of injured witness testimony and common intention in criminal cases. The Court underscores that such testimonies carry significant weight and that common intention can be formed spontaneously, even moments before a crime.

In the recent appeal of Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo and Others vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court of India affirmed the convictions of Baljinder Singh and two others (A-1, A-2, and A-3) for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with rioting (Section 148 IPC) and attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC), with reference to Section 34 IPC regarding common intention. The judgment, delivered on September 25, 2024, thoroughly examined the evidence and relevant legal principles to determine the validity of the appellants' convictions.

Case Background The case arose from a violent altercation that resulted in the deaths of two individuals and injuries to others. It began with a confrontation involving A-1 and one of the victims, Puran Singh @ Bhola (P.W. 3), after A-1's scooter collided with him. Following a heated exchange, P.W. 3 slapped A-1. Approximately 15 minutes later, A-1 returned to the scene with his brothers (A-2 and A-3) and their father (A-4), armed and ready for violence. A-4 fired shots, leading to the tragic fatalities and injuries.

Key Arguments and Court Observations**

The appellants contested their convictions on multiple grounds:

Difference Between Common Object and Common Intention: The appellants argued that the High Court mistakenly shifted their conviction from Section 302 IPC with Section 149 IPC (unlawful assembly) to Section 302 IPC with Section 34 IPC (common intention), claiming that the distinction between "common object" and "common intention" was not properly recognized.

Lack of Independent Witnesses: The defense pointed out the absence of independent eyewitnesses to corroborate the prosecution's version of events, stressing that the incident occurred in a public area surrounded by shops and residences yet no independent witnesses came forward.

Absence or Weight of Injuries: They contended that the lack of brick bat injuries on the victims indicated that A-1, A-2, and A-3 were not present at the scene. The Court affirmed that testimonies from injured eyewitnesses carry substantial weight in criminal cases. Such accounts are generally reliable unless significant inconsistencies arise. Minor discrepancies should not discredit the entire testimony.

Understanding Common Intention: The Court clarified that common intention doesn’t require extensive planning or pre-arranged agreements. It can arise spontaneously, even just moments before a crime occurs. The Court noted that the appellants’ collective arrival at the scene armed and their coordinated attack demonstrated their shared intention to commit the crime. Observing about the common intention and common object and refering to the the Apex Court held that "This Court has, in a catena of decisions, elaborated on the differences between section 149 and section 34, IPC; the overlapping nature of section 149 and section 34, IPC; and when can the offence under section 302 read with section 149, IPC be changed to section 302 read with section 34, IPC.Such decisions do provide suitable guidance for the lower courts to draw from, to reach their conclusions. 22. In this connection, we may refer to paragraph 14 of the decision of this Court in Chittarmal vs. State of Rajasthan".

Charges Under Section 34 and 149 IPC: While recognizing the differences between Sections 34 and 149 IPC, the Court emphasized that it was not its role to assess whether lower courts applied the correct section. These determinations should remain with trial and high courts, with previous rulings providing guidance.

Procedural Irregularities and Justice: The Court considered the appellants’ claims about procedural irregularities, such as changes to the charges. It stated that such errors do not automatically invalidate a conviction unless they lead to a clear miscarriage of justice. The appellants failed to prove this burden.

Independent Witnesses Not Essential: The Court reiterated that while independent witnesses can bolster a case, they are not mandatory for a conviction. If the testimonies of injured witnesses and other evidence are reliable, their absence does not weaken the prosecution's case. In this instance, the Court found the injured witnesses' testimonies and corroborating evidence sufficient to support the convictions and held that "29. It is also settled law that examination of independent witness is not an indispensable requisite if the testimonies of other witnesses are deemed trustworthy and reliable. Non-examination of any independent witness by the prosecution will not go to the root of the matter affecting the decision of the court, unless other witnesses’ testimonies and evidences are scant to establish the guilt of the accused."

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of A-1, A-2, and A-3 under Sections 148, 302, and 307 IPC, with reference to Section 34. The ruling underscored the importance of injured witness testimony, clarified the concept of common intention in criminal law, and reinforced that procedural errors do not automatically invalidate convictions unless they result in a demonstrable failure of justice.

Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Between:Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo and Others vs. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment:25-09-2024