SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 1213

1997(8) Supreme 41
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
M.K. Mukherjee and M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
Sukhjinder Kaur etc. -Appellants
versus
Jaswant Singh & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1996
With
Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 1996
Decided on 10.9.1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Ujagar Singh, Sr. Advocate, (R.K. Talwar) Advocate for Goodwill Indeever, (Ms. Geetanjli Mohan) Advocate for R.S. Sodhi, (Girish Chandra) Advocate for Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Advocate/Advocates.

Headnote:India Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 304-I-Arms Act-Section 27-Conviction under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act-Accused sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine-Appeal-High Court set aside these convictions-Accused convicted under Section 304-I, IPC-Acquittal of offences under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of Arms Act challenged-Two eye witnesses-Plea of right of private defence-Accepted by High Court as probable and convincing-High Court held that accused exceeded his such right as he did not stop firing after first shot-Respondent examined by doctor four days after the incident was found to have injuries-No evidence to prove that he sustained injuries at time of incident on being assaulted by hockey stick as alleged by accused-Doctor categorically stated that injuries were simple in nature and could be self inflicted or self suffered-Judgment and order of High Court liable to be set aside-Order of trial Court restored.

       Held; the only question that fell for determination before the trial Court was whether the respondent fired at the deceased without any provocation whatsoever as alleged by the prosecution or such firing was resorted to by him in exercise of his right of private defence. The trial Court discussed the entire evidence including that of the two eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 2 and 3 and the five defence witnesses threadbare and accepted the case of the prosecution in preference to that of the respondent. In appeal the High Court found that the plea of right of private defence taken by the respondent was probable and convincing but as, according to it, he did not stop firing after the first shot, held that he exceeded his such right. With the above finding the High Court recorded the impugned order of conviction and sentence. (Para 6)

       According to the High Court the existence of the above injuries on the person of the respondent probabilised his version that he was first assaulted by the deceased with a hockey stick and apprehending danger to his life thereby he fired at him in self defence. Apart from the fact that no evidence was laid by the respondent to prove that he sustained those injuries at the time of the incident on being assaulted by a hockey stick as alleged by him, the doctor, who examined him categorically stated that the injuries were simple in nature and could be self inflicted or self suffered. It is pertinent to point out here that though the respondent examined five witnesses none was examined to testify about his claim of having been hit with a hockey stick and for that matter about his right of private defence. Having gone through the entire record we are constrained to say that there is not an iota of material from which it can be even remotely said that the respondent had a right of private defence of his person. (Para 9)

       

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-Jaswant Singh, the respondent in these two appeals, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act for committing the murder of Harnek Singh on August 24, 1990 by firing at him. For the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine, and for the other conviction he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. In the appeal preferred by him the High Court set aside his above convictions and instead thereof convicted him under Section 304 (Part I) I.P.C. For the conviction so recorded he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine. Assailing his acquittal of the offences under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act these two appeals have been filed : one by the wife of the deceased and the other by the State of Punjab.

2. At the material time Balkaran Singh (P.W.2) was the principal of the Government Senior Secondary School, Talwandi Bhai and Harnek Singh (the deceased) and the respondent were teachers of that school. Sometimes before the death of Harnek Singh, the respondent had sent a letter (Ext. PE) to Smt. Prithpal Kaur, wife of P.W.2, bringing to her notice that her husband was having illicit relations with some lady teachers of the school and that the deceased and one Rajinder Singh (another teacher) were working as his pimps. On August 24, 1990 P.W.2 had convened a meeting of the staff members of the school in the school premises to remove the misunderstandings that might have arisen from the above letter of the respondent.

3. According to the prosecution case when the meeting was in progress with the deceased and other members of the staff present there Darshan Singh (P.W.3), brother of the wife of the deceased, came there to meet him. A little later the respondent, who was not invited to attend the meeting, appeared on the scene. When the deceased took exception to his such uncalled for presence the respondent took out his revolver from the pocket of his trousers and fired three shots aiming at him, as a result of which he fell down dead. The respondent then made good his escape with the revolver. Leaving P.W.3 to guard the dead body P.W.2 proceeded on foot to lodge a report at the police station. On his way he met S.I. Sukhwinder Singh, in-charge of Police Post Talwandi and handed over to him a written report of the incident. On that report a case was registered and S.I. Sukhwinder Singh took up investigation. He held inquest upon the dead body of Harnek Singh inside the school premises and forwarded it for post mortem examination. In course of the investigation he arrested the respondent on August 27, 1990 and from his person recovered a .32 bore revolver, with its license and five live cartridges. He sent those seized articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination by an expert. On completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the respondent.

4. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him; and in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated, inter alia, as under :

"I treat the wife of Balkaran Singh as my sister and on coming to know about the bad acts of Balkaran Singh I wrote a letter to his wife which is Ex.PE, the contents of which were disclosed by Balkaran Singh to Harnek Singh prior to the date of occurrence. On 24.8.90, when I came to school premises at about 7.15 A.M. Harnek Singh had an altercation with me. He was in great rage and fury. He abused me and then there was exchange of abuses. Harnek Singh caught hold of a hockey stick from a student, named Chamkaur Singh s/o Harnek Singh and started giving the blows with it, which hit on the upper part of thing, fore-head and other part of body while I kept on retreating to ward off the blows. My turban also fell on the spot. I took out the revolver, which I used to keep with me l











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top