Important Point
Where there are improvements in the evidence of eye witnesses to plug the infirmities regarding the manner in which incident had happened showing plea of self defence of appellants probable and false implica­tion also possible then conviction of the appellants u/ss. 148, 324, 325 and 302 all r/w 149 IPC cannot be sustained.

Judgment

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Har­yana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 242 DB/88. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 148 and Sections 324, 325 and 302 IPC all read with Section 149 IPC recorded by the Sessions Court, Ambala in Sessions Case No. 22/87.

2. The appellants on the one hand and the two deceased-Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh-on the other hand were distant collaterals and they had ‘baras’ situated side by side on the outskirts of their village. Near the common boundary of two ‘baras’, there was a ‘kikar’ tree and a dispute was going on between them since long as regards ownership of that tree. On June 5, 1987, at about 6.00 p.m., appellant No. 5-Swaran Kaur was seen by Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh stand­ing near that kikar tree. They also saw Avtar Singh-appellant No. 4 cutting branches of that tree. So, Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh went to that ‘bara’ and protested against Avtar Singh cutting the branches. That led to an exchange of hot words and abuses followed by an assault on Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh. According to the prosecution case, seeing this assault on Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh, Labh Singh-P.W. 17 and Pala Singh-P.W. 18 went to their rescue but they were also assaulted by Avtar Singh, Ram Singh-appel­lant No. 1, Didar Singh-appellant No. 2 and Piara Singh-appellant No. 3 who had also by that time reached that place armed with weapons. As a result of that assault, Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh lost their lives and Labh Singh and Pala Singh received some injuries.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined three eye-witnesses, Labh Singh-P.W. 17, Pala Singh-P.W. 18 and Kirpal Singh-P.W. 19. The trial Court believed their evidence and convicted all the five appellants. The High Court accepting evidence of those eye-witnesses confirmed the conviction of all the appellants.

4. Mr. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the appellants, submitted that the High Court has failed to consider that the eye-witnesses have not correctly stated the manner in which the incident had started and also failed to appreciate that Didar Singh-appellant No. 4 was false­ly implicated. He also submitted that the defence version that appel­lant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 had acted in self-defence while causing injuries to Bachittar Singh, Bachan Singh, Labh Singh and Pala Singh, was more probable than the version given by the eye witnesses. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that looking to the large number of injuries received by Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh, the plea of self-defence urged by the appellants cannot be believed and was, therefore, rightly rejected by the High Court. He also submitted that the evidence of Labh Singh and Pala Singh is also corroborated by the evidence of an indepen­dent-witness P.W. 19, Kirpal Singh, and therefore the High Court was right in accepting their evidence and confirming the conviction of appellants.

5. We have carefully gone through the evidence of the three eye-witnesses. All of them have stated that seeing appellant No. 5-Swaran Kaur standing near the kikar tree and Avtar Singh-appellant No. 4 cutting branches of that tree, Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh had gone to the ‘bara’ and seeing an assault on them Labh Singh and Pala Singh had rushed to that place. Though their evidence is consistent, it is quite vague as regards the assault on Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh. There were nine injuries on the body of Bachittar Singh but the eye-witnesses have not explained how those nine injuries were caused to him. They have only vaguely stated that Piara Singh and Ram Singh assaulted their father with ‘sotis’ and therefore he had fallen down. Both Labh Singh and Pala Singh stand contradicted by their police statements, wherein they had stated that they had not seen Avtar Singh cutting branches of the tree. Their version before the court was th