IMPORTANT POINT
Out of 9 appellants, the presence of five at the scene of occurrence is doubtful so they are entitled to benefit of doubt. The conviction of rest does not need any interference.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 307 and 148 r/w 149-Offences under-Ten persons tried for causing death of two persons under-All accused found guilty under Sections 302 and 307 r/w 149 IPC by Sessions Judge-Accused Nos. 2 and 7 also found guilty of offences under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act-High Court acquitted accused No. 6 but confirmed conviction and sentence of all other 9 accused persons-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Serious infirmity found in the appreciation of evidence and there was miscarriage of justice regarding five appellants out of 9-Despite availability of other witnesses only two interested witnesses examined -Deceased had only one injury by "Gandasa"-Evidence that 8 accused caused injury by Gandasa is believed by medical evidence-Recovery of weapon not proved by independent witnesses-Second incident not proved as sequel to the first-Presence of Kabul Singh, Jeet Singh, Sarang Singh, Swaran Singh and Satnam Singh accused-Appellant found doubtful - Result -They are acquitted. (Para 17)
       Held : The presence of one injury on the body of Surmukh Singh alleged to have been caused by Gandasi casts serious doubts about the presence of all the appellants at the place of occurrence. However, the evidence of PW-14 and PW-15 can safely be accepted as regards the presence of Jassa Singh, Bakha Singh, Lakha Singh and Sukha Singh. The other appellants are certainly entitled to benefit of doubt that arises out of this weak and fragile evidence. As the presence of other accused, namely, Kabul Singh, Jeet Singh, Sarang Singh, Swaran Singh and Satnam Singh is doubtful, they are entitled to be acquitted. (Para 8)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 307 r/w 149-Offences under-Conviction of appellants under -Appeal against to Supreme Court-Plea that appellants are entitled to right of private defence-Whether right of defence of property can extend to the causing of death who committed such acts? (No)-Whether acts committed by appellant would amount to culpable homicide? (No)-Result-Conviction of appellants Jassa Singh, Bakha Singh, Lakha Singh and Sukha Singh confirmed on all counts-(IPC-Sections 86 to 104, Section 304, Expl. 2 to Section 30). (Paras 10 & 18)
       Held : In the instant case, the appellants went to the place of occurrence with guns and deadly weapons. This would clearly indicate that there was pre-meditation on the part of the appellants and from the acts committed by the appellant, it is evident that they had intention of doing more harm than was necessary for the purpose of self-defence. Therefore, the acts committed by the appellants will not come within Exception 2 of Section 300 IPC so as to make it culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There were disputes between the parties and there was also pending litigation. The appellants had also resorted to civil remedies. That apart, the evidence also does not indicate that there was a serious apprehension that death or grievous hurt would be the consequence of the act allegedly committed by Surmukh Singh and others. Therefore, the assailants had no right to take away the life of Surmukh Singh in exercise of the alleged right of private defence. (Para 14)
       The conviction and sentence of appellants Jassa Singh alias Jaswant Singh, son of Labh Singh; Bakha Singh, son of Labh Singh; Lakha Singh, son of Labh Singh; and Sukha Singh, son of Asha Singh are confirmed on all counts and the appeal filed by them is dismissed. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-Ten accused persons were tried by the Additional Court of Sessions, Karnal, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC, for causing death of two persons, namely, Surmukh Singh and Tehal Singh. All the accused were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offences under Section 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused No. 2, Bakha Singh and Accused No. 7 Sukha Singh were also found guilty under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. All the accused filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court acquitted accused No. 6, Labh Singh, son of Inder Singh and confirmed the conviction and sentence of all other accused persons. Their conviction and sentence are challenged before us in these appeals.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are thus. Deceased Surmukh Singh was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jalmana. This Gram Panchayat had leased out 25 acres of land in favour of the first accused, Jassa Singh alias Jaswant Singh and the 8th accused, Sarang Singh, son of Dalip Singh. They had been in possession of this land for about 10-12 year. About two and half months prior to the date of occurrence of the incident, this land was re-auctioned and Subeg Singh, Narinder Singh and Kehar Singh became successful bidders. Kehar Singh is the brother of deceased Surmukh Singh. Accused Jassa Singh instituted a civil suit to retain possession of the said leasehold land. The Gram Panchayat contested the suit and the civil court passed an order to the effect that Jassa Singh shall be divested of his possession only in accordance with law. Surmukh Singh, the Sarpanch, then initiated proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate to evict Jassa Singh from the property. Jassa Singh made a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, alleging that the Sarpanch Surmukh Singh had leased out the land to his own persons for a lesser amount and stated that he was prepared to deposit an amount of Rs. 84,000/-. Pursuant to the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Jassa Singh deposited the sum of Rs. 84,000/- with the Block Development & Panchayat Officer. Narinder Singh, son of Balwant, and Subeg Singh then filed a civil suit before the civil court, Karnal, for an injunction to restrain the officers from putting up the land on re-auction. The civil court granted the injunction in favour of Narinder Singh and others. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Assandh, took up the proceedings for ejectment of Jassa Singh and others. While these proceedings were pending, on 2nd July, 1992 at about 5.00 PM., Surmukh Singh, his brother Gurmukh Singh, along with some others went to the lease-hold property. There were two tractors - one was being driven by one Gurvinder Singh and the other by Subeg Singh. Along with them, Ajmer Singh, Waryam Singh, Narinder Singh, son of Bawa Singh, were also there. At about 6.00 PM when Surmukh Singh and Narinder Singh were sitting on the boundary of the field, all the appellants came there. While appellants Jassa Singh, Bakha Singh & Sukha Singh were armed with guns, other accused persons were having Gandasis with them. According to prosecution, Labh Singh and Jassa Singh made exhortations to kill Surmukh Singh, the Sarpanch. Gurmukh Singh and his deceased brother, Surmukh Singh made an appeal to the appellants not to pick up a quarrel and that they may settle the dispute in court. But the appellants advanced towards the tractor driven by Gurvinder Singh and Jassa Singh fired a shot at Surmukh Singh. Appellant, Bakha Singh also fired a shot at Surmukh Singh. Surmukh Singh fell down on the ground. Appellant Sukha Singh also fired a shot at Surmukh Singh with his 12 bore gun. According to prosecution case, appellants Jassa Singh, Kabul Singh, Jeet Singh, Labh Singh, Lakha Singh, Sarang Singh, Satnam Singh and Swaran Singh started attacking Surmukh Singh with the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 17

IMPORTANT POINT Out of 9 appellants, the presence of five at the scene of occurrence is doubtful so they are entitled to benefit of doubt. The conviction of rest does not need any interference.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Out of 9 appellants, the presence of five at the scene of occurrence is doubtful so they are entitled to benefit of doubt. The conviction of rest does not need any interference.