IMPORTANT POINT
When both parties came prepared to fight it would not be necessary to go into question whether any of them exercised right of private defence and culpability of accused was to be determined by their individual acts.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 302/34, 307/34 and 324-Appellant J assaulted PW 7 with kirpan and appellant K fired gun shot at PW 7 causing him injuries and he fell down -Appellant J snatched pistol from PW 7 and fired shot at deceased who died on spot-Appeal against conviction-Both parties belonged to same family and dispute was over land-Defence plea was that prosecution party was aggressor and PW 7 when aimed a shot by his revolver upon a member of accused side it hit deceased-Injuries on PW 7 were punctured superficial wound which could have been caused by pellets ricocheted against the wall and not by direct hit which indicated that appellant K did not fire shot directly upon PW 7 but fired against wall to scare prosecution party-Evidence showed that both parties came armed and indulged in free fight which resulted in injuries on both sides-Question whether any of them exercised right of private defence was unnecessary and culpability of accused was to be determined by their individual acts-Appellant A though armed with dang had not caused any injury to any one-Appellants A and K were entitled to be acquitted and appellant J was liable to be convicted u/s 302 IPC. (Paras 11 to 19)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-The three appellants in these appeals were put up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur who by his judgment and order dated July 8, 1998 in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1998 found the appellants guilty of various offences. Appellant Jagjit Singh was found guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. while the remaining accused were found guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C.. Appellant Kewal Singh was found guilty of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. while the remaining two accused were convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C.. Jagjit Singh was also found guilty of the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and the remaining two accused under Section 324 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. Jagjit Singh was also found guilty of the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. while Kewal Singh and Amarjit Singh were found guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 and 302/34 I.P.C. They have also been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under the other sections of the I.P.C. and the Arms Act referred to hereinabove.

2. It appears that Sukhwinder Singh and two others of the prosecution party were also tried in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 1998 but were acquitted by the Sessions Court by a judgment of the same date.

3. The appellants preferred two appeals before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh being Criminal Appeal Nos. 366-DB/1998 and 367-DB/1998 against their conviction and sentence. In Criminal Appeal No. 367-DB/1998, all the three accused were the appellants, while in the other only Jagjit Singh was the appellant. Amarjit Singh also preferred an appeal against the order of the Sessions Judge acquitting Sukhwinder Singh and others in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 1998 dated 8.7.1998 which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 228-DB/1999. The High Court by its impugned common judgment and order dated 18th April, 2001 dismissed all the appeals and affirmed the judgments and orders of the learned Sessions Judge. The appellants have preferred these appeals by special leave. It appears to us that an appeal even against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 228-DB/1999 has been preferred in a mechanical manner by a common special leave petition, in which there is no reference to the facts of that case, nor any grounds have been urged impugning the judgment and order of the High Court affirming the judgment of acquittal.

4. The members of the prosecution as well as the defence party belong to the same family. Kartar Singh was their common ancestor. Salwant Singh, Kewal Singh (accused) and Sohan Singh are brothers. Sukhwinder Singh, PW-7 is the son of Salwant Singh while Jagjit Singh and Amarjit Singh (accused) are the sons of Kewal Singh (accused). Balwinder Kaur, DW-4 is their sister. Baldev Singh, PW-8 and Narinder Pal Singh (deceased) were brothers being the sons of Sohan Singh. It thus appears that the two branches of Salwant Singh and Sohan Singh are members of the prosecution party while Kewal Singh and his two sons are the accused. From the evidence on record it appears that the relationship between the branch of Kewal Singh on the one hand and the branches of Salwant Singh and Sohan Singh on the other were strained on account of land disputes. There was a mutation case pending and certain disputes had also arisen on account of the Will left behind by late Kartar Singh. In this background, an occurrence took place at about 8.00 a.m. on June 7, 1994 in which Narinder Pal Singh lost his life while informant Sukhwinder Singh, PW-7 was injured. On the side of the defence Amarjit Singh accused and his sister Balwinder Kaur, DW-4 were said to have received injuries. That an occurrence took place on that day is not in dispute, but both sides have given their own version of the occurrence, each party alleging that the other party was the agg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1009

IMPORTANT POINT When both parties came prepared to fight it would not be necessary to go into question whether any of them exercised right of private defence and culpability of accused was to be determined by their individual acts.

IMPORTANT POINT
When both parties came prepared to fight it would not be necessary to go into question whether any of them exercised right of private defence and culpability of accused was to be determined by their individual acts.