Judgement

GOVINDA MENON, J. : This is an appeal by special leave, preferred by Dharman, son of Dhani Ram (accused No. 2), against the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court of Punjab, at Simla, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence of transportation for life passed on him by the Sessions Judge of Rohtak.

2. The facts which gave rise to the prosecution may be briefly stated as follows :-

There was a dispute regarding a vacant pieces of shamilat land in which the contending parties were, the party of the accused on one side and the party of the deceased on the other. Whereas the accused claimed that the land was in their possession, the party of the deceased put forward the claim that they had set up a line crushing machine on the land and that the land had been in their possession for many years. On the 13th of June, 1953, the party of the deceased built a Kacha wall near this machine which had the effect of shutting off the door of a pucca gher, belonging to the party of the accused. Proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code resulted on account of this action and the sub-inspector of police applied to the Magistrate that both the parties should be bound over under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These proceedings were posted for the pronouncement of orders to the 31st of July, 1953.

3. While the matters were in this state, on the 30th of July, 1953, the accused s party demolished the line crushing machine, when two women, Marwan and Nathian, relations of the deceased, intervened; whereupon the accused assaulted them and in the course of this assault the women received injuries with sharp edged weapons. At that time, Surja, a young lad of 11, ran to the place where the deceased Mansa Ram was working and informed him of what had occurred. On hearing this, Mansa Ram arrived on the scene with Rup Chand (P.W. 3 ) and Chaman Lal (P.W. 4). Immediately a fight ensued and in the course of this fight Mansa Ram received fatal injuries and Rup Chand (P.W. 3) was also injured. As a result of investigation the accused were sent up for trial before the Sessions Judge of Rohtak. The injured man Mansa Ram gave a statement before the police which after his death was admissible as a dying declaration. In that Mansa Ram stated that Dharman had stabbed him with a spear in his chest.

4. Both the Sessions Judge and the learned Judges of the High Court concurred in the conclusion arrived at regarding respective degrees of guilt of the various accused & this court hearing an appeal under special leave would not and could not ordinarily canvass the correctness or justification of the findings on question of fact arrived at by the lower courts. The courts below found that there was no identity of purpose between the two incidents and such being the case they were of the opinion that the injuries on Mensa Ram, Rup Chand (P.W.3) and Chaman Lal (P.W. 4) were not inflicted in furtherance of a common object. The result of this conclusion was that so far as the second incident is concerned, each of the accused was responsible for his own act and nothing more.

5. In the trial court the accused put up the plea of self-defence and for the reasons stated by the learned Sessions Judge he found that the same had not been proved. In the court of appeal a similar plea seems to have been urged. The learned Judge of the High Court discussed at length the prosecution case and findings the same more probable and convincing than the story of the accused, especially since it finds corroboration in the circumstances, held that there was no justification for the plea of self-defence. In the main, the finding of the High Court was that the second incident in which Mansa Ram received the fatal injuries at the hands of Dharman, was more in the nature of a tree fight.

6. The question then revolves itself into this. The courts below negatived the defence story of self-defence. The appellate Court found that Mansa Ram died in the course of