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

1972 Supreme(SC) 380

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT, I.D. DUA AND H.R. KHANNA, JJ.
Pala Singh and another, Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 1969, D/- 23-8-1972.
Advocates appeared
M/s. R. L. Kohli, R. C. Kohli and J. C. Talwar Advocates, for Appellants; M/s. Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, for Respondents.

Advocates:
HARBANS SINGH, J.C.TALVAR, R.C.Kohli, R.L.Kohli, R.N.SACH

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Article 136 – Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 302,302/34,120B and 302/309 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 107 and 157 – Land – Public auction - One had purchased a plot of land aforesaid Basti for a sum of about certain sum from Government at a public auction - This piece of land was at that time being cultivated by one, one of five co-accused in the trial court and his associates - As they were disinclined to give up possession said one appointed (P. W. 14) and (deceased) as his attorneys to represent him litigation concerning the said land - These two attorneys obtained possession of the plot with the help of the police and through intervention of revenue authorities - A few days later Hazara Singh and 7 or 8 other persons including, accused and one threatened the two attorneys with death unless they dissociated themselves with the litigation relating to this land – Held, this, in court view, correctly summarises legal position as finally settled by this Court - Submission urged by learned counsel therefore, that merely because judgment of the trial court prima facie seems reasonable there is no scope for reassessment of the evidence by appellate court is unacceptable - Court do not think that High Court committed any error in the appraisal of evidence on the record and in arriving at its own conclusion as to the guilt of the appellants - Criticism about the insertion of S. 120B in the plan Ex. PH/1, in court view, may raise slight suspicion but in view of trustworthiness of prosecution evidence led in the case court do not think that in any way justifies any grave suspicion of the prosecution story - Court allowed learned counsel not only to state case broadly and to take court through the judgments of two courts below but also to take court through such evidence as he considered proper for persuading us to hold that High Court had not followed principles laid down in Sanwant Singh s case, (1961) 3 SCR 120 or that its conclusions were otherwise so erroneous as to justify interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution - Court are not persuaded to hold that there is any ground for differing with the conclusion of the High Court - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

DUA, J.:- This appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment dated May 15, 1969 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowing in part the State appeal from the order of Shri Kartar Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Jullunder, acquitting the five accused charged under Ss. 302, 302/34, 120B and 302/309, I. P. C. and convicting on appeal Trilok Singh and Pala Singh, appellants, the former under S. 302, I. P. C. and the latter under S. 302 read with S. 34, I. P. C. They were both sentenced to imprisonment for life.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are that Atma Singh, resident of Basti Danish Mandan, Jullunder-City had purchased a plot of land measuring 58 kanals and 10 marlas in the aforesaid Basti in the year 1959 for a sum of about Rs. 16,000 from the Government at a public auction. This piece of land was at that time being cultivated by Hazara Singh, one of the five co-accused in the trial court and his associates. As they were disinclined to give up possession Atma Singh appointed Ram Singh (P. W. 14) and Sham Singh (deceased) as his attorneys to represent him in the litigation concerning the said land. These two attorneys obtained possession of the plot with the help of the police and through the intervention of the revenue authorities in June, 1963. A few days later Hazara Singh and 7 or 8 other persons including Trilok Singh son of Surain Singh, accused no. 1 and Trilok Singh son of Inder Singh, accused no. 5, threatened the two attorneys with death unless they dissociated themselves with the litigation relating to this land. Sham Singh, deceased, thereupon applied to the City Inspector of Police complaining against this threat as a result of which Hazara Singh and Trilok Singh son of Inder Singh were proceeded against under S. 107, Cr. P. C. The two attorneys, it appears, wanted to plough the land in question but were afraid of the accused persons. They approached the Superintendent of Police for help which was made available to them against payment of the prescribed fee. The land in question was actually ploughed by the attorneys in the presence of the police on June 26, 1963 when Hazara Singh, Trilok Singh son of Inder Singh and Harnam Singh, father of Pala Singh, came there armed with lathis but were apprehended. The police stayed on the land in question for about 5 or 6 days. On August 9, 1963 the crop standing on the said land was found damaged. At the instance of Ram Singh (P. W. 14) the police prosecuted Hazara Singh, his brother Tara Singh, his employee Channan and Trilok Singh son of Inder Singh, all of whom were found guilty and convicted. In November, 1963 Hazara Singh, Harnam Singh, Bulkar Singh (brother of Pala Singh) and other persons were prosecuted for ploughing the said land but were acquitted. On 15-12-1963 Hazara Singh and 17 or 18 other persons attacked Sham Singh, deceased, and Ram Singh (P. W. 14). The police proceeded against Hazara Singh, his wife Piar Kaur and his brother Mahal Singh, wife of Tara Singh, brother of Hazara Singh and Mangal Singh, brother of Trilok Singh son of surain Singh under S. 107, Cr. P. C. During the pendency of these proceedings Sham Singh, deceased, and Ram Singh (P. W. 14) were attacked by six persons including Hazara Singh, the two Trilok Singhs (Trilok Singh son of Surain Singh, accused no. 1 appellant no. 2 in this Court and Trilok Singh son of Inder accused no. 5 in the trial court) Channan Singh, Harnam Singh and Mangal Singh who were committed to the sessions court to stand their trial for an offence under Section 307 I. P. C. and other offences. Sham Singh deceased, and Ram Singh (P. W. 14) were to appear as prosecution witnesses in that case which was adjourned to June 3, 1966 because of the absence of Trilok Singh, appellant. On May 23, 1966 at about 7.30 a.m. Laxman Singh (P. W. 2) was coming from his coal depot in Basti Danishmandan, to his residential house situated in a lane in w



















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