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

1995 Supreme(SC) 1193

(2009) 17 Supreme Court Cases 475 1996 SCC (Cri) 505
M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.
GURMUKH SINGH AND OTHERS – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent.
Criminal Appeals No. 29 of 1987 with No. 230 of 1994
Decided on : November 21, 1995

Advocates appeared:
P.C. Jain, Senior Advocate (S.K. Mehta, Advocate, with him) for the Appellants;
I.S. Goyal and Ms Indu Malhotra, Advocates, for the State.
R.L. Kohli, Senior Advocate (Prem Malhotra, Advocate, with him) 'for the Respondents.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, Sections 302, 307, 148 and 149 - Self-defence - Murder - Common object of unlawful assembly – Proof of - Dispute regarding possession of land - Seven accused persons formed unlawful assembly - Came armed with fire arms - Five accused fired at the complainant party on upper parts of their body – Caused serious injuries - Two persons came to rescue the complainant party - Shot dead by accused - Cannot be said that common object of unlawful assembly extended only upto causing grievous injuries alone – Conviction of accused for murder and attempt to murder - Rightly convicted under Sections 302, 307, 149 Indian Penal Code – Right of self defence by accused persons - Cannot be claim even if they sustained some injuries.

       [Paras 10 to 12]

JUDGMENT

M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.- Seventeen persons were placed on trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra to answer common charges under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 447 IPC. Against seven of them (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants") a separate charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and against one of the appellants, namely, Karam Singh a further charge under Section 302 IPC (simpliciter) were also framed. On conclusion of the trial the learned Judge convicted sixteen of them including the appel1ants in respect of all the charges framed and sentenced them to different terms of imprisonment, including life.

2. Aggrieved thereby all the convicts preferred a common appeal which was initially heard by a Division Bench comprising two learned Judges of the High Court. Since the learned Judges were divided in opinion the appeal was laid before another learned Judge of the Court in accordance with Section 392 CrPC. The learned Judges affirmed the convictions and sentences recorded against the appellants but acquitted the others. Against such dismissal of their appeal, the appellants have filed one of these two appeals (Crl. Appeal No. 29 of 1987) while the other (Crl. Appeal No. 230 of 1994) has been filed by the State against acquittal of the nine others. Both the appeals have been heard together and this judgment will dispose of them.

3. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is as follows. To implement the schemes prepared under the East Punjab Land Utilisation Act, 1949 ("the Act", for short) 135 acres of land in Village Karah Sahab and 95 acres of land in Village Mohanpur were leased out by the State Government to various ex-servicemen hailing from the district of Ropar for periods ranging from 7 years to 20 years, with each of their families getting 10 acres of land. Various groups of those ex-servicemen then joined together to form cooperative societies for effective management and cultivation of the lands so allotted.

4. The Cooperative Society which was formed by the allottees of Village Mohanpur was known as Mohanpur Ex-servicemen Cooperative Society and Sunder Singh, who was allotted 10 acres of land in Killa No. 125/5 became one of the members of that society. After entering into possession of their respective allotted lands in 1952, the allottees, including Sunder Singh, made those lands cultivable by dint of hard labour and at huge expense. After expiry of the period of lease in and around the year 1972, the State Government, through its Collector, initiated proceedings for resumption of the lands from the allottees to restore the same to their respective owners. This attempt on the part of the State Government created tension between the owners and the allottees but the latter successfully warded off all efforts of the State to resume the lands and continued to possess the same.

5. Apprehending fresh trouble in 1979, several cooperative societies of the 'ex-servicemen including the Mohanpur Ex-Servicemen Cooperative Society filed some writ petitions in this Court and obtained stay orders on 9-1-1979 restraining the Collector from initiating/continuing proceedings against the lessees under Section 7 of the Act. In view of the above interim orders the authorities could not and did not take any action against the lessees but the owners, including Lal Singh, who happens to be the owner in respect of the land allotted to Sunder Singh, could not reconcile to the position that the lands should remain in possession with the lessees in spite of expiry of the period of the lease and started putting pressure upon Sunder Singh to vacate the land as they wanted to cultivate it. Sunder Singh and others, however, told Lal Singh and his sons that they would not vacate the lands till the disposal of their writ petitions pending in the Supreme Court.

6. On 11-7-1982 at or about 7 a.m. when some of those ex-servicemen and their fan1ily members including Rajinder Singh (deceased), Jiwan Singh (deceased), Hak













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