2015 Supreme(SC) 338

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi, Amitava Roy, JJ.
RAJ SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ETC. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 701-702 /2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.5767-5768/2013)
WITH
RAJ KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
MAHABIR & ORS. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 703 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6347/2013)
AND
BHARAT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
RISHI PAL & ORS. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 704 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.10739/2013)
Decided on: 23-04-2015

MAIN POINTS
Consistent evidence of eye witnesses consistent, not shaken by searching cross-examination and supported by medical evidence would be trustworthy and reliable.
Right of private defence would not be available to the aggressors firing from close range and recklessly at unarmed complainant party resulting in death of deceased.
Concurrent finding of acquittal can be interfered only if the findings are unreasonable.

Headnote:Per R. Banumathi, J.

       (a) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Evidence of eye witnesses consistent, not shaken by searching cross-examination – Supported by medical evidence – Appears trustworthy and reliable. (Para 11)

       (b) Criminal trial – Investigation – Occurrence on 03.12.2004 – Investigating team visiting spot on 04.05.2004 and 05.12.2004 – FIR indicating place of occurrence as house of complainants – No recovery – Investigating team again visiting the spot – Making spot plan showing place of occurrence as house of accused-appellant – Recording recovery of materials like cartridges, blood stained polythene and monkey cap etc. which could have been spotted with naked eye on earlier visits also – High Court rightly held that investigating officer had helped appellant by changing place of occurrence to make it appear that the complainant party were the aggressors. (Para 15)

       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 96 to 100 – Right of private defence – Appellants pleading right of private defence – Injuries on their person not serious – On the other hand, complainant party did not carry any arms or deadly weapon – Appellants firing from close range and recklessly at unarmed complainant party resulting in death of Girdhari – Showing that appellants were aggressors – Right of private defence not available to aggressors – No infirmity in High Court convicting the appellant u/s 302 IPC. (Para 21, 22)

       (2007) 15 SCC 241; (2008) 16 SCC 657 – Relied upon

       AIR 1975 SC 87; (1996) 1 SCC 458; (2002) 8 SCC 354; AIR 1991 SC 1316; (2004) 2 SCC 203 – Referred

       (d) Criminal trial – Appeal against acquittal – Concurrent findings of courts below – Interference permissible only when the findings are unreasonable – Instantly, no reason to interfere with acquittal of Rishipal and Raj Pal. (Para 23)

       (e) Criminal trial – Acquittal – Appeal against – Complainants filing cross criminal case implicating the accused persons alleging aggression an assault by them – Courts below concurrently holding the complainants to be aggressors – Accused unarmed – Injuries on complainants could be caused by fall – Even if caused by accused persons, does not exceed their right of private defence – Alleged recoveries made after lapse of 4-5 days – Delay not explained – Courts below rightly ordered acquittal. (Para 25)

       Per T.S. Thakur, J.

       (f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 96 to 103 and Exception 2 to Section 300 – Right of private defence – If the offender has a right of private defence u/s 96 to 103, the only question of its extent u/s 300, Exception 2 arises – It is a mixed question of fact and law – Appellants being aggressors in the incident leading to death of deceased – Incident occurring at house of deceased – No right of private defence available to appellants – No room for application of section 300, Exception 2 (Para 4, 5)

       Facts of the case:

       On 3.12.2004 at about 6.00 pm, when the complainant-Bharat Singh was standing at the main gate of his cousin’s house with one Tilak Raj, Rishipal-brother of the appellant came there with an axe in his hand and there was wordy altercation. Rishipal assaulted the complainant-Bharat Singh. However, Bharat Singh managed to save his life, and rushed towards his home.

       In the night while the complainant and others were talking to each other at the main gate, the appellant-Raj Singh and others variously armed came to the house of Girdhari Lal, complainant’s elder brother, and attacked Bharat Singh and others. Appellant-Raj Singh fired shot at Girdhari’s chest from his pistol and Girdhari fell down on the ground. When Bharat Singh raised alarm, appellant fired at Bharat Singh which hit his left back side below the shoulders. As Bharat Singh raised alarm, Mahabir Singh and his elder brother Gajraj-PW6 rushed to the spot. Mahabir tried to lift Girdhari in order to save him, at that time, Rishi again fired from the countrymade pistol on Mahabir Singh and Gajraj. Further Rajender and Rampal assaulted Gajraj with lathis. Girdhari was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Gurgaon for treatment where the doctor declared him as “brought dead”. Injured persons Mahabir, Gajraj-PW6 and Bharat Singh-PW1 were given treatment.

       FIR was accordingly filed. Criminal case was filed. On the same day a cross case i.e. on 4.12.2004 in the same police station was lodged by the appellant party against Mahabir Singh and others and they were also charge sheeted.

       The trial court convicted and sentenced appellant-Raj Singh under Section 304 Part-1 IPC and acquitted Rajpal and Rishi Pal.

       High Court converted the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part 1 IPC to Section 302 IPC and maintained the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him.

       In the other case, the trial court convicted and sentenced Mahabir Singh, Bharat Singh, Gajraj, Anil and Satish u/s 148, 323, 325 and 452 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.

       The High Court acquitted Mahabir Singh, Bharat Singh and others.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the courts below.

       Result:

       Appeals dismissed.