Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Ajmer Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011
Decided On : 11-04-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148/149, 323/149, 325/149 IPC and 307/149 – Attempt to murder and hurt – Common object – Conviction and sentence – It has not come on record that appellants who were stated to be aggressors and have been convicted, used any weapons as such or they had gone to place of incident with their predetermined mind – Dispute was with regard to use of passage by appellants which complainant party was claiming to be its own – There are injuries suffered by complainant party – However, injuries have also been suffered by accused party – In judgment of High Court, due consideration has not been given to injuries suffered by appellants – Entire stress is on injuries suffered by complainant party or evidence led by them – Defence of appellants has not been touched – Where both parties suffered injuries in free fight and passage which was root cause of fight, has been held to be passage owned by Gram Panchayat and not belonging to complainant party, conviction and sentence of appellants cannot be legally sustained – Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and affirmed by High Court set aside. (Paras 7, 12, 13, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Conviction of the appellants having been upheld by High Court, the order dated May 10, 2010 is under challenge before this Court. Appellants were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 148, 323, 325 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 read with Section 149 as well as for Section 323 read with Section 149, two years under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC and seven years under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC.
Findings of Court:
Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and affirmed by High Court are set aside. Bail bonds of the appellants stand discharged.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Ajmer Singh s/o. Jiwan Singh having expired during the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the appeal qua him stands abated.
2. The conviction of the appellants having been upheld by the High Court, the order dated May 10, 2010 is under challenge before this Court. Vide impugned order, the High Court disposed of Criminal Appeal No. 843-SB of 2001 filed by (1) Ajmer Singh son of Jiwan Singh (2) Man Singh son of Ajmer Singh (3) Gurdhyan Singh son of Ajmer Singh (4) Surinder Singh son of Shamsher Singh and (5) Nanak Singh son of Jiwan Singh out of which the appeal qua Ajmer Singh stands abated. The Criminal Revision bearing Nos. 475/2002 and 778/2003 were also disposed of by the same order. The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 148, 323, 325 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 read with Section 149 as well as for Section 323 read with Section 149, two years under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC and seven years under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC.
3. The High Court vide order dated May 10,2010 dismissed the appeal of the appellants. However, by a subsequent order dated May 28, 2010, sentencing part was modified by the High Court. The reason stated for the said modification was that an interim order dated May 28, 2010, was passed in the said appeal reducing the sentence from seven years to five years under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC but the said modification was not incorporated into the detailed judgment.
4. It is a case in which both the parties suffered injuries. The FIR No. 75 dated 27.3.1997 was registered on the complaint of Jagdish Chand alleging that at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning of 27.3.1997, Surender Singh tried to drive his tractor trolley from the disputed passage, the bara of the house of Jagdish Chand. Rajesh Kumar, nephew of Jagdish Chand asked him not to do so. Accused Man Singh, Ajmer Singh, Nanak Singh and Gurdhian Singh were sitting in the tractor-trolley. They attacked Rajesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand with lathi. Thereafter, a lathi blow was given on the head of Lajwanti (mother of Ravi Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar). On alarm being raised, Ravi Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar (nephews of Jagdish Chand) came to save them. Gurdhian Singh gave a kassi (spade) blow on the head of Rajesh Kumar. Nanak Singh gave a lathi blow to Ravi Kumar, whereas Surinder Singh gave a lathi blow to Sanjeev Kumar. On hearing the alarm, number of villagers gathered. The injured were taken to hospital and they were medically examined.
5. As against this, multiple injuries were suffered by the appellants. They were also medically examined at PHC Panjokra.
6. According to the defence, there was altercation between Harbans Kaur wife of Ajmer Singh and Lajwanti. As a result, the male members of both the parties collected and there was free fight.
7. The dispute between the parties, as claimed, was with reference to use of the disputed passage by the appellants. As both the parties suffered injuries in the fight, it cannot be held that no such incident had taken place.
8. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that in the case in hand, the complainant party was the aggressor as on day-to-day basis they used to scold them while they were using the passage on the land, which is in the name of Gram Panchayat. The complainant party was treating that portion of the land to be their own. In fact, immediately after the incident on 27.3.1997 a civil suit for permanent injunction was filed by the complainant party, namely, Jagdish Chand and Krishan son of Kundan against Ajmer Singh, Nanak Singh sons of Jiwan Singh and Dhyan Singh, Man Singh sons of Ajmer Singh and Surender Singh son of Shamsher. The prayer in the suit was to restrain the defendants therein from using
In judgment of High Court, due consideration must be given to all aspects of case.
In a criminal appeal, minor contradictions in long-deferred testimonies do not negate direct eyewitness evidence supported by medical reports, and the sentence of an accused who has faced a multi-dec....
Aggressors in a conflict cannot claim the right to self-defense, and significant evidence corroborated the complainants' position over the disputed land.
Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
Where injuries were not caused with intention to cause death and were not sufficient to cause death, conviction of accused under Section 307 of IPC cannot be sustained.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
