1998(3) Crimes 209 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Rajasthan High Court)
M.K. Mukherjee and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Jangeer Singh & Ors.—Appellants
versus
State of Rajasthan—Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 912 of 1997
Decided on 26-8-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : P.R. Agrawal, Mohinder Singh, R.K. Gupta, Advo­cates.
For the Respondent : Vikash Sharma, Advocate for K.S. Bhati, Advocate.

Important Point
High Court was right in setting aside acquittal of appellants for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. It is also right in convicting appellant Harbans Singh under Section 302 IPC and appellant Jangeer Singh under Sections 326/34 IPC, relying on eye witnesses and reject­ing defences of sudden and grave provocation and right of private defence.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302/34, 302 and 326/34 —Offences under—Two eye witnesses—Discarded by trial Court on ground of chance and interested witnesses—High Court reversing acquittal, believing them—Whether correct? (Yes).

       Held : Circumstances enumerated by the trial Judge in throwing overboard the case of the prosecution are not correct. His examination of the evidence appears to be rather too superficial. Narendra Pal Singh (P.W. 2) though was not resident of the village of the appellants and Jeet Singh but he explained his presence in that village along with the deceased Jeet Singh at the relevant time. He said he had gone to Ganganagar to collect money from one Diwan Chand, which money he was required to pay to Dilawar Singh of the village Karanpur of the appel­lants. Since Diwan Chand did not make any payment Narendra Pal Singh got down at Karanpur from bus in order to inform Dilawar Singh that money could not be arranged. He said while he was returning to his village, which is give kilometers away, he met Jeet Singh on the way. Jeet Singh asked him to accompany him to his house and offered him to drop him to his village in his jeep as night had already fallen. He was subjected to searching cross-examination but his testimony could not be shaken. One of the circumstances on the basis of which state­ment of another eye witness Balvindra Singh was rejected was that he had worked as an employee of appellant Harbans Singh, who had removed him from the service and thus he got animus against the appellants. Balvindra Singh denied that he was removed from the service and said that he voluntarily left the service. Presence of Balvindra Singh and Narendra Pal Singh (P.Ws) along with Jeet Singh and their all going to the house of Jeet Singh was quite natural. It is not the law that if witnesses belong to same trade they would make false statements. Eye witnesses have explained their conduct as to why they did not inter­vene when Jeet Singh was being stabbed. They said that they were too afraid to do so when appellants were holding weapons in their hands. We do not think circumstances enumerated by the learned trial Judge either singly or cumulatively are enough to throw any doubt on the veracity of the statements of the eye witnesses and that of Kashmir Singh, the informant. (Para 9)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 100—Right of Private defence of body—Case under Sections 302/34 IPC—Defence that assault was made on deceased to save the honour of one’s wife—Whether Section 100 is attracted? (No).

       Held : It is not the case of the defence that the assault was made on Balvin­dra Kaur by Jeet Singh with the intention of committing rape. No suggestion to that effect has been made. There, therefore, could not be any right of private defence to cause death of Jeet Singh. (Para 10)

       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 300 First exception—Culpable homicide not amounting to murder on sudden and grave provocation—Case under Section 302/34 IPC—Case of defence that wife of appellant Harbans Singh was molested by deceased and so appellant assaulted on provocation —Whether tenable on facts of case? (No)—High Court’s reversal of acquittal—Whether correct? (Yes).

       Held : The question that arises for consideration is if the evidence shows that when wife of Harbans Singh was being molested by Jeet Singh could that cause grave and sudden provocation for Harbans Singh to be deprived of the power of self-control to cause death of Jeet Singh. The story narrated by Balvindra Kaur (D.W. 1) does not appear to be proba­ble that Jeet Singh had come to their house and molested her. Balvin­dra Kaur said that they were having two cows which had been tied outside and about 8.00 p.m. she had gone out to bring the cows inside. She said she hardly took two or three steps from the gate of her house when a man came and caught her all of a sudden and his intention was to molest her. Then she started shouting. On hearing her cries Harbans Singh came there and tried to release her from that man and then they slapped each other. She said when her husband came out that man was still holding her and was putting his hands over her breasts and touching her face with his face. At that time she felt smell of liquor coming out of the mouth of that man. Medical Report does not show that Jeet Singh had taken any drink. There was, therefore, no question of any smell of liquor coming out of his mouth. It is also not probable that Jeet Singh would be standing there waiting for Balvindra Kaur to come out and then to molest her, particularly when her husband was in the house. That apart assuming what Balvindra Kaur said is true was the provocation given by Jeet Singh so grave and sudden as to cause Harbans Singh to lose his self-control and senses to commit murder of Jeet Singh.(Para 11)

       We have examined the conduct of the appellants from the stand point of a reasonable man if he would have acted in the same manner as Harbans Singh did. We do not think so. Circumstances do not even remotely suggest that Harbans Singh could have possessed such uncon­trollable impulse as to lose self-control to repeatedly stab Jeet Singh and kill him. From the evidence on record we do not think that any other view is possible except to hold that the appellants are guilty of the crime alleged against them. Circumstances clearly indi­cate that explanation offered by the appellants is palpably false. Here we apply the principles set out by this Court in Aher Raja Khima’s case. It cannot be said that death of Jeet Singh was caused due to any grave and sudden provocation given by him so as to deprive Harbans Singh of the power of self-control. Defence set up by the appellants is not true. Case of the appellants does not fall in any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC. High Court has given due considera­tion to the view of the trial Court in coming to the conclusion that its appreciation of evidence was rather perverse and it wrongly ac­quitted the appellants. We agree with the High Court. (Para 13)

       Result : Appeal dismissed.