Sohan Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(HP) 481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SATYEN VAIDYA, JJ.
Sohan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. A. No. 503 of 2018
Decided On : 29-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod K. Gupta.
For the Respondent:Mr. I.N. Mehta and Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Senior Additional Advocate Generals with Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate General.

Headnote:
Right of Private Defence - Murder - IPC 302, 341, 323 - The court acquitted the appellant of all charges, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary intent or knowledge against the appellant to constitute the offence of murder. The appellant was able to probabelise the right of private defence. The court found that the blows inflicted by the appellant on the deceased were not on vital parts of the body, and there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant had inflicted such blows with the intention to cause death or such bodily injury likely to cause death. The court also found that the appellant was not the aggressor, as presumed by the trial court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for offences under IPC 302, 341, 323 after a fight with the deceased, who ultimately died from his injuries. The appellant claimed self-defence, while the prosecution alleged the appellant was the aggressor.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary intent or knowledge against the appellant to constitute the offence of murder. The appellant was able to probabelise the right of private defence. The court also found that the appellant was not the aggressor, as presumed by the trial court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant had the necessary intent or knowledge to constitute the offence of murder, and whether the appellant's actions constituted self-defence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary intent or knowledge against the appellant to constitute the offence of murder. The appellant was able to probabelise the right of private defence. The court also found that the appellant was not the aggressor, as presumed by the trial court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant of all charges, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary intent or knowledge against the appellant to constitute the offence of murder. The appellant was able to probabelise the right of private defence. The court also found that the appellant was not the aggressor, as presumed by the trial court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant appeal, appellant has assailed the judgment dated 28.07.2018 read with sentence order dated 31.07.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Session Trial No. 23/15/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Sr. No.	Name of convict	Offence	Sentence
1.	Sohan Singh	302 of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one year.
		341 of IPC	Simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for ten days.
		323 of IPC	Simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The appellant faced the charges as under:-

“That on 09.02.2014, at about 9:00, pm, at place near Primary School Katuar, you wrongfully restrained Bahadur Singh at the spot and caused simple injury to him with blunt weapon and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 341 and 323 of IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.

Secondly, on the date, time and place mentioned above, you accused, caused simple injury to Bahadur Singh with sharp edged weapon, which is an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.

Lastly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you committed murder of Bahadur Singh, which is an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.”

3. Prosecution examined total twenty-four witnesses, besides proving on record various documents. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The appellant examined six witnesses in defence and also placed on record various documents. Learned trial court has convicted the appellant for offences as noticed above after holding him to be an aggressor in a fight which had taken place between him and the deceased.

4. Learned Counsel for appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution evidence had fallen much short of required standard and to convict a person on such evidence that too for offence under section 302 IPC was nothing but a travesty. He further contended that learned trial court had erred in painting the appellant as an aggressor having intent to cause the death of deceased. The impugned judgment has also been alleged to be the result of misreading and misappreciation of evidence on record.

5. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have also minutely gone through the records.

6. As per prosecution case, on 09.02.2014 at about 9:30 PM telephonic information was received at Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, HP from CHC Padhar to the effect that a person with history of assault had been brought in injured condition for treatment. The information was recorded vide DDR No. 32(A) (Ext. PW19/A). The police officials reached CHC Padhar and recorded the statement (Ext. PW21/A) of Bahadur Singh, S/o Sh. Satu Ram, aged about 62 years (now deceased) under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. The case was formally registered vide FIR No. 15/2014(Ext. PW22/J).

7. The injured Bahadur Singh was referred to Zonal Hospital Mandi, where he breathed his last at about 7.40 AM on 10.2.2014.

8. While going through the evidence on record we have come across as many as four different versions regarding the manner in which the incident had taken place.

9. The first version is available from the statement of Bahadur Singh (Ex PW-21/A) recorded by the police under section 154 Cr.P.C. It was alleged that at about 9 PM when Bahadur Singh was proceedings towards his home in his car bearing No. HP-66-1483 he was intercepted by his nephew Sohan Singh @ Sohnu (appellant) and another unknown person near Katuar Primary School. Bahadur Singh