Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. Sandhawalia, Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, JJ.
Raj Kumar Julka & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-166-2020 In/and CRM-A-69-2020 (O&M); CRA-S-1360-2019 (O&M) and CRM-A-2557-2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 19-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Karambir Singh Kahlon, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Keshavam Chaudhri, Advocate, For; Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, Advocate, for the Respondent

The right of private defence is available to a person who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger and not of self-creation. The force used in private defence should not be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection of the person or property.

Headnote:
Right of Private Defence - House Trespass - Assault - Appellant Harinderpal Singh and others convicted under Section 452 IPC - Acquittal of respondents Jagir Singh, Gurbinderbir Singh and Gurwinder Singh justified - Appellant Raj Kumar and others acquitted of charges - Leave to appeal dismissed
Fact of the Case:

The case involves a dispute over the possession of a shop between appellant Raj Kumar and appellant Harinderpal Singh. Appellant Raj Kumar, in lawful possession of the shop, sought legal remedies to protect his possession. Appellant Harinderpal Singh, armed with a licensed weapon, entered the shop and fired a shot, intending to take forcible possession. A fight ensued, resulting in injuries to appellant Harinderpal Singh and his companions.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that appellant Harinderpal Singh was the aggressor, committing the offence of house trespass and assault. The injuries inflicted by appellant Raj Kumar and others were justified under the right of private defence. The acquittal of respondents Jagir Singh, Gurbinderbir Singh, and Gurwinder Singh was justified, and the appeal against their acquittal was dismissed. The court also dismissed the applications seeking leave to appeal filed by both appellants.
Issues: The main issues were whether the injuries inflicted by appellant Raj Kumar and others were justified under the right of private defence, and whether the acquittal of respondents Jagir Singh, Gurbinderbir Singh, and Gurwinder Singh was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the injuries inflicted by appellant Raj Kumar and others were justified under the right of private defence, and the acquittal of respondents Jagir Singh, Gurbinderbir Singh, and Gurwinder Singh was justified based on the evidence and circumstances on record.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applications seeking leave to appeal filed by both appellants and also dismissed the appeal filed by appellant Harinderpal Singh and others assailing the findings of their conviction and sentence.

JUDGMENT

Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J. -

CRM-166-2020 in/and CRM-A-69-2020

By this application, the applicants-appellants seek condonation of delay of 205 days in filing the accompanying application seeking leave to appeal.

Notice in the application has already been issued vide order dated 14.02.2022 but no reply has been filed by the State so far.

Consequently, in view of the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the delay of 205 days in filing the accompanying application seeking leave to appeal is hereby condoned.

CRM stands disposed of.

CRM-A-69-2020 (O&M),

CRA-S-1360-2019 (O&M) and

CRM-A-2557-2019 (O&M)

Since the common question of facts and law is involved, as such the aforesaid appeals are taken up together for discussion and final disposal.

CRM-A-69-2020 (O&M), Raj Kumar Julka and another vs. State of Punjab and others

1. Appellants are seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') against the judgment dated 04.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, in Sessions Case No. 14/2009, titled State vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others, assailing the findings of acquittal of respondents Jagir Singh, Gurbinder Singh, Gurwinder Singh and the proclaimed offender Ranjit Singh under Sections 307/506/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and also assailing the order granting benefit of probation to respondents Harinder Pal Singh, Lakhwinder Rana, Sukhdev Singh and Gurbachan Singh for offences punishable under Sections 452 and 336 read with Section 34 IPC.

CRA-S-1360-2019 (O&M), Harinder Pal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab,

Appellants-convicts have filed criminal appeal under Section 376 Cr.P.C. and Section 11 (2) Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 against the same judgment dated 04.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, in Sessions Case No. 14/2009, titled State vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others assailing the findings of their conviction and order of sentence under Sections 452, and 336 read with Section 34 IPC, by which they were released on probation for a period of 2 years.

CRM-A-2557-2019, titled Harinder Pal Singh vs. Raj Kumar and others

Appellant is seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 04.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, in Sessions Case No. 75/2006, titled State vs. Raj Kumar and others, assailing the findings of acquittal of respondents Raj Kumar, Anil Kumar, Sumit Kumar, Munish Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Rajiv Kumar from the charges framed under Sections 307/326/324/323/148/149 IPC and under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1957.

As per the judgment of the trial Court, accused Parshotam Lal died during the trial and proceedings stood abated vide order dated 06.06.2013.

FACTS

2. It is a case of version and cross-version set up by Raj Kumar Julka (appellant in CRM-A-69-2020, titled Raj Kumar Julka and another vs. State of Punjab and other) (hereinafter referred as 'the appellant Raj Kumar') and by Sh. Harinderpal Singh (appellant in CRA-S-1360-2019 and CRM-A-2557-2019) (hereinafter referred as 'the appellant Harinderpal Singh').

2.1 As per the version of appellant Raj Kumar Julka, he is running a cloth shop at City Road, Batala, under the name and style of Monica Print Store. On 01.08.2004 at about 10:30 a.m. he came to his shop and found that appellant Harinderpal Singh, Municipal Counselor, armed with a rifle along with 20-25 persons who were also armed with 'Takua' 'sticks' Hockeys' and Dattars' along with 5 tanks of water out of which 1 was containing acid, came there. Appellant Harinder Pal Singh raised a 'lalkara' that he would destroy the shop with the help of acid and he also fired a shot from his rifle. Whereas the persons who were accompanying accused Harinderpal Singh started throwing brick bats towards the appellant. In the mea