Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, LALIT BATRA, JJ.
Bhola Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-S-1066 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 19-02-2024
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeal against Conviction
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.148, S.149, S.307, S.323, S.324, S.325, S.341, S.427
Headnote
(B) Right of Private Defense - The court ruled that the appellants, despite claiming a right of private defense, exceeded this right due to their superior numbers and the nature of the attack, thus justifying the conviction. (Paras 21-24)
Facts of the case:
The FIR was registered after the complainant and others were attacked by the appellants while irrigating their fields, resulting in multiple injuries. The appellants claimed self-defense, asserting they were protecting their property. (Paras 5-6)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court's conviction, finding no gross misapprehension of evidence and confirming the appellants' liability for the injuries caused. (Paras 25)
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellants acted in self-defense and the legality of their conviction given the circumstances of the attack. (Paras 21-24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the appellants exceeded their right of private defense due to their superior numbers and the nature of the attack, affirming the trial court's findings. (Paras 21-24)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Mr. Kamal Narual, Advocate for applicant-appellant No.1.
Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Mangla, Advocate for appellants No.2 to 13, 15 to 17 and 19.
Mr. Rishu Garg, Advocate for appellant No.14.
Mr. Randeep S. Dhull, Advocate with Mr. Aman Yadav, Advocate for appellant No.18.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG Haryana with Mr. Pradeep Parkash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana and Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryan
JUDGMENT
Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.
The present appeal is directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 10.03.2022, upon case bearing CIS No.SC No.26 of 2016, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, where through in respect of charges drawn against the accused qua offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 325, 341, 427 of the IPC, thus the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against the appellants-convicts. However, the other co-accused namely Gurmeet son of Karam Singh, Kuldeep Singh of Sukha Singh, and, Virender Singh @ Babbu son of Jagir Singh were acquitted from the charges drawn against them. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order drawn on 11.03.2022, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the appellants-convicts in the hereinafter extracted manner.
| Offence/ Section | Quantum of Sentence |
| 148 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. |
| 341 read with section 149 IPC | Simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three days each. |
| 323 read with section 149 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. |
| 324 read with section 149 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each. |
| 325 read with section 149 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. |
| 307 read with section 149 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months each. |
| 427 read with section 149 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. |
2. All the above imposed sentences of imprisonment, were ordered to run concurrently but the period of detention undergone by the appellants-convicts, during the investigations, and, trial of the case, was, in terms of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., rather ordered to be set off from the above imposed sentence(s) of imprisonment.
3. All the accused-convicts become aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of conviction, besides also, become aggrieved from the consequent thereto sentence(s) of imprisonment, and, of fine as became imposed, upon them, by the learned convicting Court concerned, and, hence have chosen to institute there against the instant criminal appeal, before this Court.
4. Learned State counsel has intimated to this Court, that neither the State nor the complainant has constituted any appeal, before this Court, against the verdict of acquittal, as made by the learned trial Judge concerned, qua the acquitted persons (supra). Thus, the verdict of acquittal, as made in respect of the acquitted accused, does acquire a conclusive, and, binding effect.
Factual Background
5. The genesis of the prosecution case becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex. P1 is assigned. The narrations carried in Ex. P1 are, that the present FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Baljeet Singh to the effect that he is an agriculturist and he along with Balwan Singh, Mahinder, Karamveer and Mukhtiar had taken the land of Panchayat on lease for six months and they had sown wheat on the same. On 5.11.2015, at ab
