Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 438

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Amrik Singh And Others - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Punjab And Others - Respondent
CRA-S-1881-SB-2003 (O&M) and CRR-35-2004
Decided On : 28-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajeev K. Thakkar, DAG, Punjab; Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate

Aggressors in a conflict cannot claim the right to self-defense, and significant evidence corroborated the complainants' position over the disputed land.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 324, 325, 326, 323 - Conviction and sentencing of accused for assault with deadly weapons during a land possession dispute - The trial court's recording of conviction affirmed, as evidence supports the complainant was the rightful possessor and aggressors cannot claim self-defence - Modifications to sentencing order allowing for probation due to the age of appellants and assessment of compensation to injured parties as outlined. (Paras 28-36)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 357 - Application for compensation for the injured parties due to grievous injuries sustained. (Paras 12.1, 12.2)

Facts of the case:
The accused were convicted for grievous injuries inflicted upon the complainant party during a land repossession attempt. The incident involved multiple assaults using weapons, resulting in significant injuries and a civil dispute pending regarding the land.

Findings of Court:
The court established the complainant's rightful possession and the inability of the appellants to claim self-defence due to their status as aggressors. The evidence corroborated the complainant's account of the attack, and the appellants' conviction was affirmed.

Issues: The primary issue was the identity of the aggressors during the incident, alongside questions of rightful possession of the disputed land and the nature of injuries inflicted.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in instances where parties are aggressors, they cannot claim the right to self-defence, emphasizing the prosecution's need to prove injury attribution to aggressors is not obligatory. The trial court's decision was deemed well-reasoned and reflected in its affirmations.

Result: The appeal against conviction was dismissed and the order of sentence modified, allowing probation with additional compensation to be provided to injured parties.

Table of Content
1. trial court adjudicated the facts of the land dispute and initial convictions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. evidence supported that the appellants were the aggressors and self-defense claims could not be upheld. (Para 21 , 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Six accused, namely, Amrik Singh, Gurmit Singh, Sahib Singh, Dalbir Kaur, Bakshish Singh and Jhirmil Singh faced trial in the Court of learned Addl. Session Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Tract Court, Gurdaspur in a case arising out of FIR No.34 dated 07.04.1998, registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, District Gurdaspur, under Sections 326, 325, 323, 324/34 IPC.

2.1 Vide judgment dated 16.09.2003, though two of them, namely, Jhirmil Singh and Bakshish Singh were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt, but other four were convicted. Conviction of accused - Amrik Singh and Gurmit Singh was recorded under Sections 324 , 325/34 and 326/34 IPC . Accused - Sahib Singh was convicted under , 325 and 326 ; whereas Dalbir Kaur was convicted under & 326 besides Section 325 /34 .

2.2 Vide a separate order of the even date, i.e., 16.09.2003, the four convicts were sentenced as under:-

3. Against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the four convicts filed the present appeal, which was admitted by this court on 13.10.2003.

4. During pendency of this appeal, one of the appellant-convict, Amrik Singh has since expired on 25.04.2023, as per the copy of death certificate placed on record. As such, the present appeal qua appellant -Amrik Singh, stands abated.

5.1 As per the case of the prosecution, on 07.04.1998, an intimation was received at Police Station Fatehgarh Churian from Police Station City Batala regarding the admission of injured persons in the hospital. ASI Kashmir Singh, along with a police party, went to Police Station City Batala and collected the Medico-Legal Reports (MLRs) of the injured, namely Dalip Singh, Balwinder Kaur, Balbir Singh, Kanso, and Lakhwinder Kaur - all residents of Village Kala Afgana. On the request made by the investigating officer to the doctor for fitness certification of the injured to enable recording of their statements, the doctor opined that they were unfit to do so at that time. Subsequently, ASI Kashmir Singh visited Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, and the place of occurrence at Village Kala Afgana, in connection with the investigation of FIR No. 34 dated 07.04.1998 under Sections 324 , 323, 148, and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Churian.

5.2 On 08.04.1998, after obtaining the necessary fitness certificate from the Civil Hospital Batala, ASI Kashmir Singh recorded the statement of injured Balbir Singh, who disclosed that he is an agriculturist by occupation and a resident of Village Kala Afgana. His father, Gian Singh, has four brothers, out of whom Waryam Singh (eldest) had passed away, while Harnam Singh and Maan Singh were unmarried. The family holds a joint khewat of agricultural land, which is primarily cultivated by Gian Singh and Dalip Singh. Out of this joint holding, 15 kanals of land had been sold in 1996 by Maan Singh to Amrik Singh (accused) son of Mehnga Singh, also a resident of the same village. A civil suit pertaining to the said land was pending before the competent court. According to Balbir Singh, although the land was in possession of his family and they had sown wheat on it, Amrik Singh and his associates attempted to forcibly take possession of the same.

5.3 It was further stated by Balbir Singh that on 06.04.1998 at about 6 or 7 p.m., Amrik Singh (armed with a 'datar'), Sahib Singh (carrying a 'chhavi'), Gurmit Singh, Jhirmil Singh (both armed with 'chhavis'), Bakhshish Singh (carrying a ' dang'), and Dalbir Kaur (holding a bottle containing acid) entered the disputed 15 kanals of land while abusing the complainant party. Bakhshish Singh exhorted the others to teach a lesson to the complainants for restraining them from cultivating the land. He (Balbir Singh) along with his mother Lakhwinder