Singh Vs. State 0f Haryana & Ors  INSC 947 (18 December 1997)
NANAVATI, K. VENKATASWAMI
18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997 Present:
Mr.Justice G.T.Nanavati Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Venkataswami Ajay Siwatch, Adv.Ms.Naresh
Bakshi, Adv.(N.P) for the appellants Sushil Kumar Sr.Adv., Subhadra Chaturvedi,
Amitabh Chaturvedi, Tarun Bhalla, K.N.Rai and Prem Malhotra. Advs.
him for the Respondents.
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
these appeals arise out of the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
in Crl. Appeal No. 579/DB/1986.
High Court acquitted all the accused who were convicted by the trial court.
Criminal Appeal No.659/89 is filed by Pohap Singh P.W. 13, father of the deceased
Appeal No.660/89 is filed by the State.
the prosecution case is that while Pohap Singh along with his son Bir Pal and
complainant Umed Singh were passing through a public street had reached near
the house of Abhey Singh, they were attacked by Abhey Singh and 6 others in
view of the previous enmity. As a result of the said attack all the three of
them and four others who had come to their rescue rescue received injuries. Bir
Pal succumbed to the injuries soon after incident. All of them were, therefore
tried for offences punishable under Secs.
302 read with 149, 325 with 149 and read 149 I.P.C. The trial court relying
upon the evidence of Pohap Singh, P.W.13 and Hukam Singh, P.W. 12 convicted Abhey
Singh and Ram Kumar for the offence punishable under section 302 read with
sec.34 I.P.C. Rest of the accused were convicted under sections 148, 325 read
with 149 and 324 rad with 149.
High Court on reappreciation of the evidence of Pohap Singh and Hukam Singh
came to the conclusion that they had not given a correct version regarding the
manner in which the incident had happened Their evidence was desbelieved by the
High because the medical evidence disclosed that the accused had received as
many as 26 injuries as against 18 injuries received by deceased Bir Pal and his
companions. The High Court has held that the two eye witnesses had made
material improvements while giving their evidence. It also held that the eye
witnesses have not explained when and under what circumstances they started
giving blows to the accused. Only a vague statement made by them that after
they were injured some persons who had come there on hearing their cries had
wielded their sticks and that is how they received injuries. That version was
found by the High Court as improbable and unnatural and therefore, it recorded
a finding that the complainant and his companions were the aggressors. They had
attacked the accused and whatever injuries were received by them were caused by
the accused in exercise of their right of private defence. It is not possible
to say that the view taken by the High Court is so unreasonable as to call
interference by the High Court is so unreasonable as to call interference by
Court. The findings recorded by the High Court are based on evidence and the
reasons given by it cannot be regarded improper of perverse.
appeals are, therefore, dismissed.