Singh & ANR Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh  INSC 798 (24 October 1997)
PUNCHHI, M. SRINIVASAN
24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997 Present:
Mr. Justice M.M.Punchhi Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Srinivasan Rajender Singh, Sr.
Adv., Chander Bhan, Any Mohla and Ranjit Kumar, Advs. with him for the
appellant in Crl.A.No. 777/94 Dinesh Kr.Garg, Adv. (NP), for the appellant in
Crl.A.No.778/94 Gulab Gupta, Sr.Adv., (Sakesh Kumar) Adv. for Uma Nath Singh,
Adv. with him for the Respondent
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
appellants in these two appeals were accused 1, 2 and 3 before the Court of
Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh,, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 39/01. There
were 22 accused apart from 4 persons who had absconded. Some were convicted by
the Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 1.10.1993. On appeals, the High
Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of these three appellants with some
modification and acquitted the rest.
25.6.1990 the accused the 4 absconding persons were said to be cultivating a
land known as `Kothotiya Har'.
had been issued in favour of some of the accused and the land was registered in
their name, there were disputes relating to the same which were pending before
the Revenue Authorities. The rival claimants claimed to be in possession of the
land and were protesting against the claim of the accused and resisting of the
attempts of the accused to plough the land. On the aforesaid date the occurrence
took place between the two groups resulting in the death of 4 persons of the
complainants group. The appellants and the other accused were charged with
offences under Section 147, 148, 302/149 and 307/149 I.P.C. Two of them were
also charged for having hatched a criminal conspiracy for committing the
offences. The Sessions Judge acquitted 9 accused including those charged with
criminal conspiracy and convicted the remaining 13 and sentenced them to
various terms of imprisonment including sentence of death awarded against the
appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 1994. The High Court acquitted 10 more
persons and confirmed the conviction and sentence of three of them. So far as
the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 1994 are concerned the High Court
converted the sentence of death to life imprisonment and also set aside the
conviction under Section 147 I.P.C.
these appeals learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the contentions
put forward before the courts below. According to learned counsel the
appellants were only exercising the right of self defence and the facts of the
case as established would show that it was the other party who fired in the
first instance and the appellants had necessarily to defend themselves by using
weapons. It is contended that both courts having found against the case of the
prosecution that there was a conspiracy for the commission of offence on the
previous night, and the case that there was an attempt to compromise the land
dispute between the parties ought to have upheld the defence of the appellants.
According to learned counsel the following facts are relevant and should be
given due weight.
land had been registered in the revenue records in the names of the appellants
and there is a presumption of possession being with them.
the courts ought to have proceeded on the footing that the other party was the
aggression and made attempt to trespass o the land.
There is ample evidence to show that the members of the other party had lethal
weapons including fire arms when they attempted to trespass on the land.
There were empty cartridges near the bodies of the deceased which prove that
the deceased had first used fire arms. Learned counsel concluded that if at
all, the appellants could only be said to have exceeded the right of self-defence.
unable to accept any of the aforesaid contentions. No doubt the entry in the
revenue record was made in favour of the appellants and their men but such an
entry could only give rise to a rebuttable presumption.
the proceedings were pending and the parties were challenging the correctness
of entries in the revenue records. On the basis of the evidence on record, the
High Court has come to the conclusion that the appellants and their men could
not be said to have been in possession. The High Court has observed that the
statutory presumption under Section 117 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue
Code, 1939 was rebutted by the evidence of Pw 23 and others who claimed that
the disputed land was in their possession. We do not find any error in the
appreciation of the evidence made by the High Court. Leaned counsel for the
respondent, State of Madhya Pradesh has drawn our attention to the relevant
records and submitted that the entries in the records do not substantiate the
case of the appellants as the name of other persons were also mentioned therein
as in possession. It is unnecessary for us to consider that aspect of the
matter in these proceedings. It is sufficient to point out that the conclusion
of the High Court on the question of possession does not suffer from any error.
assuming for the sake of argument that actual possession was with the
appellants that would not enable the appellants to contend that they could use
fire arms or such other weapons which could cause death to other persons even
if such other persons were about to trespass on the land.
High Court has found that there was no evidence on record to provide that the
deceased and the members of their party were armed with guns and such other
weapons. It is also found that there is no evidence an record to prove that the
deceased had fired in the first instance. As regards the contention that the
empty cartridges were found near the dead bodies, the High Court has discussed
the matter at length and come to the conclusion that there were no empty
cartridges but there were only plastic tiklis. The most important aspect of the
matter that has been taken note of by the High Court is that none of the
members of the accused party sustained any injury whatsoever. The entire
evidence has been considered by the High Court and we do not find any
justification to differ from its view.
counsel for the appellants laid considerable stress on the statement of Pw 6.
In the deposition of Pw 6 it has been recorded that "Muratsingh, Chandrabhan
Vagairah ne 2-2, 3-3 fire kiye." Learned counsel has contended that the
said statement proves clearly that it was the party of the deceased who used
the fire arms in the first instance and the appellants had the necessity of
determine themselves by using their weapons. The High Court has discussed this
aspect of the matter and found that there is some mistake in the recording of
the evidence which was obvious in the context. Learned counsel vehemently
argued that once the evidence was read out to the witness and signed by the
Sessions judge it was not open to the court to read it differently. On a
perusal of the entire deposition of the witness, it is clear that there was
some mistake in the recording of the particular sentence. As pointed out by the
High Court, it was not the suggestion of the appellants to any of the witness
that the deceased had fire-arms the them.
not find any justification to differ from the view of the High Court as it has
been arrived at after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record.
result we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that
they were exercising their of self-defence. we have no hesitation to confirm
the judgment of the High Court and the sentence awarded by the High Court. Both
the appeals fail and are dismissed.