Jai Singh Vs. Sarwan Singh & Ors
 INSC 177 (14 November 1983)
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
((CJ) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
CITATION: 1983 AIR 1326 1984 SCR (1) 811 1984
SCC (1) 165 1983 SCALE (2)677
Criminal Proceedings-Appeal against
conviction-Accused cannot be acquitted without considering evidence on record.
The respondents were convicted and sentenced
for committing murder and other offences. The deceased and the respondents, who
respectively belonged to the Rajput and the Harijan factions of the village,
had a dispute over a piece of land which had been decided in favour of the
Rajputs by a final order of the High Court in second appeal. When the
respondents' appeal against conviction in the criminal case came up for
hearing, the High Court took the view that 'the matter could be settled by a
compromise' and invited the Harijans and Rajput panchayats of the village to
appear before it and, ultimately, called for the papers of the second appeal
decided earlier and passed an order to the effect that, as agreed between the
parties, the claim of the Harijans for four kanals of land was allowed. Finding
that some of the affected parties were not served, the High Court directed that
if any unserved party had a grievance, it could apply for review of the
judgment. After re-disposing of the second appeal relating to the dispute over
land in the manner stated above, the High Court took up the criminal appeal for
hearing and, without considering the evidence before it, delivered a short
judgment acquitting the respondents.
Remanding the appeal,
HELD: It is impossible to appreciate how the
High Court could dispose of the criminal appeal in this extraordinary fashion.
It is obvious that the High Court had made up its mind to acquit the accused
without considering the evidence before it. Finding that the offence of murder
cannot be compounded, the High Court took the facile course of acquitting the
accused who, by a considered judgment, were convicted by the trial Court. [814
C-D] The judgment of the High Court shows how important it is for the judges to
observe the norms laid down by law for dispensing justice. 'Justice under the
tree' or 'panchayat justice' have advantages of their own, but they cannot be
confused with justice according to the Chancellor's foot.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 562 of 1983.
812 From the Judgment and Order dated the
29th July, 1982 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal
Appeal No. 78-DB/80.
Prem Malhotra for the Appellant.
R.K. Garg and D.K.Garg for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, C. J. Thirteen persons were sentenced to life imprisonment by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, under section 302 read with section
149 of the Penal Code. For other offences connected with the main offence of
murder, they were sentenced to lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment. The
charge against the accused is that they committed the murder of one Dhian Singh
and caused injuries to six others on June 6, 1980.
The accused are Harijans while the deceased
Dhian Singh belonged to the Rajput faction of the village of Sultanpur.
There were disputes between the two groups
over a piece of land. The Harijans filed a suit to establish their title to
that land but they lost that suit, having taken it upto the High Court in
Second Appeal Proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
were instituted against the two factions, which also the Rajputs won.
The judgment which the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana declared in this case shows how important it is for Judges to
observe the norms laid down by law for dispensing justice. 'Justice under the
tree' or the 'Panchayat justice' have advantages of their own, but they cannot
be confused with justice according to the Chancellor's foot. If anything, the
strange procedure adopted by the High Court in this case has only succeeded in
giving a bad name to a useful innovation which, if tried cautiously and with circumspection,
will take away at least a frivolous chunk of litigation which clogs the wheels
of justice in Courts of law.
When the appeal filed by the accused came up
for hearing before the High Court, it took the view that "the matter could
be settled by a compromise". It invited the Harijan Panchayat and the
Rajput Panchayat of the village of Sultanpur to appear before it. On May 28,
1982 the two Panchayats 813 agreed that the Harijans should be allotted four
kanals out of the disputed land. The High Court accordingly directed that the
Revenue authorities should go to the spot, demarcate that land and report back
to it along with the plans. The report submitted by the Revenue authorities
showed, according to the High Court, that its order was not understood
correctly. The High Court then entered into a dialogue with Shri Bhasin,
District Attorney, Haryana, who informed it that he had discussed the matter
with the S.D.O. (Civil), Kalka, and that the said Officer was of the view that
the land could be demarcated so that four kanals could be allotted therefrom to
While hearing the criminal appeal against the
order of conviction for murder and the other offences, the High Court called
for the papers of Second Appeal No. 742 of 1978, which was disposed of in 1980
by a final order in favour of the Rajputs. All the effected parties were not
before the High Court as they possibly could not be, since what was before the
High Court was the criminal appeal and not the Second Appeal. The High Court,
finding that some of the affected parties were not served, directed that if any
unserved party had a grievance, it could approach it for review of its
The High Court thereafter recorded the
statements of the two learned counsel, Shri F.C. Aggarwal and Shri C.D. Dewan
who appeared for the parties. Shri Aggarwal stated that he agreed that four
kanals from the land should be allotted to the Harijans. Shri Dewan made a
statement that he agreed with what Shri Aggarwal had stated. The High Court
then had Second Appeal No. 742 of 1978 called out and passed an order to the
effect that as agreed between the parties, the claim of the Harijans for four
kanals of the land was allowed.
Having thus re-disposed of the Second Appeal,
the High Court took up the criminal appeal for hearing. The entire judgment of
the High Court runs thus:
"We do not wish to give a detailed
judgment in this case. It suffices to mention that there is abundant evidence
on record to indicate that actual possession of the land falling under the
Asthan of Sidh Baba, the well and the adjoining houses was of the accused. It
looks 814 more probable that when some force being used to dispossess them,
they protested and when their protests were unavailing violence was used
resulting in the death of Dhian Singh, deceased.
In the circumstances, we give the benefit of
doubt to the accused persons, and acquit them of all the charges. We do hope
that in future the parties will live together amicably. With these
observations, the appeal is allowed." With respect, it is impossible to
appreciate how the High Court could dispose of the criminal appeal in this
extraordinary fashion. It is obvious that the High Court had made up its mind
to acquit the accused without considering the evidence before it. Finding that
the offence of murder cannot be compounded, the High Court took the facile
course of acquitting the accused who, by a considered judgment, were convicted
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is less than just to allow the
judgment of the High Court to stand. Shri R.K. Garg, who appeared on behalf of
the accused, found it impossible to support the judgment of the High Court.
Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the
High Court dated July 29, 1982 and remand the appeal to it for disposal in
accordance with law. We also set aside the order passed on that date by the
High Court in Second Appeal No. 742 of 1978. The earlier judgment of the High
Court in that appeal will be restored. We hope that the High Court will be able
to take up the criminal appeal for hearing at an early date. If the evidence
warrants the acquittal of the accused, they will be entitled to be acquitted.
We express no opinion on the merits of that matter.
H.L.C. Appeal Remanded.