Jagat Singh Vs State
of H.P.
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J.
1.
This
appeal is filed against the final order and judgment dated
05.05.2010/26.05.2010 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in
Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 1998whereby the High Court reversed the order of
acquittal of the appellant passed by the Sessions Judge, Un a and convicted him
under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
2.
The
brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
a. Vikram Singh, the
complainant (PW-1), his brother Bachittar Singh (since deceased) and Jagat Singh,
appellant/accused (A-1), are residents of village Dehlan.Vikram Singh had a
land dispute with the accused for the last4/5 years. Rattan Singh - accused
No.2 filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer (in short
"ASO"), Un a for demarcation of the land in dispute. On 29.04.1997,
the ASO accompanied by Kanungo and Patwari had come to the spot for carrying
out the demarcation of the said land. Jagat Singh (A-1), and Rattan Singh (A-2)
also reached there. The field which was to be demarcated was situated by the
side of the house of one Sehdev Singh. On learning that the accusedhave brought
the ASO for demarcating the disputed land which has already been settled in the
Court, Vikram Singh, the Complainant (PW-1), and his brother Bachittar Singh
(the deceased), also reached there. On seeing them, Jagat Singh (A-1) and
Rattan Singh (A-2) started abusing them. At that stage, the ASO left the place
and the demarcation of the land did not take place.
b. As soon as ASO left
the place in a jeep, Jagat Singh (A-1)and Rattan Singh (A-2) took out their
respective `Gatras' and stabbed the deceased on his chest. On seeing this, when
Vikram Singh - the Complainant (PW-1), stepped forward to save his brother,
Jagat Singh (A-1) stabbed him on the elbow of his right arm. Rattan Singh (A-2)
also gave a blow on the right side of his chest. In the meanwhile, Avtar
Kaur-wife, Gurdeep Kaur-daughter, Sarabjit Kaur-daughter-in-law of the deceased
accompanied by Harnek Singh - son of Vikram Singh(PW-1) reached the place of
incident. On seeing them, the accused persons ran away from the spot. Bachittar
Singh and Vikram Singh were taken to the District Hospital, Una at about 3.30
p.m. However, Bachittar Singh died on the way while he was being taken to the
hospital at Una. The complainant - (PW-1), after being given medical first aid
was referred to Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana. The matter was reported to
the police over telephone. The police recorded the statement of Vikram Singh
(PW-1) and on that basis, FIR was registered at Police Station, Una. During the
course of investigation, one Gatra was recovered pursuant to the confession
made by Jagat Singh (A-1). Another Gatra was handed over to the Investigator of
the case by Gurdip Kaur, daughter of the deceased.
c. On completion of the
investigation, the final report was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Un a on24.07.1997. On 03.11.1997, the trial Court framed thecharges against the
accused for committing offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324 read
with Section 34I.P.C. The trial Court, by judgment dated 01.04.1998,acquitted
all the accused persons.(d) Against the judgment of acquittal passed by the
Trial Judge, Una, the State of H.P. filed an appeal before the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh at Shimla.
The High Court, by
the impugned judgment dated 05.05.2010, set aside the order of acquittal passed
by the Sessions Judge, Una and convicted Jagat Singh (A-1) and Rattan Singh
(A-2) under Sections 302and 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. However, the appeal
filed by the State against Parminder Singh (A-3) and Balwant Singh(A-4) was
dismissed. On 26.05.2010, the High Court, while passing the order with regard
to the quantum of sentence, sentenced Jagat Singh (A-1) to undergo imprisonment
for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment
for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302
read with Section 34 I.P.C. As regards the offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C.,
the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine
of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of
six months. Since A-2was expired on 29.03.2009, the appeal against him was abated.
Against the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant (A-1) has
filed this appeal before this Court.
(3) Heard Mr. R.K.
Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Kiran Bala Sahay, learned counsel
for the respondent-State.(4) The prosecution case, as narrated by Vikram Singh
(PW-1) is that he had a land dispute with the accused for the past four or five
years. The second accused i.e. Rattan Singh (A-2) filed an application for
demarcation of the land in dispute before the ASO. It is not in dispute that on
29.04.1997, the ASO accompanied by Kanungo and Patwari had come to the spot for
carrying out the demarcation of the said land. At that time, the Complainant,
PW-1, his brother - Bachittar Singh (the deceased), his son Harnek Singh and
all the four accused were present there. As soon as the ASO started for demarcation,
A-1 and A-2 started abusing the complainant and his brother.
On seeing the wordy
quarrel, the ASO left the scene of occurrence. Immediately after his departure,
Jagat Singh (A1) and Rattan Singh (A2) took out their respective Gatras and the
other two accused, namely, Parminder Singh(A3) and Balwant Singh (A4) gesticulated
towards the complainant party with their fists. In the course of such event,
Jagat Singh A-1 and Rattan Singh A-2 inflicted blows with their respective
Gatras on the chest of the deceased. On seeing the deceased being stabbed, the
complainant - (PW-1)stepped forward to save him. Rattan Singh (A-2) gave a blow
to the complainant with his Gatra on the right side of his chest. Jagat Singh
(A-1) also gave a blow with his Gatra on his right elbow. A-3 and A-4 gave fist
blows to the deceased. On seeing him crying, his wife, Avtar Kaur, daughter,
GurdeepKaur, daughter in law Sarbjit Kaur and complainant's son Harnek Singh
(PW-3) reached the place of incident. On seeing these persons, all the accused
ran away from the spot.
The deceased, who was
bleeding profusely and the complainant were taken to District Hospital, Una at
about 3.30 p.m. However, Bachittar Singh succumbed to the injuries suffered by
him on way to the hospital. The complainant, after being given medical first
aid was referred to Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana. Thereafter, the matter
was reported to the police by the complainant and on that basis, FIR was registered
being FIR No. 243 of 1997 at Police Station, Una. After trial, by order dated
01.04.1998, the trial Court acquitted all the accused. In the appeal filed by
the State, (A-1) alone was convicted, as (A-2) died during the pendency of the
case and the appeal against (A-3) and (A-4) was dismissed.5) Before considering
the case of the prosecution, as discussed by the trial Court and the High
Court, it is useful to refer the stand of the appellant-Jagat Singh (A1) from
his statement made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as `the Code').
He stated that he was
working in the field when the ASO accompanied by Kanungo and Patwari came to
their village. His brother Rattan Singh (A-2) had filed an application in which
he had complained against the members of the staff of the Settlement Department.
The ASO enquired his brother Rattan Singh. When the ASO was enquiring his
brother, Bachittar Singh (the deceased) and Vikram Singh (PW-1) came there and
started using abusive language against them. On seeing the situation, the ASO
along with his staff left the village, however Vikram Singh and Bachittar Singh
did not leave the courtyard of one Sehdev Singh and they continued using
abusive language against them for about 20 minutes. Thereafter, Bachittar Singh
pounced upon Rattan Singh (A-2), Vikram Singh (PW-1) had pounced upon him.
Though he wanted to run away he found himself overpowered.
Vikram Singh (PW-1)laid
him down on the ground and started throttling him. He requested Vikram Singh to
release him from his clutches but of no use. He continued throttling him. Since
he is an asthma patient and realizing that Vikram Singh was not going to
release him then he took out his gatra Ext.P-12 and tried to frighten him by
showing it to him but he did not release him. When he apprehended that Vikram
Singh may kill him, hegave a Gatra blow, firstly, on his shoulder then on his
chest but he continued to throttle him. Then he inflicted some more blows on
his person. After receiving the blows, his grip loosened on his neck and then
he managed to get up and ranaway.
Though similar
statements were made by other accused, there is no need to refer the same.6) We
have to find out whether the act of the appellant along with the other accused
was deliberate and pre-planned in order to do away the life of the deceased or
the offences alleged to have been committed have arisen from a free fight which
had erupted at the spur of the moment. It is also relevant to ascertain whether
the accused exceeded their right of private defence. It is not in dispute that
in the fight between the persons belonging to the complainant and the accused,
Bachittar Singh lost his life. Vikram Singh (PW-1) sustained injuries on his
chest. The offences alleged to have been committed are the result of the same
sequence of events which took place on 29.04.1997 at 2.30 p.m., near the house of
Sehdev Singh at Village Dehlan. There is no dispute that the accused Jagat
Singh (A-1) had filed a suit for permanent injunction against Vikram Singh
(PW-1), Bachittar Singh (the deceased) and Smt. Thakri widow of Dina Nath. The
said suit was compromised to the effect that none of the parties shall raise
any construction over the land measuring 4 Marlas comprising of Khasra No. 2857
till the same is partitioned. When the ASO came to the spot in order to rectify
wrong settlement work as claimed by the parties, a heated wordy quarrel started
which ended with loss of life of one person.
There is no
controversy that during the course of fight, Bachittar Singh (the deceased)
sustained injuries on account of which he died. The post-mortem examination of
the dead body of the deceased was performed by Dr. R.S. Dadhwal(PW-15) and he
opined that the deceased died due to shock resulting from massive hemorrhage
and injuries on the vital organs. The doctor noticed six wounds on the person
of the deceased, on the nose, below the tip of left shoulder, posterior, on the
right of the midline of the chest, on the left side of the chest and on the
interior to the left axilla on the mis axillary line. Apart from the above
injuries of the deceased as well as PW1, it is also relevant to note that the
appellant Jagat Singh(A-1) and his brother Rattan Singh (A-2) also sustained injuries
in the same commotion. Dr. Mrs. S. Sharma (DW-1),medically examined all the
four accused and copies of which are marked as Exs. DA to DD respectively. Here
again, we are concerned with the injuries on the person of Jagat Singh-appellant
alone. 1. There was a reddish brown small bruise of the size of 2 cms x 1 cm on
the chest on the left side of the lower one third of sternum. 2. There was
bluish bruise on the left hip of the size of 8 cm x 7 cm. 3. There was bluish
bruise 10 cm x 1/3cms with intervening healthy area on the left side of the
abdomen 5 cms above the left iliac crest.
3.
He
had complained of pain on the right fore-arm. The injured was referred for
treatment of bronchial asthama."7) As rightly observed by the trial Judge,
the perusal of the statement of PWs 1 and 3 and the doctors leave no scope for doubt
that a free fight had taken place in which members of both sides got injured
and one person succumbed to the injuries. We have already adverted to the
statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code, more particularly, the statement
of the appellant-Jagat Singh which have thrown light that in what manner the
fight ensued and ended. We have already mentioned that from the evidence of
prosecution side as well as the statement by the accused recorded under Section
313 of the Code, it is very much clear that a free fight had taken place.
It is also clear and
as narrated by the accused under Section 313 of the Code that to save themselves,
they stabbed the deceased and the complainant. Both A1 and A2 happened to be
baptized Sikhs and as per religious necessity they have to carry Gatra on their
persons and in order to save them from the clutches of the deceased and the
complainant, free blows were exchanged through Gatras.
It is also seen from
the evidence that the main blow on the chest of the deceased was caused by
Rattan Singh who died pending appeal before the High Court. (A-3) and (A-4) were
acquitted by the trial Court and the High Court dismissed the appeal against
them. Considering the evidence of the doctor with regard to the injuries
sustained by the deceased, the complainant (PW-1) as well as the appellant/accused
and the evidence of (DW-1) who examined the accused, the trial Court has
rightly observed that they had no requisite intention to kill the deceased as
envisaged under Section 300. As discussed earlier, on account of meddling with
the enquiry conducted by the ASO, both the parties sustained injuries out of
which the deceased succumbed to the injuries.8) From the materials placed by
the prosecution as well as the defence, taking note of the fact that the trial Court
has acquitted (A-3) and (A-4) and (A-2) died during the pendency of the appeal
before the High Court, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the
deceased as opined by Dr. R.S.Dadhwal, (PW-15), and the injuries sustained by
the appellant(A-1) as explained by Dr. Mrs. S. Sharma (DW-1), we hold that at
the most, the appellant could be held under Section 323IPC for causing hurt on
the body of the deceased.
We are also of the
view that there is no acceptable evidence to the fact that the appellant had
voluntarily caused hurt on the person of the deceased. Considering all these
events and taking note of the fact that the persons in both the groups, namely,
complainant and the accused sustained injuries in a free fight and also of the
fact that the appellant A1 alone is before us, we feel that the ends of justice
would be met by altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 323. It is
brought to our notice that he had served about a year in prison (pending trial)
and is in prison for approximately seven months after conviction by the High
Court, aged about 82 years and also suffering from asthma and other old age
ailments. Considering all these aspects, we feel that the period undergone is
sufficient and he be released forthwith if he is not required in any other
offence. The appeal is allowed to this extent.
................................................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
................................................J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
….............................................J.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
NEW
DELHI;
JANUARY
3, 2011
Back