Ajmer Singh vs The State Of Haryana

[Non-Reportable]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 665-666 OF 2011

AJMER SINGH & ORS. … Appellants Versus

STATE OF HARYANA … Respondent

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants

submitted that Ajmer Singh s/o. Jiwan Singh having expired during

the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the appeal qua him

stands abated.

2. The conviction of the appellants having been upheld by

the High Court, the order dated May 10, 2010 is under challenge

before this Court. Vide impugned order, the High Court disposed of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

Criminal Appeal No. 843­SB of 2001 filed by (1) Ajmer Singh son of Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.04.11 17:43:57 IST Reason:

Jiwan Singh (2) Man Singh son of Ajmer Singh (3) Gurdhyan Singh

Page 1 of 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011

son of Ajmer Singh (4) Surinder Singh son of Shamsher Singh and

(5) Nanak Singh son of Jiwan Singh out of which the appeal qua

Ajmer Singh stands abated. The Criminal Revision bearing Nos.

475/2002 and 778/2003 were also disposed of by the same order.

The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections

148, 323, 325 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal

Code (IPC). They were sentenced to undergo six months rigorous

imprisonment under Section 148 read with Section 149 as well as

for Section 323 read with Section 149, two years under Section 325

read with Section 149 IPC and seven years under Section 307 read

with Section 149 IPC.

3. The High Court vide order dated May 10,2010 dismissed

the appeal of the appellants. However, by a subsequent order dated

May 28, 2010, sentencing part was modified by the High Court. The

reason stated for the said modification was that an interim order

dated May 28, 2010, was passed in the said appeal reducing the

sentence from seven years to five years under Section 307 read with

Section 149 IPC but the said modification was not incorporated into

the detailed judgement.

4. It is a case in which both the parties suffered injuries.

The FIR No. 75 dated 27.3.1997 was registered on the complaint of

Page 2 of 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011

Jagdish Chand alleging that at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning of

27.3.1997, Surender Singh tried to drive his tractor trolley from the

disputed passage, the bara of the house of Jagdish Chand. Rajesh

Kumar, nephew of Jagdish Chand asked him not to do so.

Accused Man Singh, Ajmer Singh, Nanak Singh and Gurdhian

Singh were sitting in the tractor­trolley. They attacked Rajesh

Kumar and Jagdish Chand with lathi. Thereafter, a lathi blow was

given on the head of Lajwanti (mother of Ravi Kumar, Rajesh Kumar

and Sanjeev Kumar). On alarm being raised, Ravi Kumar and

Sanjeev Kumar (nephews of Jagdish Chand) came to save them.

Gurdhian Singh gave a kassi (spade) blow on the head of Rajesh

Kumar. Nanak Singh gave a lathi blow to Ravi Kumar, whereas

Surinder Singh gave a lathi blow to Sanjeev Kumar. On hearing the

alarm, number of villagers gathered. The injured were taken to

hospital and they were medically examined.

5. As against this, multiple injuries were suffered by the

appellants. They were also medically examined at PHC Panjokra.

6. According to the defence, there was altercation between

Harbans Kaur wife of Ajmer Singh and Lajwanti. As a result, the

male members of both the parties collected and there was free fight.

Page 3 of 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011

7. The dispute between the parties, as claimed, was with

reference to use of the disputed passage by the appellants.

As both the parties suffered injuries in the fight, it cannot be held

that no such incident had taken place.

8. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the

appellants was that in the case in hand, the complainant party was

the aggressor as on day­to­day basis they used to scold them while

they were using the passage on the land, which is in the name of

Gram Panchayat. The complainant party was treating that portion

of the land to be their own. In fact, immediately after the incident

on 27.3.1997 a civil suit for permanent injunction was filed by the

complainant party, namely, Jagdish Chand and Krishan son of

Kundan against Ajmer Singh, Nanak Singh sons of Jiwan Singh

and Dhyan Singh, Man Singh sons of Ajmer Singh and Surender

Singh son of Shamsher. The prayer in the suit was to restrain the

defendants therein from using bara of the plaintiffs as passage. The

suit was filed on 31.3.1997, which was dismissed on 15.1.2003.

No decree of injunction was passed in favour of plaintiffs therein

pertaining to Khasra No. 117, which was claimed to be the property

Page 4 of 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011

of the plaintiffs as it was found to be owned by Gram Panchayat

and reserved for Rafiamm.

9. He further submitted that number of persons on the

appellant side also suffered injuries and some of them were found

to be grievous. However, the courts below have failed to take that

into consideration. In fact, it was a case of self­defence. The

incident took place outside the precincts of complainant party,

hence the appellants cannot be said to be aggressors. Intention

cannot be established as there was no weapon used. They were

merely having their agricultural implements with them and it was

the normal time to go to the fields as the incident happened at

about 8.00 a.m. The allegation is that the appellants were going in

the tractor­trolley, when on the provocation of the complainant

party, the incident happened.

10. On the other hand, the argument of learned counsel for

the State was that it is a case in which the appellants were found to

be aggressors. They had caused grievous injuries to the

complainant party. Even if they suffered certain injuries, those

were in exercise of their right to private defence. The evidence in

Page 5 of 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011

the form of statements of injured witnesses cannot be discarded.

Besides the injured witnesses, independent witnesses were also

produced who corroborated the version of the prosecution.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material on record.

12. Date of incident, as such, is not in dispute. It has also

not come on record that the appellants who were stated to be

aggressors and have been convicted, used any weapons as such or

they had gone to the place of incident with their pre­determined

mind. Even the case set up by the complainant party was that they

were passing through the passage in a trolley. In fight, lathi and

kassi (spade) were allegedly used. These are the normal

agricultural implements which are used in the rural areas, which

the appellants were carrying in their trolley.

13. As is evident from the record, the dispute was with

regard to the use of passage by the appellants which the

complainant party was claiming to be its own. Another fact which

has come on record is that there is a decree in a civil case filed by

the complainant party immediately after the incident, in which it

Page 6 of 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011

was held that the passage belongs to the Gram Panchayat and the

same is Rafiamm.

14. No doubt, there are injuries suffered by the complainant

party. However, the fact remains that the injuries have also been

suffered by the accused party. In the judgment of the High Court,

due consideration has not been given to the injuries suffered by the

appellants. Entire stress is on the injuries suffered by the

complainant party or the evidence led by them. The defence of the

appellants has not been touched. The High Court also opined that

place of incident was space between bara and house of the

complainant party. The issue was use of the passage by the

appellants to which the complainant party was raising an objection.

15. Considering the material on record which has been

discussed above where both the parties suffered injuries in free

fight and the passage, which was the root cause of the fight, has

been held to be the passage owned by Gram Panchayat and

Page 7 of 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011

Rafiamm and not belonging to the complainant party, in our

opinion, the conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot be

legally sustained. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The

judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial

Court and affirmed by the High Court are set aside. The bail bonds

of the appellants stand discharged.

……..….………………J. [Abhay S. Oka]

……..….………………J. [Rajesh Bindal]

New Delhi April 11, 2023

Page 8 of 8