Jagat Singh vs State Of H.P

1

(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 last

4/5 years. Rattan Singh - accused No.2 filed an application

before the Assistant Settlement Officer (in short "ASO"), Una

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 accused

have 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.

2

(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

3 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, Una on

24.07.1997. On 03.11.1997, the trial Court framed the

charges against the accused for committing offences

punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324 read with Section 34

I.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 302

and 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,

4 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-2

was 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

5 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, Gurdeep

Kaur, daughter in law Sarbjit Kaur and complainant's son

6 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

7 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.

8 When he apprehended that Vikram Singh may kill him, he

gave 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 ran

away. 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

9 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

1 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.

4. 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

1 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

1 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 323

IPC 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

1 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

1 1