Jasbir Singh vs The State Of Punjab

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2286 OF 2010

JASBIR SINGH …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF PUNJAB …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. None present for the appellant.

2. The appeal challenges the judgment and order passed

by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab

and Haryana dated 5th March 2009, thereby dismissing the

appeal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and

order passed by the Sessions Judge dated 28th April 2006,

thereby convicting the appellant along with five other Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

accused persons for offences punishable under Section 302 Narendra Prasad Date: 2023.01.21 12:03:11 IST Reason:

read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for

1 short, “IPC”) and sentencing them to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for life.

3. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court

has dismissed the appeal of the present appellant but

acquitted all other accused of the charges charged with.

4. Mr. Mohit Siwach, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the State, has vehemently opposed the appeal. He submits

that the learned Division Bench of the High Court has rightly

held that though the place of occurrence is the house of the

appellant, the conviction was liable to be under Section 302

IPC. He further submits that, even according to the defence

of the accused, 30-35 persons who had come to his house

were armed with only lathies. He also submits that if the

offending party was armed only with lathies, there was no

occasion for the appellant to use the firearms.

5. In any case, it is submitted that, the appellant has fired

two rounds. As such, it cannot be said that he was entitled to

the benefit of right to private defence.

6. From the judgment of the High Court, it would be clear

that though, according to the prosecution, the place of

2 occurrence was near the field of Resham Singh, the High

Court has found the same to be unreliable. It found that the

place of occurrence was the house of the appellant. Not only

this, the High Court, in paragraph 9, observed thus:-

“The defence version is more probable where Jasbir Singh appellant has stated that it was the comnplainant party who attachked him and his companions and he fired in self defence. Appellants have explained their conduct, that everything was done in self defence. It has been admitted by both the witnesses Sohan Singh PW-10 and Jaswant Singh PW-11 that the land was in possession of the appellants and they are the ones who had sown the crop. Complainant in fact are the aggressors.”

7. We are of the view that the High Court, after finding

that the complainant was the aggressor party, could not have

convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

8. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the

State that the complainant party were armed only with

lathies and, as such, the appellant could not have used the

firearms is concerned; as to how a person responds to a

situation would differ from person to person. It cannot be

said that a person alarmed by aggression by 30/35 persons

3 and that too armed with lathies would not use firearm in the

self-defence.

9. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the

conviction under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable. The

appellant was entitled to benefit of Exception 2 of Section

300 IPC.

10. We, therefore, find that the conviction under Section

302 IPC is not sustainable and the same is converted to Part-

I of Section 304 IPC. Insofar as the conviction under Section

307 IPC is concerned, the same warrants no interference and

is confirmed.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent-State fairly states

that the appellant has undergone sentence of about five

years.

12. We find that the sentence already undergone by the

appellant would meet the ends of justice for offences

punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and Section 307

IPC. Thus, the appellant is sentenced to the period of

incarceration already undergone.

13. The bail bonds shall stand discharged. 4

14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the above

terms.

15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..............................J [B.R. GAVAI]

..............................J [VIKRAM NATH]

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 19, 2023

5