AVTAR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2012] 10 S.C.R. 790 · Decided: 10-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2012) 10 S.C.R. 790 
AVTAR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1475 of 2010) 
OCTOBER 10, 2012 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 325, 326, 148 and 149 -
C Murder - Common object - Allegation that armed assault by 
accused party on members of the complainant party led to 
death of PW10's father and extensive cut injuries to number 
of other persons - Evidence of injured witnesses, PWs 10, 11 
and 13 - Conviction of accused-appellants - Justification -
D Held: Justified - The whole edifice of the crime related to a 
land dispute between DW2 and PW11 - The incident occurred 
while the accused party was on way to the disputed land in 
question to harvest crop raised by PW11 - The accused party 
was the aggressor- Every member of the accused party must 
E have been fully aware that having regard to the fact that 
dangerous weapons were in their possession, and that they 
had an axe to grind against PW-11, there was every likelihood 
of the offence of that magnitude being the ultimate outcome 
- The manner of causing injury on PW10's father also goes 
F 
to show that all of them were determined to ensure that he and 
the other injured persons did not escape from their assault -
PW10's father was hit on his head and every vital part of the 
body - Chopping of the torso of both his legs was only to 
ensure that he had no way to escape from the gruesome attack 
- When appellants proceeded towards the disputed land with 
G arms such as gandasi and kirpans it amply disclosed their 
mindset to deal with the complainant party sternly against 
whom they had a definite grudge relating to the disputed land 
- Interim stay order passed against the accused party (by the 
H 
790 
AVTAR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
791 
civil Court in the suit filed by PW11) was extended on that very A 
date, which was a cause for prejudice against the complainant 
party - Everyone amongst the accused party was standing at 
the spot with a clear mindset to assault the members of the 
complainant party - It was a clear case of pre-meditation and 
there was common object - Plea of self-defence was wholly 
B 
a make-believe version - Offence found proved against the 
appellants squarely fell u/s.302- Punishment imposed on the 
appellants for the said offence as well as the other charges 
levelled against them was fully established. 
Witnesses - Large number of witnesses - All witnesses c 
need not be examined - Held: Where there were several 
persons stated to have witnessed the incident and the 
prosecution examined those witnesses who were able to 
depose the nature of offence committed more accurately 
leaving no room for doubt about the involvement of the 
D 
accused in the occurrence and the extent of their involvement 
with specific overt act and also were able to withstand the 
cross-examination by maintaining the sequence and the part 
played as originally stated, it would be wholly irrelevant and 
unnecessary to multiply the number of witnesses to repeat the 
E 
same version. 
The prosecution case was that the accused persons 
attacked members of the complainant party with various 
dangerous weapons thereby causing the death of 
F 
PW10's father and serious injuries to number of other 
persons. The trial court convicted all the accused under 
ss.302, 325, 326, 148 and 149 IPC and sentenced them to 
rigorous imprisonment for three years. In appeal, the High 
Court acquitted three of the accused, A-1, A-3 and A-10 
G 
but confirmed the conviction of the other accused (A-2, 
A-4 to A-9) i.e. the appellants, and therefore the instant 
appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
H 
792 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD:1.1. The whole edifice of the crime related to 
a land dispute between DW2 and PW11. According to 
DW-2 at the behest of PW-11 he purchased the property, 
that he had perfected the title over it, yet PW-11, under 
the guise of his continued right to possession was 
B causing hindrance to the ownership of DW-2. As the 
issue was brewing over a considerable length of time, 
prior to the year 2003, that on the fateful date it transpired 
that in the Civil Suit preferred by PW-11, the interim order 
granted earlier in favour of PW-11 by way of stay was 
c extended by the Civil Court. As per the narration of 
events, it was disclosed that the parties returned back to 
their respective homes in the village in the evening while 
PW-10, PW-11 and PW1 O'

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.