LexBHAGEL SINGH versus SWARAN SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
.a
BHAOEL SINGH
v.
SW ARAN SINGH AND ORS.
JANtJARX 22, 1992
{KULDIP SJNGH AND R.M. SAHA!, 11.]
· Jndlan Penal Codlt.1860.
Ss. JI, 302-Free fight between rival partles.,...-Two persons shot
dead-"-Whether participants respo11Stble for their individual acts.
C Code of Criminal Proced11re, 1973.
S. 31 ~tatement of acC11Sed setting 11p a defencl!-Not supported
by other e.vldence-Medtcal evidence-Contrary .to defence
versioh--Credtbllity_of statement.
0
A dispute in respect of a drain to be dug thro"gb the fields of ·
the appellant-complainant led to a quarrel between tlie complainant
party 11nd the respondents no .. 1 to 4 (all brothers and arrayed as·
accused nos. 1 to 4 respectively, before the trial court) In which,
according to the prosecution case, respondent no. 4 received minor
Injuries ·whereas PW 14 on the complainant's side was seriously
E injured; and . while he was being taken to the city hospital in a
tractor trolly accused nos. 1 to 4, armed wiib rifle, kirpan; gun and
.ma respectively, challenged the complainant party near the village
bus stop. Thereupon deceased-I with some others got down from the
tractor and went forward to pursuade accused no. 1 to keep peace ·
while the latter fired two successive shots hitting deceased· I and .
F
deceased-2 who died on the spot. Accused no. j fired two shots
causing Injuries to two other persons of complainant party. Accused
no. 3 11..ave kirpan blows to PW 16 as also to PW 15, who was in the
grip of accused no. 4. In the incident, accused· no. I also received
Injuries. The case originated with the F.I.,R lodged by lhe omplaln-
. ant-appellant (PW II) and culminated In the trial of the four ac-
. G cused.
The prosecution produced the complainant-appellant (PW II)
· and.the three Injured (PW 14-16) as eye-witnesses.
Accused no. 1 in his statement under s .. 313 Cr. P.C. set up a
H
defence plea stating that. there was a minor quarrel between the
338
1
· BHAGEL SINGH"· SW ARAN SINGH
339
-.
par.ties in the fields in the presence of Sub-Divisional Officer and on A
bis intervention they returned to the house. After some time when
they ·came to know that the other party was causing injuries to
· accused no. 4, accused nos. 1 to 3 armed with rlOe, kirpan and gun
respectively, went there in order lo rescue him but .PW 15 caught
hold of accused no. 1 a.11d _ihe complainant started giving him Takwa
bfows while deceased-2 ·gave him stick-blows and in this process the B·
. riOe went off. He further stated that accused nos. 3-4 also suffered
injuries.
The trial court, accepting the eye-witness testim.ony and re-
jecting the "defence plea, held that the accused party was agressor
and as such charges against them were proved beyond reasonable c
doubt. It convicted a.ccused no. 1 under s. 302 IPC and each of
accused llOs. 2, 4 under s. 302 read with s. 34 IPC, and sentenced all
of them to imprisonment for life. They were also awarded sentence
of fine. The trial court further .convicted accused nos. 2 to 4 under
s. 307 & 325 IPC, 326 IPC, and 323 IPC respectively, and also
convicted all the accused under these sections with the aid of s. 34 D
lfC. Accused nos. 1 and 3 were also convicted under the Arins Act.
~·
On appeal, the High Court, accepting the defence version as ·
more probable tha,n that of the prosecution, reversed the findings of
the trial court,· silo.wed tbe appeal and acquitted all the accused.
Agg~leved, the complainant preferred the appeal by special.leave to E
this Court.
Accepting the appeal to the exle'!I of acquittal of accused no. 1
and setting it aside, thi.s Court,
HELi>: 1.1 The flildin11s of the High Court lhat-accused No.
F
~ .,
4 had been disabled by the time the inher accused, persons reached
the spot and 11 such the accused party was justlfie~ in acting in self-
defence; accused nos. 1 was Injured by the complalnaiti party be-
fore h.e had actually l!Sed his rifle; and that accused nos. 1 and 3
fired from a close range-apart from being contrary to the eye- a·
witness account, are belied by the medical evidence on retard ..
(345 GH; 346 C-D; 347A-B)
1.2 The doctor (PW 3) who examined respondent no. 4 found
simple injuries on his ·person. He nowhere stated that the accused
J,,
became disabled because of .the Injuries. The nature of the Injuries . H
was such that the conclusion reached by the High Court .was with·
out any basis. (pp. 34S H; 346 A)
340
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.