LexBHANWAR SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 1 BHANWAR SINGH & ORS. A v. STATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 300 of 2007) MAY 16, 2008 B [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860: Sections 3021149, 147, 148, 3071149 - Unlawful assem- bly - Armed attack - Causing grievous injuries - Death of c one person and injuries to many - PWs injured witnesses - Accused convicted and sentenced to various terms of impris- onment including life imprisonment - High Court not accept- ing some of the findings of Trial Court - On appeal, Held: It is not necessary to show which accused caused the fatal injury- D All the three accused liable for commission of the offence ex- ceeding their right of private defence - Exercise of right of private defence can never be vindictive or malicious .:.... Theory of free fight excluded - Common object proved - Four ac- cused held guilty of s.304 Part I !PC - Some of the accused E though did not take part in causing death of the deceased, were present and participated in abuse and scuffles - Hence guilty under s.3231149 /PC and also guilty of individual act on their part - Sentenced accordingly - One accused acquitted " since he did not commit any avert act. F S. 96 - Right of private defence - Extent of and limita- tions - Discussed. Appellants along with A2, AS, A7 (all the three since deceased) were held guilty of committing offences pun- G ishable under Sections 302/149, 147, 148 and 307/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/- each .. Accused A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-16, A-17 and A-18 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R. A were found guilty also under s.148 and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- each. While holding the accused guilty, the Sessions Judge B opined that there had been a free fight between the par- ties; that the prosecution had not disclosed the entire genesis of the occurrence; that the injuries on the per- son of three accused had not been explained by the pros- ecution; and that all the witnesses of the prosecution side attempted to conceal the injuries caused to Mohan Singh, c Manohar Singh and Laxman Singh. In the impugned judgment, the High Court held that there was no free fight between the parties; that the plea of self-defence was not available to the appellants; that D the appellants were aggressors as they came heavily armed to the house of complainant Jaswant Singh and started the assault; that the injuries to the three accused were caused in the right of private defence of the com- plainant party; and that Accused Nos. 16, 17 and 18, who E were arrested later on, were not prejudiced by non-ex- .r amination of the witnesses in their presence having re- •' . gard to th.e provision of Section 465 of the Code of Crimi- .. nal Procedure. In these appeals the main issue involved related to F the extent of right of private defence. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Jaswant Singh and Bhom Singh (father and son) do not appear to be belonging to any group. G They merely took a lead to pacify both the groups. It is only when Jaswant Singh was injured and accused per- sons started assaulting him and some others, Bhom )r Singh (PW-19) caused an injury to Kuber Singh. Kuber Singh could have exercised his right of private defence; H but he not only fired a shot at Bhom Singh (PW-19), he y BHANWAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF 3 M.P. fired shots which had hit Prem Singh and three shots A which had hit Hakam Singh in his stomach, legs and hands. It is not correct that Bhom Singh (PW-19) had caused injuries to any other person. Kuber Singh evi- dently used more force than needed. [Para 35] [24-C-E] 1.2 Apart from Mohan Singh, other persons were also 8 armed with guns, namely, Kripal Singh (A-16), Bhupendra Singh (A-17) and Kuber Singh. It may be true that Hakam Singh had not taken the name of Bhupendra Singh (A- 17), but all other witnesses, namely, Jaswant Singh, Shivnath Singh, Ram Pratap Singh, Rajendra Singh and C Bhupendra Singh (PW-21) categorically stated that he had also fired at Prem Singh. His name also was mentioned in the First Information Report. It is not necessary to show that who had caused fatal injury. All of them had fired at Prem Singh, and he had suffered a large number of inju- D ries. Such injuries caused to him were likely to cause his death. All the accused persons, namely,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.