LexJAGAT SINGH versus STATE OF H. P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 1 JAGAT SINGH A v. STATE OF H. P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2010) JANUARY 3,2011 B [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, P. SATHASIVAM AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: c s. 323 - Altercation between two sides over a land dispute - Free fight between them - One person on complainant's side died of 'Gatra' injuries inflicted by two out of the four accused - Complainant as also the accused received injuries - Acquittal by trial court - Appeal by State - One accused D died pending appeal - High Court convicting one of the accused u/ss 302 and 307 rlw s.34 /PC and acquitting the remaining two - HELD: Trial Court has rightly observed that a free fight had taken place in which_,members of both the sides got injured and one died - Considering the medical E evidence as regards the injuries sustained by the deceased, the complainant and the appellant-accused, and the --.:- statements of the accused u/s 313 CrPC that they inflicted injuries in self defence, trial court has rightly held that there was no requisite intention u/s 300 to kill the deceased - The F main blow in the chest of the deceased was given by the accused who died pending appeal and other two have been acquitted by the High Court - In the circumstances conviction of appellant is converted from s.302 to s. 323 - He has served about one year and seven months of sentence - Considering +-- his age being 82 years and other ailments, the period already G undergone would be sufficient - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313. The appellant (A-1) along with three others (A 2 to A- 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A 4) was prosecuted for commission of offences punishable u/ss 302/34 and 307/34 IPC. The prosecution case was that A-1 had a land dispute with P.W.1 and on the date of occurrence when the Assistant Settlement Officer accompanied by the Kanungo and the Patwari B went to the village to demarcate the land, A-1 and A-2 as also P.W.1 and his brother 'BS' r~ached there. An altercation between the parties took place upon .which the officials left the place. Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 took out their respective 'Gatras' and stabbed 'BS' on his chest c When P.W.1 tried to save his brother, he was also injured by both the accused by 'Gatras'. Accused A-3 and A-4 gave fist blows to 'BS'. Meanwhile the family members of the victims reached the scene and all the accused fled away. PW1 and 'BS' were taken to the hospital, but 'BS' 0 died on the way. The trial court acquitted all the accused. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, A-2 died. The High Court convicted and sentenced A-1 u/ss 302 and 307 read with s.34 IPC. The appeal filed by the State was dismissed as regards A-3 and A-4. E Aggrieved, A-1 filed the appeal. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: 1.1. The trial court has rightly observed that t a perusal of the statements of PWs 1 and 3 and the F 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. The statements recorded u/s 313, CrPC, more particularly, the statement of appellant-A-1 has thrown light as to in what G manner the fight ensued and ended. It is also clear and as narrated by the accused u/s 313 that both A1 and A2 happened to be baptized Sikhs and as per religious necessity they have _to carry 'Gatra' on their persons. In order to save themselves from the clutches of the deceased and the complainant, free blows were H JAGAT SINGH v. STATE OF H. P. 3 exchanged through 'Gatras'. It is also seen from the A evidence that the main blow on the chest of the deceased was caused by A-2 who died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. [para 7] [10-D-HJ 1.2. Considering the evidence of the doctor with 8 regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased, the complainant (PW-1) as well as the appellant/ accused and the evidence of the doctor (DW-1) who examined the accused, the ~rial court has rightly observed that the accused had no requisite intention to kill the deceased C as envisaged u/s 300 IPC. On account of meddling with · the enquiry conducted by the ASO, both the parties sustained injurie_s out of which the deceased succumbed to the injuries. [para 7] [10-H; 11-A-BJ 1.3. From the materials placed by t'1e prosecution as D well as the defence, taking-note of the fact that the trial , court ha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.