JAI SINGH versus SARWAN SINGH & OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 811 · Decided: 14-11-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
} 
). 
' 
• 
JAi SINGH 
•• 
SARWAN SINGH & OTHERS 
' November 14, 1983 
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 
\ 
811 
Criminal Proceedings-Appeal against conviction-Accused cannot be 
acquitted without considering evidence on record. . 
' 
The respondents were convicted and sentenced for committing n1urder 
and other offence$. 
The deceased and the respondents, who respectively 
belonged to the Rajput and the Harijan factions of the village, bad a dispute 
over a piece of land which had been decided in favour of the Rajputs by a 
final order of the lligh Court in second appeal. When the respondents' appeal 
against conviction in the criminal case came up for hearing, the H~gh Court 
took the view that 'the matter could be settled by a compromise' and invited the 
Harijans and Rajput panc~ayats of the village to appear before it and, ulti~ 
mately, called for the papers of the second appeal decided earlier and passed an 
order to the effect that, as agreed between the parties, t'he claiin of the Harijcins 
for four kanals of land was allowed. Finding that some.of the affected parties 
were not served, the High Court directed that if any unserved party had a 
grievance, it could apply for review of the judgn1ent. After re-disposing Of the 
second appea'l relating tO the d.isputc over land in the manner stated above, the 
High Court took up the criminal appeal for hearing and, without considering 
the evidence before it, delivered a short judgmellt acquitting the respondents. 
Remanding the appeal, 
HELD : It is impossibIC to appreciate hoW the High Court could dispose 
of the criminal appeal in this e~traordinary fashion. It 'is obvious that the 
High Court had made up its mind to :.1cquit the accused Without considering 
the evidence before it. Finding that the offence of murder cannot be com-
pounded, the High Court took the facile course of acquitting the accused who, 
by a considered judgment, wore convicted by the trial Court. (814 C·DJ 
The judgment of the High Count shows how important it is for the judges 
to observe the norms laid d~wn by law. for dispensing j~stice. •JustiCe under the 
tree' or 'panchayat justice' have advanta&es of their own, but they cannot be 
confUsed with justice accord.ins to the Chancellor's foot. [812 FJ 
CRIMINAL APP&l;LATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. ~62 
of 1983. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
I 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• 
G 
H 
812 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1984] l S.C.R. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 29th July, '1982 of 
the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal 
Appeal No. 78-DB/80. 
Prem Malhotra for the Appellant. 
R.K. Garg and D.K. Garg for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
I 
CHANDRACHUD, C. J. Thirteen persons were sentenced to life 
imprisonment by the Jea'rned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, 
under section 302 read with settion 149 of the Penal Code. 
For 
other offences connected with the main offence of murder, they were 
• 
sentenced to lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment. The charge 
i. 
against th~ accused is that they committed the murder of one Dhian 
Singh and caused injuries to six others on June 6, 1980. 
The accused are Harljans while the deceased Dhian Singh 
belonged to the Rajput faction of the village of Sultanpur. There 
were disputes between the two groups over a piece of land. The 
Harijans filed a suit to establish their title to that land but they lost 
that suit, having taken it upto the High Court in Second Appeal 
Proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
were instituted against the two factions, which also the Rajputs 
won. 
The judgment which the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 
declared in this case show~ how important it is for Judges to observe 
the norms laid down by Jaw for dispensing justice. 'Justice under 
the tree' or the 'Panchayat justice' have advantages of their own, 
but they cannot be confused with justice according to the Chancel· 
]or's foot. If anything, the strange procedure adopted by the High 
Court in this case has only succeeded in giving a bad name to a 
useful innovation which, if tried cautiously and with circumspection, 
will take away at least a frivolous chunk of litigation which clogs the 
wheels of justice in Courts of law. 
When the appeal filed by the accused came up for hearing 
before the High Court, it took the view that "the matter could be 
settled by a compromise". It invited· the Harijan Panchayat 
and the 
Raj

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