KULWANT SINGH versus AMARJIT SINGH AND TWO ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 07-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KULWANT SINGH 
v. 
AMARJIT SINGH AND TWO ORS. ETC. 
MARCH 7, 2000 
[S. SAGHIRAHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 307-Sentence of imprisonment and fine-
Inteiference with-Respondent sentence to five five years rigorous imprison-
A 
B 
ment and fine of Rs. 500 High Court reduced the sentence to three-and-half 
years already undergone-Held, High Court should not have inteifered with 
C 
the sentence of imprisonment-Further, in the circumstances of the case 
sentence of imprisonment as reduced by the High Court need not be 
inteifered with-Instead the sentence of fine be enhanced to Rs. 25,000. 
/ 
Criminal appeal-Disposal of-By the High Court-Two appeals aris-
ing out of the same accident resulting in cross sessions cases heard together-
D 
Non-application of mind to the facts of the case-Did not consider evidence led 
in the case-Merely appreciated the evidence and the reasoning recorded by the \ 
trial court-wst sight of relevant considerations which weigh with the court · 
while ·hearing criminal appeal against conviction and sentence-Thus, judg-
ment of High Court is not legal judgment in the eyes of law. 
E 
Cross tiring between the two groups resulted in the death of one 'SK' 
and injuries to others. First Information Report was lodged by one 'S' of 
one group and another Fm was lodged by the appellant who belongs to the 
other group. Respondent was convicted under section 307 IPC and section 
27 of the Arms Act. 'J' was convicted under the Arms Act. T~eriifne F 
accused were acquitted. Respondent and 'J' filed an appeal against their 
conviction and sentence. State filed an appeal against acquittal of nine 
other accused. High Court maintained conviction of the respondent but 
reduced his sentence to the period already undergone. It acquitted J. 
Appeal tiled by the State was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 
G 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Once the High Court has held the respondent guilty of 
an offence under section 307 Indian Penal Code it should not have inter-
fered with the sentence of imprisonment. High Court reduced the sentence ll 
141 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
of imprisonment to the period of three-and-half years already undergone. 
In the circumstances of the case though the sentence of imprisohment as 
reduced by the High Court cannot be interfered with yet the sentence of 
fine can be enhanced to Rs. 25,000 and in default of payment of fine to 
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. [147-E] 
B 
c 
·n 
E 
F 
dQ 
2.1. The two appeals, which arose out of the same incident and 
resulted in cross sessions cases, could not have been heard together. High 
Court did not consider the evidence led in the case and merely appreciated 
the evidence and the reasoning recorded by the trial court. It was expected 
of the High Court to apply its mind to the facts of the case and to find out 
who was the aggressor; whether there was right of private defence and if 
so was it exceeded in the circumstances of the case. High Court unfortu-
nately lost sight of the relevant considerations which weigh with the court 
while hearing criminal appeal against conviction and sentence. Thus, the 
impugned judgment of the High Court is not legal judgment in the eyes t>f 
law. [145-E; 146-G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 258 
of 2000 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.2.98 of the Rajasthan High Court 
in S.B. Crl.A Nos. 458 and 489 of 1996. 
Harinder Mohan Singh and AP. Chhabra for the Appellant. 
Pallav Shishodia, AP. Medh and Ms. Sandhya Goswami for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. W ADHWA, J. We condone the delay and grant leave to appeal 
in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 510 of 1999. Special Leave Appeal 
(Criminal) No. 511 of 1999 is, however, dismissed. 
By judgment dated April 4, 1996 District and Sessions Judge, Sri 
Ganganagar convicted Amarjit Singh and Jagsir Singh. Amarjit Singh was 
convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced 
to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and also fine of Rs.500 and in default 
of payment of fine, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 
Amarjit Singh was also convicted for an offence under Section 27 of the Arms 
I 
,. 
\ 
'· 
KULWANT SJNGH v. AMARJIT SJNGH [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 
143 
Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years 
and fine of Rs.200 and in default of payment

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