MOOL CHAND ETC. ETC. versus JAGDISH SINGH BEDI AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 425 · Decided: 31-03-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
MOOL CHAND ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
JAGDISH SINGH BEDI AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
MARCH 31, 1992 
[S. ~TNAVEL PANDIAN AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.) 
B 
Indian Penal Code: 
Sections 120B, 302, 307, 324-fligh Court meticulously examining 
evidence--Recording its own finding on credibility of witnesses-R.easonable C 
doubt as to circumstances under which victim received fatal shot-Held no 
interference with High Court order called for. 
Kashmiri Lal, Madan Lal, Babu Ram, Jagdish Singh Bedi and Prem 
Pal were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge on charges under sections 
120(8), 302, 307 and 324 read with sections 147 and 149 I.P.C. on the D 
ground'that they entered into criminal conspiracy on 17.11.1972 to commit 
the murder to Ramesh Chand and others. 
The prosecution case was that Kasturi Lal and Madan Lal were 
brothers, that the three others Jagdish Singh Bedi, Prem Pal and Babu E 
~m were friends and associates of these brothe1·s. Mool Chand and 
Jagdish Chand were brothers. Ramesh Chand, the deceased was the son 
of Jagdish Chand. Kashmiri Lal on the one hand and Mool Chand on the · 
other hand were enemies and there had been complaints and counter-com-
plaints and other litigations between these two g1·oups. Kashmiri Lal was 
F 
provided with a bodyguard Jaipal Singh, PW-17. 
Kiran Prabha, daughter of Kewal Kishore, another brother of Mool 
Chand was getting married ~n 17.11.72 and the marriage party had come 
from Delhi. Mool Chand, Amrit lal, Subhash Chand, Ramesh Chand and 
Agya Ram were accompanying the party. Ramesh Chand and Amrit Lal G 
were heading the marriage procession. 
When the barat party reached the tonga stand near the residence of 
Dharamvir Singh Sehrawat, an Advocate, Prem Pal and Jagdish Singh 
Bedi came there on a motorcycle driven by Prem Pal and stopped the H 
425 
426 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
motorcycle on the roadside in front of the marriage procession. Simul-
taneously, an ambassador car in which Kashmiri Lal, Babu Ram and 
Madan Lal were sitting also stopped behind the motorcycle. Kashmiri Lal 
and Babu Ram were ar~ed with guns while Jagdish Singh Bedi was armed 
with cudgel. The accused got down from the car and the motorcycle. 
B 
Kashmiri Lal fired with his gun and Ramesh Chand got injured. Babu 
Ram fired simultaneously causing injury to Amrit Lal. Both Ramesh 
Chand and Amrit Lal fell down, and injury was caused to Subhash Chand 
and Mool Chand. Ramesh Chand died in the hospital on 18.11.1972 and 
Mool chand and Subhash Chand were treated at the District Hospital. 
C 
The police party on receiving telephonic message from P.W.5 Balbir 
D 
Singh reached the scene. They recovered the motorcycle with a bag hang-
ing on its handle, a bag of cartridges and two empty cartridges lying on 
the ground. Investigation took place and the accused were arrested and 
-y 
sent for trial. 
At the trial, 20 witnesses were examined by the Prosecution. Mool 
Chand (PW.I) Subhash Chand (PW.4), Agya Ram (PW.6) and Jai Pal 
Singh (PW. 7) were examined as eye witnesses. They supported the 
prosecution and narrated the prosecution version. 
E 
The accused set up their version on the incident in their state-
ment. According to them Madan Lal was going in a rickshaw at 9.00 P.M. 
and when he reached near the house of the Advocate, Ramesh Chand 
abused him and fired a number of shots at him. Kashmiri Lal happened 
to reach there at that time. The deceased and others tried to assault him 
F 
with a danda. He fired at them in the exercise of the right of private 
defence. 
-
--
-
The trial court accepted tlw prosecutioa mdetlce, rejected the 
defence version and recorded conviction. 
f 
G 
The accused appealed to the High Court, which set aside the find-
ings of the Trial Court and acquitted the accused. The High Court was 
not prepared to believe that Madan Lal would have been accidentally hit 
by as many as two or three shots fired by two of his companions as it 
appears to be highly unnatural and improbable. It held that if the accused 
H had conspired to commit the murder and all of them had proceeded to 
MOOL CHAND v. J.S. BEDI 
427 
~ 
the place of occurrence from the house of Kashmiri Lal, it is difficult to A 
understand why Kashmiri Lal and Babu Ram who were armed with gun 
did not immediately fire at Ramesh Chand who was admittedly in front 
of the marriage procession. 
The State aggrieved by the order of acquittal preferred three ap-
peals, to this Court, and the complainant, Mool Chand filed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.