LexNAFE SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 873 NAFE SINGH A V. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2008) APRIL 23, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: • c ss. 300, Exception 4, and s. 304 (Part-II) - Dispute between two groups regarding agricultural land - Accused group assaulting complainant party in which one person of the other group died and two others received injuries - Trial court convicting all the three accused u/ss 302, 324 and 323 rlw s.34 /PC - High Court convicting two of the accused u/ss 324 D and 323 /PC and sentencing them to the period already undergone and convicting the third uls 302 /PC -Held: Appropriate conviction would be uls 304 (part-II) /PC - Appellant convicted accofdingly - Custodial sentence reduced to 7 years RI. E The appellant and two others were convicted and sentenced by the trial court u/ss 302, 324 and 323 r/w s. 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that when the complainant party was ploughing their fields, the three F accused armed with 'ballam' 'gandasi' and 'lathi' appeared on the scene and challenged them. The accused with their respective weapons attacked the brother of the complainant. When two persons tried to save him, they were also assaulted. Meanwhile some G ~ other persons reached the scene and the accused fled away. The trial court rejected the plea of free fight raised by the accused. On appeal the High Court conve ed ~. 1e conviction of two of the accused to s.324 and 32.. • C 873 H 87 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 6 S.C.R. A and considering the period already undergone set them at liberty. The conviction of the third accused u/s 302 was maintained. In the instant appeal by the accused, the plea of free fight was reiterated and it was submitted that in the 8 circumstances s.302 was not applicable. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: Keeping in view Exception 4 to s.300 IPC, it is to be noted that in some cases conviction is made in C terms of s.304 (part-I) IPC and in some cases conviction is made in terms of s.304 (part-II) IPC. Considering the facts of the instant case, the appropriate conviction would be u/s 304 (part-II) IPC instead of s.302 IPC. i:nds of justice would be met if the custodial sentence is D reduced to 7 years R.I. [Para 9 and 10) [879-E-G] E Ra_mkishan vs. State of Maharashtra. (2007) 3 SCC 89, relied on. Case Law Reference: (2007) 3 sec 89 relied on para 7 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2008. From the Judgment & Order dated 25.10.2007 of the High F Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Nos. 87- DB/2005. K.G. Bhagat, Manju Bhagat, Monohar Singh Bakshi, Vineet Bhagat and Debasis Misra for the Appellant. G Rajeev Gour 'Naseem' and Naresh Bakshi for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is H to the judgment of a Division of the Punjab and Haryana High • • - NAFE SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. 875 2. Three accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 A (in short "IPC") for allegedly intentionally causing the death of B Bhanwar Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") in furtherance of their common intention and causing injuries to ' Mukesh (PW.8) and his brother Vinod. The trial court found the accused persons guilty and convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 324 read with Section C 34 IPC. The appeal was filed by all the three convicted accused persons. Criminal Revision No.474/2005 was filed by the complainant. 3. The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: 4. On 30.5.2002, Kanwar Singh (PW.4) complainant along D with his brother, namely, deceased Bhanwar Singh was working in the fields known by the name ofYamuna belt. Ram Phal son of Sugna, resident of Goela Khurd, was also ploughing his fields. Besides, the sons of the complainant, namely, Vinod and Mukesh, were also working in the field. At about 12 noon, E appellant Nafe Singh armed with a Ballam, Dheeraj armed with a Gandasi and Angrej Singh armed with a lathi, came to their fields and raised a lalkara that Bhanwar Singh be taught a lesson for ploughing the fields, whereafter Nafe Singh gave a Ballam blow to Bhanwar S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.