LexSATBIR @ LAKHA versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 675 SATBIR @ LAKHA v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1718 of 2009) OCTOBER 18, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 307 and 324 rlw 34 - Attempt to murder - Voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapon or C means - Common intention - A-2 was responsible for collection and spending of the donation amount for celebration of the temple festival - Members of the complainant party who were also involved in the said celebration felt that entirety of the donation amount collected D should be spent out and it should not go to the personal benefit of any one individual with whom the collection was entrusted - Quarrel ensued between the complainant party and the accused party led by A-2 which allegedly led to an armed assault by the accused party - Knife injuries caused to PW5- E complainant and two others PWs 6 and 7 - Courts below acquitted A-3 but convicted A-1 u/s.307 and 324 and A-2 and A-4 u/ss. 307 and 324 rlw s.34 - Conviction of A-2 under challenge before Supreme Court - Held: Apparently appellant! A-2 was enraged by the questioning of his authority about the F collection made and the balance amount available with him, and feeling insulted he threw a challenge to the complainant party which ended in the fateful occurrence - No fault in the action of injured witnesses in throwing brickbats which caused some minor injuries on the appellant!A-2 and the other G accused - It is quite natural that when the injured witnesses were attacked and A-1 had come there with a knife by which he caused the injuries and the remaining accused other than A-3 aided him to cause such injuries which intention was 675 H 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R. A gathered at the moment of the occurrence, the injured witnesses made every attempt to save themselves by throwing brickbats available on the road - On overall consideration of the evidence available on record- ocular as well as documentary, it is clear that the conviction of appel/ant/A-2 B under ss. 307, 324 rlw 34 was justified. The appellant/A-2 and A-3 were in charge of the collection of donations for celebration of the religious/ temple festival 'Ravi Dass Jayanti'. After the celebration was over, members of the complainant party questioned C about the donation collected by the appellant/A-2 and A- 3, the amounts spent for the celebration and demanded for spending the balance amount for the benefit of the temple. D It is the case of the prosecution that the accused · party was enraged by the same and subsequently, one evening, when PW-5(complainant), PWs 6 and 7 along with others were assembled in a tailor shop, the accused party led by the appellant/A-2 questioned the authority of E the complainant party in having raised an issue about the balance amount collected by way of donation; that thereafter quarrel er:isued between the complainant party and the accused party and in the course thereof, A-1 inflicted knife injuries first on PW-5 and thereafter on PW- F 6 and PW-7 after their mobility was restricted by the other accused. The trial Court acquitted A-3, however, as far as the other three accused, it held that on their part there was a pre-meditated intention in common to injure the members G of the complainant party with a weapon, and therefore convicted them - A-1 under Sections 307 and 324 IPC; and the appellant/A-2 and A-4 under Sections 307 and 324 r/w 34 IPC. In appeal, the conviction of A-1, appellant/A-2 and A-4 was confirmed by the High Court. The appellant/ H SATBIR @ LAKHA v. STATE OF HARYANA 677 A-2 challenged his conviction before this Court by filing A the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The trial Court rightly ventured to examine which party was the real aggressor in order to find out B whether the fault lay on the appellant party or the complainants. While examining the said issue, the trial Court made an honest attempt and noted certain important features. No contra evidence or material was placed before the Court to take a different view than what C was held by the trial Court. [Paras 12, 13 and 14] [685-8- C; 687-E-F] 2. Though it was claimed that the knife injury sustained by the appellant/A-2 was at the hands of PW6, 0 it was for the appellant/A-2 to have led necessary evidence in support of the said claim. Except the ipse dixit of the appellant/A-2 throwing
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.