PETITIONER: RAM SINGH AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF HARYANA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/04/1998 BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
The appeal is directed against the judgment and order
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
242 DB/88. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the
appellants under Section 148 and Sections 324, 325 and 302
I.P.C. all read with Section 149 I.P.C. recorded by the
Sessions Court. Ambala in Sessions Case No. 22/87.
The appellants on the one hand and the two deceased –
Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh on the other hand were
distant collaterals and they had `baras’ situated side by
side on the outskirts of their village near the common
boundary of two `baras’ there was a `kikar’ tree and a
dispute was going on between them since long as regards
ownership of that tree. On June 5, 1987, at about 6.00 p.m.,
appellant No.5 – Swaran Kaur was seen by Bachittar singh and
Bachan singh standing near that kikar tree. they also saw
Avtar Singh – appellant No. 4 cutting branches of that tree.
So, Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh went to that `bara’ and
protested against Avtar Singh cutting the branches. That led
to an exchange of hot words and abuses followed by an
assault on Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh. According to
the prosecution case, seeing this assault on Bachittar singh
and Bachan Singh, Labh Singh – PW 17 and Pala Singh – PW 18
went to their rescue but they were also assaulted by Avtar
Singh, Ram Singh – appellant No. 1, Didar singh – appellant
No. 2 and Piara Singh – appellant No. 3 who had also by that
time reached that place armed with weapons. As a result of
that assault, Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh lost their
lives and Labh Singh and Bachan Sing received some injuries.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution had
examined three eye-witnesses, Labh Singh – pw 17, Pala Singh
– PW 18 and Kirpal Singh – 19. The trial court believed
their evidence and convicted all the five appellants. The
High Court accepting evidence of those eye-witnesses
confirmed the conviction of all the appellants.
Mr. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the appellants,
submitted that the High Court has failed to consider that
the eye-witnesses have not correctly stated the manner in
which the incident had started and also failed to appreciate
that Didar Singh – appellant No. 4 was falsely implicated.
He also submitted that the defence version that appellant
No. 1, 4 and 5 had acted in self-defence while causing
injuries to Bachittar Singh, Bachan Singh, Labh singh and
Pala singh, was more probable than the version given by the
eye witnesses. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent – State submitted that looking to the large
number of injuries received by Bachittar Singh and Bachan
Singh, the plea of self-defenceurged by the appellants
cannot be believed and was, therefore, rightly rejected by
the High Court. He also submitted that the evidence of Labh
Singh and Pala Singh is also corroborated by the evidence of
an independent-witnesse PW 19, Kirpal singh and therefore
the High Court was right in accepting their evidence and
confirming the conviction of appellants.
We have carefully gone through the evidence of the
three eye-witnesses. All of them have stated that seeing
appellant No. 5 – Swaran Kaur standing near the Kikar tree
and Avtar Singh – appellant No. 4 cutting branches of that
tree. Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh had gone to the
`bara’ and seeing an assault on them Labh Singh and Pala
Singh had rushed to that place. Though their evidence is
consistent, it is quite vague as regards the assault on
Bachittar Singh and Bachan singh. There were nine injuries
on the body of Bachittar singh but the eye-witnesses have
not explained how those nine injuries were caused to him.
They have only vaguely stated that Piara Singh and Ram Singh
assaulted their father with `sotis’ and therefore he had
fallen down. Both Labh Singh and Pala Singh stand
contradicted by their police statements, wherein they had
stated that they had not seen Avtar Singh cutting branches
of the tree. Their version before the court was that they
had heard noise of cutting branches of a tree. This
improvement made by the witnesses was not without any
purpose. No cut branches were noticed at the place of
occurrence. There is neither mention of it in the site plan
nor any cut wood was seized by the police. Both these
infirmities in their evidence create a serious doubt
regarding the reason why and the manner in which they had
gone to that `bara’. The evidence also discloses that during
this very incident Avtar Singh had received three injuries
and Swaran kaur had also received two blows. According to
the eye-witnesses, none from their side had carried any
weapon. An attempt was made by Labh singh before the court
to explain the injury on the hand of Swaran Kaur by stating
that Avtar Singh had aimed a blow at him, but he had
retreated with the result that it fell on Swaran Kaur. He
then stated that by that hands of Ram singh and then had
given some blows to Avtar Singh. This was again an
improvement made by him as he had not so stated in his
police statement. We fine that the eye-witnesses have
neither given the correct account regarding how the incident
started nor explained satisfactorily injuries caused to
appellant Nos. 4 and 5.
We also find that appellant No. 2 Didar Singh was in
all probability falsely involved by the eye-witnesses.
According to them. Didar Singh had run to that `bara’ with a
`Gandasa’ in his hand and given one blow with it to Bachan
Singh. `Gandasa’ is a sharp edged weapon. No. injury
possible by a sharp edged weapon was found on the person of
Bachan Singh.
All these infirmities in the evidence create a serious
doubt regarding the manner in which the incident had
happened. Appellant Nos.1,4 and 5 have admitted their
persence at the seen of the offence. They have explained why
Swaran kaur had gone to their `bara’ and how and under what
circumstances they had gone there and caused injuries to the
other side. What they have said appears to be more probable.
For all these reasons, conviction of the appellants cannot
be sustained.
We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the
judgment and order of the High Court and acquit the
appellants of all the charges levelled against them. Their
bail bonds are ordered to be cancelled.