PETITIONER: AMRIK SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT04/02/1993 BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) SINGH N.P. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 320 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. There are four appellants, namely, Amrik Singh (A-1),
Ajaib Singh (A2), Jit Singh (A-4) and Kewal Singh (A-6).
They along with four others were tried for offences
punishable under Sections 148, 302, 325, 324, 352 read with
Section 149 IPC. The trial court convicted all of them.
The trial court acquitted them of the murder charge but
convicted Amrik Singh (A-1) under Section 325 IPC and
sentenced him to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine
of Rs 500. Ajaib Singh (A-2) is convicted under Section 324
IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a
fine of Rs 250. Jit Singh (A-4) is convicted under Section
325 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay
a fine of Rs 500. Kewal Singh (A-6) is convicted under
Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and
to pay a fine of Rs 1000. The appeal preferred by them was
dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal. The case
relates to an occurrence which took place on June 2, 1979 at
about 8 p.m. in Village Kotla in Faridkot District. The
accused, the material witnesses and the deceased, Amarjit
Singh, belonged to the same village. According to the
prosecution, there was
321
enmity between the prosecution party and the accused party.
On the day of occurrence at about 8 p.m. Mukhtiar Singh (PW
11) and his brother Pritam Singh (PW 12) were present in
their house situated on the circular path of Village Kotla.
Kewal Singh, Ajaib Singh and Amrik Singh accused came there
armed with gandasas and dang and started abusing PW II and
PW 12. Pritam Singh armed with a sela and Mukhtiar Singh
armed with a dang came out and protested as to why the
accused were abusing them. Then a quarrel ensued and it is
stated that in the meantime the other accused also joined
them armed with various weapons and Ajaib Singh exhorted his
companions to attack the deceased. So saying, he opened the
attack and dealt a gandasa blow from the reverse side on the
head of Mukhtiar Singh. Amrik Singh gave a gandasa blow
from the sharp side on the left shoulder of Pritam Singh (PW
12). Jit Singh inflicted a gandasa blow from its sharp side
on the left shoulder of Pritam Singh and Kewal Singh struck
a gandasa blow from its sharp side on the head of Amarjit
Singh, deceased. During the same occurrence, it is alleged
that Madan Singh (A-5) dealt a blow on PW 13 and Kewal Singh
(A-6) gave a gandasa blow from its sharp side on his head.
Ajaib Singh and Jit Singh gave one gandasa blow each to
Sadhu Singh (PW 15) and the accused are alleged to have
dealt some more blows on these witnesses. The further case
is that during the course of the same occurrence, PW 11 and
PW 12, by way of self-defence caused injuries to Ajaib
Singh, Darshan Singh and Amrik Singh. The accused after
causing the injuries left the place with their weapons. PW
11 and PW 12 along with other injured persons including
deceased Amarjit Singh were shifted to Civil Dispensary,
Baghapurana. They were examined by the doctor. As the
condition of the deceased and others was serious, they were
referred to C.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana. The deceased
Amarjit Singh was examined by PW 18 and was treated but he
died on June 5, 1979 at 10.30 p.m. The other injured persons
were also treated and X-rayed. The injured accused were
also examined by the doctor and on Amrik Singh (A-1) there
were 12 injuries including some incised wounds. Ajaib Singh
had 7 injuries including incised wounds and Darshan Singh
accused also had 7 injuries. Inquest was held on the dead
body of Amarjit Singh and the same was sent for postmortem.
PW 19, Dr Parmodh Kumar, who conducted the postmortem found
a lacerated wound on the scalp and incised wounds on the
front area of the head. He also found that the blood was
clotted. He opined that the injuries were sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. After completion
of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. The plea
of the accused has been that the deceased and his companions
were aggressors and inflicted injuries on the accused
persons and they in exercise of their right of self-defence
inflicted injuries on the deceased as well as the PWs. The
trial court after due consideration of the evidence held
that the time and place of the occurrence and the
participation of both sides in the occurrence is not in
dispute and that the circumstances would indicate that it
was a case of free fight and therefore each of the
appellants would be liable for his individual acts.
2. So far as the attack on the deceased is concerned, the
trial court held that the doctor could not give a
satisfactory answer whether the two injuries on his head
individually were sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death and, when the lacerated injury which
proved to be fatal was not attributed to any one of the
appellants and, therefore, the other injury which were
attributed to Kewal Singh cannot by itself be sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to
322
cause death and in that view of the matter convicted Kewal
Singh under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI
for 7 years.
3. So far as the other three appellants are concerned,
they are convicted for their individual acts for causing
injuries to Pritam Singh and Sadhu Singh. The remaining
four accused were also convicted under Section 323 IPC but
they were released on probation of good conduct. The High
Court, however, confirmed the convictions and sentences.
4. In this appeal Mr U.R. Lalit, learned senior counsel,
submits that this is a clear case where the accused were
entitled to right of self-defence and the evidence
sufficiently indicates that the prosecution party was the
aggressor and at any rate the version put forward by the
defence looks more probable and in these circumstances of
the case, all the accused should have been given benefit of
doubt. He also submits that Kewal Singh (A-6) is alleged to
have inflicted only one incised injury whereas the evidence
is that apart from him Amrik Singh (A-1) is said to have
inflicted an incised injury but the medical evidence says
that there is only one incised injury and in such a
situation Kewal Singh alone cannot be held responsible for
the said incised injury and consequently he cannot be
convicted for inflicting that injury. We see no force in
this submission. The evidence of Mukhtiar Singh (PW-11) is
corroborated by the first information report given by him in
which he categorically mentioned that it is only Kewal Singh
who inflicted the incised injury and there is no mention of
participation by Amrik Singh. It is only during the trial
that the witness has improved but that by itself is not a
ground to hold that Kewal Singh had not inflicted the
incised injury. The other submission is that Jit Singh (A-
4) was not in the company of other accused but he only
joined them later, therefore, he cannot be held to have
participated in the free fight and it could be that in
exercise of right of private defence, namely, to save the
co-accused from being attacked by the deceased party, he
inflicted injuries. So far as his case is concerned that he
must be given the benefit of right of self-defence, we are
unable to accept this contention. The whole occurrence
started at the spur of moment and all the accused joined and
there was a verbal quarrel which resulted in fighting and
all of them participated. Therefore, the case of Jit Singh
cannot be separated.
5. Both the courts have rightly held that the time and
place of occurrence and the presence of all the accused as
well as the PWs and the deceased are not in dispute. It was
contended before both the courts below that the accused were
entitled to right of self-defence. This submission was
examined by the courts below and having regard to the facts
and circumstances particularly, that the occurrence took
place near the house of the accused, this plea has been
rejected and we see no ground to come to a different
conclusion. The High Court, further held that this is a
case of free fight. In coming to such a conclusion, the
High Court has taken into consideration the fact that the
accused as well as the deceased and PWs appeared at the
place of occurrence armed with weapons and the quarrel took
place immediately. This is a question of fact which does
not warrant any interference. The question as to who
commenced it first may not be much relevant and it has also
been held in a number of cases that the participants should
be liable for their individual acts. In this view of the
matter, we have to examine the plea of each of the accused.
We may, however, mention that in a case of free fight, the
question of unlawful assembly is not ruled out.
323
But in arriving at the common object of the unlawful
assembly in a free fight it cannot be held with certainty
that if one of the individuals inflicts a serious injury
then it would be a common object of all members of the
unlawful assembly. Mere formation of an assembly with a
view to fight will be unlawful assembly but in the instant
case having regard to the convictions that have been awarded
we do not want to express any opinion whether there was an
unlawful assembly as such. We also do not have any material
as to what happened to the case which was filed by the
accused by way of complaint. In this view of the matter, we
would examine only the individual acts in respect of which
convictions are recorded. Kewal Singh (A-6) attacked the
deceased and inflicted an injury with a sharp-edged weapon.
The High Court has held that he could not be held
responsible for the other injury which was inflicted by a
blunt weapon and which proved to be fatal. In this view of
the matter, Kewal Singh was convicted under Section 326 IPC.
Having regard to the circumstances under which free fight is
said to have taken place, we think the sentence of seven
years RI is rather severe. Coming to the other appellants,
namely, Amrik Singh, Ajaib Singh and Jit Singh, they are
convicted under Sections 325 and 324 IPC. Amrik Singh and
Ajaib Singh accused also received a number of injuries.
Accordingly, their sentences are to be reduced. In the
result, we confirm the conviction of Amrik Singh (A-1) under
Section 325 IPC but reduce the sentence to one year RI but
the sentence of fine with default clause is confirmed.
Ajaib Singh (A-2) is convicted under Section 324 IPC which
is confirmed but sentence is reduced to six months’ RI but
the sentence of fine with default clause is confirmed. The
conviction of Jit Singh (A-4) under Section 325 IPC is
confirmed but the sentence is reduced to one year RI but the
sentence of fine with default clause is confirmed. Now
coming to the case of Kewal Singh (A-6), his conviction
under Section 326 IPC is confirmed but his sentence of seven
years’ RI is reduced to three years RI but the fine of Rs
1000 with default clause is confirmed. Subject to the above
modifications, this appeal is dismissed.
324