PETITIONER: PARAMJIT Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/05/2000 BENCH: Doraswami Raju, G.B.Pattanaik, S.N.Variava JUDGMENT:
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J
S. N. VARIAVA, J.
These two Criminal Appeals can be disposed of by this
common Judgment. Both the Appeals are filed against a
Judgment dated 11th September, 1997 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court. The High Court has convicted both the
Appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
The High Court has enhanced the fine from Rs.500/- to
Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment thereof the
Appellants are to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows: The case of
the prosecution is that on the evening of 18th August, 1993,
one Subhash and one Raj Pal, both residents of village
Babail had a quarrel. On 19th August, 1993, as the said
Subhash was returning from the fields, carrying a bundle of
jowar, Raj Pal with two other persons intercepted him and
gave him a beating. Subhash then complained to Ex-Sarpanch
of the village, who in-turn complained to the father of the
Raj Pal, one Bhalle Ram that his son should not behave in
this manner. On 20th August, 1993 there was again a heated
exchange between members of the family of these two persons
and there was threat, by one Arjun Singh (from the group of
the Appellants) that they would come with lathis. On 21st
of August, 1993, there was again an exchange of word between
family members of Raj Pal and the son of one of the accused
by name Mahiya. During this exchange the family members of
Raj Pal taunted the said Mahiya that they only give empty
threats and did not carry them out.
It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter at 7
a.m. on 21st of August, 1993 while Raj Pal along with Fateh
Singh, Ram Mehar and Ram Chander was sitting on a cot,
spread outside the house of Ram Mehar, Paramjit (the
Appellant in Crl. Appeal No.882/99) armed with a double
barrel gun (belonging to his father), persons by names Nafe
Singh, Molar, Randhir, Ram Singh (son of one Jailu), Arjun
Singh, Rajinder and one Raj Kumar armed with lathis,
Lachhman Singh, Bhalle Ram, Ram Singh (son of one Harbans)
armed with jailies, Jaswant Singh armed with a gandasi and
Mahinder Singh (the Appellant in Crl. Appeal No.883/99)
armed with a double barrel gun came there. Mahinder fired
from his .12 bore double barrel gun and the shot hit Ram
Chander. On hearing the shot certain other people came out
from the house. At that time Paramjit fired two shots from
his gun. Thereafter Mahinder Singh fired another shot from
his gun. The shots hit one Balkar, Om Pati and Ram Chander
on various parts of their bodies. It is the case of the
prosecution that Jaswant Singh then gave a gandasi blow on
the left arm of Raj Pal, and Molar gave a lathi blow on
head, left arm and nose of Raj Pal. It is the case of the
prosecution that several other injuries were caused to the
other members of the complainant party. In the fight which
took place Raj Pal and Ram Mehar caught hold of the gun of
the Appellant herein and broke it into pieces. Some
injuries were also caused to some of the accused. The
accused then ran away from the scene carrying their weapons.
It is the case of the prosecution that Ram Chander was
removed to the General Hospital at Panipat but he was
declared dead on arrival.
The FIR in this respect was registered at 10.55 a.m.
on the same day. Initially PW18, Sub Inspector Bhagat Singh
recorded a report in the daily diary register and recorded
the statement of PW 10 i.e. Ram Mehar. Thereafter PW 16
i.e. Sub Inspector Badan Singh, who was the SHO of Police
Station Sadar Panipat, took up the investigation from ASI
Bhagat Singh. He then made his way to village Babail and
examined the place of the occurrence and lifted blood
stained earth from two places and an empty shell of a .12
bore cartridge from the place of occurrence. He recorded
the statements of various witnesses and then arrested Ram
Singh (son of Jailu), Jaswant Singh, Randhir, Rajinder and
Sanjay. On 30th August, 1993, Mahinder (Appellant in Crl.
Appeal No. 883/99) was arrested. Pursuant to a disclosure
statement made by him, a double barrel gun along with two
fired cartridge cases still in the gun barrel was recovered.
On 31st August, 1993, Mahiya, Nafe Singh and Ram Singh son
of Harbans were arrested. As per their disclosure
statements the weapons used by them were recovered. On 18th
September, 1993, Arjun Singh, Bhalle Ram, Raj Kumar and
Lachhman were arrested. A jaili each was recovered as per
the disclosure statements made by Bhalle Ram and Lachhman.
A lathi each was recovered as per the disclosure statements
made by Arjun Singh and Raj Kumar. Paramjit Singh
(Appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 882/99) was arrested on 28th
September, 1993. A .12 bore double barrel gun was recovered
on the basis of a disclosure statement made by him. Molar
was arrested on 10th October, 1993. A lathi was recovered
as per the disclosure statement made by him.
The guns and the cartridges were sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory at Madhuban. According to the report
given by the Laboratory and supported by the evidence of PW
5, i.e. Dr. L.A. Kumar, the Deputy Director of the
Laboratory, the gun recovered from Paramjit singh was in a
broken condiiton but could be made serviceable after repairs
and the gun recovered from Mahinder Singh was serviceable.
The Report and evidence proved that the fired cartridge case
had been fired from these two guns and that the pellets
recovered from the dead-body of Ram Chander and the person
of Balkar Singh were Shot Gun Pellets, which could have been
fired from these guns.
All the above named persons, who were arrested, were
committed to the Session’s Court. As they pleaded not
guilty, they were brought to trial.
The prosecution examined 18 witnesses. In their
statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure Code, Mahinder Singh denied that he was present at
the spot and claimed that because of his good relations with
the family of Molar he had been falsely implicated. On the
other hand Paramjit Singh admitted the incidents but claimed
that it was the group of Ram Mehar who were causing injuries
to Molar and others and that he merely intervened to save
those persons. He claimed that he fired the shots to save
himself and his companions. He admitted that his gun was
broken to pieces.
The defence also examined three witnesses, who were
doctors to show that some of the Accused had also received
injuries.
The Sessions Judge considered the evidence in detail
and convicted all the Accused for offences under Section 148
of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 302, 307, 326,
325, 324, 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code. Mahinder and Paramjit were also convicted for
offences punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
All the Accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each.
In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months.
All the Accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 66-DB of
1996 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. By the impugned
Judgment dated 11th September, 1997, the High Court came to
the conclusion that the incident was in the nature of a free
fight and that each of the accused was only liable for their
individual act. On this basis the High Court held that the
prosecution had not proved the case, beyond reasonable doubt
in respect of Bhalla Ram and acquitted him of all charges.
The High Court also held that the prosecution had not
proved, in respect of all accused, other than the
Appellants, the charge under Section 302/307 read with
Section 149 I.P.C. and allowed their appeal to that extent.
In respect of Sanjay, Randhir, Ram Singh (son of Jailu),
Nafe Singh, Rajinder Singh, Mahiya, Arjun, Lachhman and
Molar, the High Court upheld their conviction under Section
323 I.P.C. but sentenced them to period of imprisonment
already undergone. The fine was increased to Rs.1000/- each
and in default of payment thereof each was directed to
undergo further RI for three months. The High Court
convicted Jaswant Singh for an offence under Section 326
I.P.C. and sentenced him to the period of imprisonment
already undergone. The fine was enhanced to Rs.1000/-. In
default thereof he was directed to undergo further RI for 3
months. The High Court convicted Ram Singh (son of Harbans)
for an offence under Section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced him
to the period of imprisonment already undergone. The fine
was enhanced to Rs.1000/- and in default thereof he was to
undergo further RI for 3 months.
In respect of Mahinder and Paramjit, the High Court
held that it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that these two
persons had fired the guns and that this had resulted in the
death of Ram Chander. These two Appellants were thus
convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
Indian penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life. The fine was enhanced from Rs.
500/- to Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment they were to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.
Paramjit and Mahinder have filed these Criminal
Appeals against their conviction by the High Court. The
State of Haryana had filed S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 277 of 1999
against the portion of the impugned Judgment whereby all the
other Accused were acquitted of offences under Section
302/307 read with Section 149 I.P.C.. However, that S.L.P.
stood dismissed on 19th March, 1999 as Counsel for the State
of Haryana was not present. No Application has been made to
have that S.L.P. restored. None of the other parties have
appealed against the judgment of the High Court.
On behalf of both the Appellants it was submitted that
these Appellants had acted in self defence. It was
submitted that both the Courts below had ignored the fact
that many of the Accused had also received serious injuries.
It was submitted that this clearly showed that it was the
other party which were the aggressors and that the
Appellants were merely defending themselves. It was
submitted that prosecution had failed to examine these
injured persons or to examine any independent witnesses.
Reliance was placed in the case of Baddi Venkata Narasayya
and Ors. vs. State of A.P., (1998) 2 S.C.C. 329. In this
case it was held that in cases of free fights the
prosecution case against each accused must be supported by
at least two witnesses. Based on this it was submitted that
the prosecution had not been able to pin-point any case
against these two Appellants. It was submitted that the
case of the prosecution against these two Appellants is not
supported by evidence of two independent witnesses.
Reliance was also placed upon the case of Gajanand and
Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 695,
and it was submitted that if the Court held that this was
not a case of free fight, then this was a case where the
Appellants were merely exercising their right of
self-defence.
On behalf of Mahinder it was further submitted that
from the site of incident only one cartridge was found. It
was submitted that even according to the prosecution more
than three shots had been fired. It was submitted that it
had not been shown that Mahinder had any common intention to
murder or take part in an unlawful assembly.
On the other hand, Counsel for the State of Haryana
has supported the reasonings and the findings given by the
High Court.
We have considered the submissions of the parties. We
have also read the evidence. In our view both the Courts
below are right in holding that, on the earlier days, there
had been altercations between Subhash and Raj Pal and
between their family members. In our view both the Courts
below have correctly concluded that the chain of events were
proved. In our view it is also proved that on the morning
of 21st August, 1993, the Appellants, along with all the
other named persons, had gone outside the house of Ram Maher
where Raj Pal and the deceased Ram Chander was sitting on a
cot. In our view the venue of the incident is proved. In
our view it is proved that both Paramjit and Mahinder were
armed with double barrel guns. This shows that these
persons were the aggressors. The evidence of a number of
witnesses shows that these two persons had fired their
double barrel guns and that the pellets from both these guns
had hit Ram Chander. The evidence proves that Ram Chander
had died as a result of these gun shot wounds. In case of a
double barrel gun, it is impossible to make out which pellet
has been fired from which gun. The evidence of the
ballistic expert showed that the injury suffered by Ram
Chander and the pellets removed from his body could have
been fired from these double barrel guns. Coupled with this
is the fact that there has been recovery of the guns as per
the disclosure statement made by Paramjit and Mahinder.
Also it is not even the case of the Appellants that, apart
from them, any other person/persons had guns. As the group
of the Appellants were the aggressors, both the Courts below
have correctly held that the injuries received by some of
the Accused were by reason of the other group acting in self
defence. We also find that the presence of Mahinder during
the incident is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Also
there is no substance in the submission that independent
witnesses were not examined. The prosecution only needs to
lead evidence sufficient to prove its case. In this case
the prosecution has led trustworthy evidence of eye
witnesses. Both the courts below have accepted the evidence
of these witnesses and we see no reason to take a different
view. The prosecution has thus proved all necessary facts.
In view of these facts having been proved beyond a
reasonable doubt we find no infirmity in the reasoning of
the High Court in the impugned Judgment.
We thus see no reason to interfere. Accordingly the
Appeals stand dismissed.
