Full Judgment Text
Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011
[Non-Reportable]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 665-666 OF 2011
AJMER SINGH & ORS. … Appellants
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that Ajmer Singh s/o. Jiwan Singh having expired during
the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the appeal qua him
stands abated.
2. The conviction of the appellants having been upheld by
the High Court, the order dated May 10, 2010 is under challenge
before this Court. Vide impugned order, the High Court disposed of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2023.04.11
17:43:57 IST
Reason:
Criminal Appeal No. 843SB of 2001 filed by (1) Ajmer Singh son of
Jiwan Singh (2) Man Singh son of Ajmer Singh (3) Gurdhyan Singh
Page 1 of 8
Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011
son of Ajmer Singh (4) Surinder Singh son of Shamsher Singh and
(5) Nanak Singh son of Jiwan Singh out of which the appeal qua
Ajmer Singh stands abated. The Criminal Revision bearing Nos.
475/2002 and 778/2003 were also disposed of by the same order.
The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections
148, 323, 325 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC). They were sentenced to undergo six months rigorous
imprisonment under Section 148 read with Section 149 as well as
for Section 323 read with Section 149, two years under Section 325
read with Section 149 IPC and seven years under Section 307 read
with Section 149 IPC.
3. The High Court vide order dated May 10,2010 dismissed
the appeal of the appellants. However, by a subsequent order dated
May 28, 2010, sentencing part was modified by the High Court. The
reason stated for the said modification was that an interim order
dated May 28, 2010, was passed in the said appeal reducing the
sentence from seven years to five years under Section 307 read with
Section 149 IPC but the said modification was not incorporated into
the detailed judgement.
4. It is a case in which both the parties suffered injuries.
The FIR No. 75 dated 27.3.1997 was registered on the complaint of
Page 2 of 8
Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011
Jagdish Chand alleging that at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning of
27.3.1997, Surender Singh tried to drive his tractor trolley from the
disputed passage, the bara of the house of Jagdish Chand. Rajesh
Kumar, nephew of Jagdish Chand asked him not to do so.
Accused Man Singh, Ajmer Singh, Nanak Singh and Gurdhian
Singh were sitting in the tractortrolley. They attacked Rajesh
Kumar and Jagdish Chand with lathi. Thereafter, a lathi blow was
given on the head of Lajwanti (mother of Ravi Kumar, Rajesh Kumar
and Sanjeev Kumar). On alarm being raised, Ravi Kumar and
Sanjeev Kumar (nephews of Jagdish Chand) came to save them.
Gurdhian Singh gave a kassi (spade) blow on the head of Rajesh
Kumar. Nanak Singh gave a lathi blow to Ravi Kumar, whereas
Surinder Singh gave a lathi blow to Sanjeev Kumar. On hearing the
alarm, number of villagers gathered. The injured were taken to
hospital and they were medically examined.
5. As against this, multiple injuries were suffered by the
appellants. They were also medically examined at PHC Panjokra.
6. According to the defence, there was altercation between
Harbans Kaur wife of Ajmer Singh and Lajwanti. As a result, the
male members of both the parties collected and there was free fight.
Page 3 of 8
Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011
7. The dispute between the parties, as claimed, was with
reference to use of the disputed passage by the appellants.
As both the parties suffered injuries in the fight, it cannot be held
that no such incident had taken place.
8. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the
appellants was that in the case in hand, the complainant party was
the aggressor as on daytoday basis they used to scold them while
they were using the passage on the land, which is in the name of
Gram Panchayat. The complainant party was treating that portion
of the land to be their own. In fact, immediately after the incident
on 27.3.1997 a civil suit for permanent injunction was filed by the
complainant party, namely, Jagdish Chand and Krishan son of
Kundan against Ajmer Singh, Nanak Singh sons of Jiwan Singh
and Dhyan Singh, Man Singh sons of Ajmer Singh and Surender
Singh son of Shamsher. The prayer in the suit was to restrain the
defendants therein from using bara of the plaintiffs as passage. The
suit was filed on 31.3.1997, which was dismissed on 15.1.2003.
No decree of injunction was passed in favour of plaintiffs therein
pertaining to Khasra No. 117, which was claimed to be the property
Page 4 of 8
Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011
of the plaintiffs as it was found to be owned by Gram Panchayat
and reserved for Rafiamm.
9. He further submitted that number of persons on the
appellant side also suffered injuries and some of them were found
to be grievous. However, the courts below have failed to take that
into consideration. In fact, it was a case of selfdefence. The
incident took place outside the precincts of complainant party,
hence the appellants cannot be said to be aggressors. Intention
cannot be established as there was no weapon used. They were
merely having their agricultural implements with them and it was
the normal time to go to the fields as the incident happened at
about 8.00 a.m. The allegation is that the appellants were going in
the tractortrolley, when on the provocation of the complainant
party, the incident happened.
10. On the other hand, the argument of learned counsel for
the State was that it is a case in which the appellants were found to
be aggressors. They had caused grievous injuries to the
complainant party. Even if they suffered certain injuries, those
were in exercise of their right to private defence. The evidence in
Page 5 of 8
Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011
the form of statements of injured witnesses cannot be discarded.
Besides the injured witnesses, independent witnesses were also
produced who corroborated the version of the prosecution.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
12. Date of incident, as such, is not in dispute. It has also
not come on record that the appellants who were stated to be
aggressors and have been convicted, used any weapons as such or
they had gone to the place of incident with their predetermined
mind. Even the case set up by the complainant party was that they
were passing through the passage in a trolley. In fight, lathi and
kassi (spade) were allegedly used. These are the normal
agricultural implements which are used in the rural areas, which
the appellants were carrying in their trolley.
13. As is evident from the record, the dispute was with
regard to the use of passage by the appellants which the
complainant party was claiming to be its own. Another fact which
has come on record is that there is a decree in a civil case filed by
the complainant party immediately after the incident, in which it
Page 6 of 8
Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011
was held that the passage belongs to the Gram Panchayat and the
same is Rafiamm.
14. No doubt, there are injuries suffered by the complainant
party. However, the fact remains that the injuries have also been
suffered by the accused party. In the judgment of the High Court,
due consideration has not been given to the injuries suffered by the
appellants. Entire stress is on the injuries suffered by the
complainant party or the evidence led by them. The defence of the
appellants has not been touched. The High Court also opined that
place of incident was space between bara and house of the
complainant party. The issue was use of the passage by the
appellants to which the complainant party was raising an objection.
15. Considering the material on record which has been
discussed above where both the parties suffered injuries in free
fight and the passage, which was the root cause of the fight, has
been held to be the passage owned by Gram Panchayat and
Page 7 of 8
Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011
Rafiamm and not belonging to the complainant party, in our
opinion, the conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot be
legally sustained. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The
judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial
Court and affirmed by the High Court are set aside. The bail bonds
of the appellants stand discharged.
……..….………………J.
[Abhay S. Oka]
……..….………………J.
[Rajesh Bindal]
New Delhi
April 11, 2023
Page 8 of 8