Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2286 OF 2010
JASBIR SINGH …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. None present for the appellant.
2. The appeal challenges the judgment and order passed
by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab
th
and Haryana dated 5 March 2009, thereby dismissing the
appeal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and
th
order passed by the Sessions Judge dated 28 April 2006,
thereby convicting the appellant along with five other
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2023.01.21
12:03:11 IST
Reason:
accused persons for offences punishable under Section 302
read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
1
short, “IPC”) and sentencing them to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for life.
3. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court
has dismissed the appeal of the present appellant but
acquitted all other accused of the charges charged with.
4. Mr. Mohit Siwach, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the State, has vehemently opposed the appeal. He submits
that the learned Division Bench of the High Court has rightly
held that though the place of occurrence is the house of the
appellant, the conviction was liable to be under Section 302
IPC. He further submits that, even according to the defence
of the accused, 30-35 persons who had come to his house
were armed with only lathies . He also submits that if the
offending party was armed only with lathies , there was no
occasion for the appellant to use the firearms.
5. In any case, it is submitted that, the appellant has fired
two rounds. As such, it cannot be said that he was entitled to
the benefit of right to private defence.
6. From the judgment of the High Court, it would be clear
that though, according to the prosecution, the place of
2
occurrence was near the field of Resham Singh, the High
Court has found the same to be unreliable. It found that the
place of occurrence was the house of the appellant. Not only
this, the High Court, in paragraph 9, observed thus:-
“The defence version is more probable where
Jasbir Singh appellant has stated that it was
the comnplainant party who attachked him
and his companions and he fired in self
defence. Appellants have explained their
conduct, that everything was done in self
defence. It has been admitted by both the
witnesses Sohan Singh PW-10 and Jaswant
Singh PW-11 that the land was in possession
of the appellants and they are the ones who
had sown the crop. Complainant in fact are
the aggressors.”
7. We are of the view that the High Court, after finding
that the complainant was the aggressor party, could not have
convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
8. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the
State that the complainant party were armed only with
lathies and, as such, the appellant could not have used the
firearms is concerned; as to how a person responds to a
situation would differ from person to person. It cannot be
said that a person alarmed by aggression by 30/35 persons
3
and that too armed with lathies would not use firearm in the
self-defence.
9. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the
conviction under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable. The
appellant was entitled to benefit of Exception 2 of Section
300 IPC.
10. We, therefore, find that the conviction under Section
302 IPC is not sustainable and the same is converted to Part-
I of Section 304 IPC. Insofar as the conviction under Section
307 IPC is concerned, the same warrants no interference and
is confirmed.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent-State fairly states
that the appellant has undergone sentence of about five
years.
12. We find that the sentence already undergone by the
appellant would meet the ends of justice for offences
punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and Section 307
IPC. Thus, the appellant is sentenced to the period of
incarceration already undergone.
13. The bail bonds shall stand discharged.
4
14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the above
terms.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..............................J
[B.R. GAVAI]
..............................J
[VIKRAM NATH]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 19, 2023
5