Supreme Court of India
JAGAT SINGHversusSTATE OF H. P.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 1
- Decided
- 3 January 2011
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- H S BEDI
Holding
The appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC is unsustainable; at most he is liable under Section 323 IPC, and he should be released.
Summary
Jagat Singh (A‑1) and three others were involved in a land‑dispute altercation that escalated into a free fight during which the deceased, Bachittar Singh, was stabbed and later died. The trial court acquitted all accused, but the High Court convicted A‑1 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 34, sentencing him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence, including medical reports and statements under Section 313 CrPC, and concluded that the fight was spontaneous with no intention to kill as required under Section 300 IPC. Consequently, the Court held that at most A‑1 could be liable under Section 323 IPC for causing hurt, not murder, and, considering his advanced age, time already served, and health, ordered his release. The appeal was therefore allowed in part, with the conviction altered and the sentence set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant had the requisite intention to kill under Section 300 IPC, justifying conviction under Section 302.
- Whether the offence was committed with common intention under Section 34 IPC.
- Whether the conviction should be for murder/attempt to murder or for a lesser offence of causing hurt under Section 323 IPC.
- Whether the appellant’s age, health and time already served warrant remission of the sentence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300, s. 302, s. 307, s. 323, s. 324, s. 34
Subjects
land disputefree fightmurderculpable homicideself‑defenceSection 34 IPCintention to killconviction alterationage and health considerationssentence remission
Judgment
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 1
JAGAT SINGH A
v.
STATE OF H. P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2010)
JANUARY 3,2011
B
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI, P. SATHASIVAM AND
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
c
s. 323 - Altercation between two sides over a land dispute
- Free fight between them - One person on complainant's
side died of 'Gatra' injuries inflicted by two out of the four
accused - Complainant as also the accused received injuries
- Acquittal by trial court - Appeal by State - One accused
D
died pending appeal - High Court convicting one of the
accused u/ss 302 and 307 rlw s.34 /PC and acquitting the
remaining two - HELD: Trial Court has rightly observed that
a free fight had taken place in which_,members of both the
sides got injured and one died - Considering the medical
evidence as regards the injuries sustained by the deceased, E
the complainant and the appellant-accused, and the
--.:- statements of the accused u/s 313 CrPC that they inflicted
injuries in self defence, trial court has rightly held that there
was no requisite intention u/s 300 to kill the deceased - The
main blow in the chest of the deceased was given by the F
accused who died pending appeal and other two have been
acquitted by the High Court - In the circumstances conviction
of appellant is converted from s.302 to s. 323 - He has served
about one year and seven months of sentence - Considering
+-- his age being 82 years and other ailments, the period already G
undergone would be sufficient - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - s.313.
The appellant (A-1) along with three others (A 2 to A-
1 H
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
A 4) was prosecuted for commission of offences
punishable u/ss 302/34 and 307/34 IPC. The prosecution
case was that A-1 had a land dispute with P.W.1 and on
the date of occurrence when the Assistant Settlement
Officer accompanied by the Kanungo and the Patwari
B went to the village to demarcate the land, A-1 and A-2 as
also P.W.1 and his brother 'BS' r~ached there. An
altercation between the parties took place upon .which
the officials left the place. Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 took out
their respective 'Gatras' and stabbed 'BS' on his chest
c When P.W.1 tried to save his brother, he was also injured
by both the accused by 'Gatras'. Accused A-3 and A-4
gave fist blows to 'BS'. Meanwhile the family members of
the victims reached the scene and all the accused fled
away. PW1 and 'BS' were taken to the hospital, but 'BS'
0 died on the way. The trial court acquitted all the accused.
During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court,
A-2 died. The High Court convicted and sentenced A-1
u/ss 302 and 307 read with s.34 IPC. The appeal filed by
the State was dismissed as regards A-3 and A-4.
E Aggrieved, A-1 filed the appeal.
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The trial court has rightly observed that t
a perusal of the statements of PWs 1 and 3 and the
F doctors leave no scope .for doubt that a free fight had
taken place in which members of both sides got injured
and one person succumbed to the injuries. The
statements recorded u/s 313, CrPC, more particularly, the
statement of appellant-A-1 has thrown light as to in what
G manner the fight ensued and ended. It is also clear and
as narrated by the accused u/s 313 that both A1 and A2
happened to be baptized Sikhs and as per religious
necessity they have _to carry 'Gatra' on their persons. In
order to save themselves from the clutches of the
deceased and the complainant, free blows were
H
JAGAT SINGH v. STATE OF H. P. 3
exchanged through 'Gatras'. It is also seen from the A
evidence that the main blow on the chest of the deceased
was caused by A-2 who died during the pendency of the
appeal before the High Court. [para 7] [10-D-HJ
1.2. Considering the evidence of the doctor with
8
regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased, the
complainant (PW-1) as well as the appellant/ accused and
the evidence of the doctor (DW-1) who examined the
accused, the ~rial court has rightly observed that the
accused had no requisite intention to kill the deceased C
as envisaged u/s 300 IPC. On account of meddling with
· the enquiry conducted by the ASO, both the parties
sustained injurie_s out of which the deceased succumbed
to the injuries. [para 7] [10-H; 11-A-BJ
1.3. From the materials placed by t'1e prosecution as D
well as the defence, taking-note of the fact that the trial
, court has acquitted A-3 and A-4 and (A-2) died during the
pendency of the appeal before the High Court,
considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the
deceased as opined by the doctor (PW-15), and the E
injuries sustained by the appellant (A-1) as explained by
the doctor (DW-1 ), it would be evident that at the mo_st,
the appellant could be held guilty for offence punishable
u/s 323 IPC for causing hurt on the person of the
.deceased. There is no acceptable evidence to the fact that F
he had voluntarily caused hurt on the person of the
deceased. Considering all these events and taking note
of the fact that the persons in both the groups, namely,
the complainant and the accused sustained injuries in a
~ free fight and also the fact that the appellant alone is G
before this Court, the ends of justice would be met by
altering the conviction from s. 302 to s. 323 IPC. It is
brought to the notice of the Court that the appellant had
served about a year in prison (pending trial) and is in
prison for approximately seven months after conviction
H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 1 S.C.R.
A by the High Court; he is aged about 82 years and is also
suffering from asthma and other old age ailments. In the
circumstances, the period undergone is sufficient. [para
8] [11-C-G]
B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1145 of 2010.
From the Judgment & Order dated 5.5.2010, 26.5.2010
of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, in Criminal
Appeal No. 270 of 1998.
c
R.K. Kapoor, H.C. Pant, Rajat Kapoor, Anis Ahmed Khan
for the Appellant.
Kiran Bala Sahay, M.P. Jha for the Respondent.
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the final
order and judgment dated 05.05.2010/26.05.2010 of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.
E 270 of 1998 whereby the High Court reversed the order of
acquittal of the appellant passed by the Sessions Judge, Una
and convicted him under Sections 302 and 307 read with
Section 34 l.P.C.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as
F follows:
(a) Vikram Singh, the complainant (PW-1), his brother
Bachittar Singh (since deceased) and Jagat Singh,
appellant/accused (A-1), are residents of village Dehlan.
G Vikram Singh had a land dispute with the accused for the
last 4/5 years. Rattan Singh - accused No.2 filed an
application before the Assistant Settlement Officer (in short
"ASO"), Una for demarcation of the land in dispute. On
29.04.1997, the ASO accompanied by Kanungo and
H Patwari had come to the spot for carrying out the
JAGAT SINGH v. STATE OF H. P. 5
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
demarcation of the said land. Jagat Singh (A-1), and Rattan A
Singh (A-2) also reached there. The field which was to be
demarcated was situated by the side of the house of one
Sehdev Singh. On learning that the accused have brought
the ASO for demarcating the disputed land which has
already been settled in the Court, Vikram Singh, the 8
Complainant (PW-1), and his brother Bachittar Singh (the
deceased), also reached there. On seeing them, Jagat
---', Singh (A-1) and Rattan Singh (A-2) started abusing them.
At that stage, the ASO left the place and the demarcation
of the land did not take place.
c
(b) As soon as ASO left the place in a jeep, Jagat Singh
(A-1) and Rattan Singh (A-2) took out their respective
'Gatras' and stabbed the deceased on his chest. On
seeing this, when Vikram Singh - the Complainant (PW-
1), stepped forward to save his brother, Jagat Singh (A-1) D
stabbed him on the elbow of his right arm. Rattan Singh
(A-2) also gave a blow on the right side of his chest. In the
meanwhile, Avtar l(aur-wife, Gurdeep Kaur-daughter,
Sarabjit Kaur-daughter-in-law of the deceased
accompanied by Harnek Singh - son of Vikram Singh E
(PW-1) reached the place of incident. On seeing them, the
accused persons ran away from the spot. Bachittar Singh
and Vikram Singh were taken to the District Hospital, Una
at about 3.30 p.m. However, Bachittar Singh died on the
way while he was being taken to the hospital at Una. The F
complainant - (PW-1), after being given medical first aid
was referred to Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana. The
matter was reported to the police over telephone. The
police recorded the statement of Vikram Singh (PW-1) and
on that basis, FIR was registered at Police Station, Una. G
During the course of investigation, one Gatra was
recovered pursuant to the confession made by Jagat Singh
(A-1). Another Gatra was handed over to the Investigator
of the case by Gurdip Kaur, daughter of the deceased.
H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.
A (c) On completion of the investigation, the final report was
filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una on
24.07.1997. On 03.11.1997, the trial Court framed the
charges against the accused for committing offences
punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324 read with
B Section 34 l.P.C. The trial Court, by judgment dated
01.04.1998, acquitted all the accused persons.
(d) Against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial
Judge, Una, the State of H.P. filed an appeal before the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The High
c Court, by the impugned judgment dated 05.05.2010, set
aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge,
Una and convicted Jagat Singh (A-1) and Rattan Singh
(A-2) under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34
l.P.C. However, the appeal filed by the State against
D Parminder Singh (A-3) and Balwant Singh (A-4) was
dismissed. On 26.05.2010, the High Court, while passing
the order with regard to the quantum of sentence,
sentenced Jagat Singh (A-1) to undergo imprisonment for
life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to
E undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months
for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 l.P.C. As regards the offence under Section
307/34 l.P.C., the appellant shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/
F -, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further
period of six months. Since A-2 was expired on
29.03.2009, the appeal against him was abated. Against
the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant
(A-1) has filed this appeal before this Court.
G 3. Heard Mr. R.K. Kapoor, learned counsel for the
appellant and Ms. Kiran Bala Sahay, learned counsel for the
respondent-State.
4. The prosecution case, as narrated by Vikram Singh
H (PW-1) is that he had a land dispute with the accused for the
JAGAT SINGH v. STATE OF H. P. 7
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
past four or five years. The second accused i.e Rattan Singh A
{A-2) filed ;an application for demarcation of the land in dispute
before the ASO. It is not in dispute that on 29.04.1997, the ASO
accompanied by Kanungo and Patwari had come to the spot
for carrying out the demarcation of the said land. At that time,
the Complainant, PW-1, his brother - Bachittar Singh {the B
deceased), his son Harnek Singh and all the four accused were
present there. As soon as the ASO started for demarcation, A-
1 and A-2 started abusing the complainant and his brother. On
seeing the wordy quarrel, the ASO left the scene of occurrence.
Immediately after his departure, Jagat Singh {A 1) and Rattan C
Singh {A2) took out their respective Gatras and the other two
accused, namely, Parminder Singh {A3) and Balwant Singh
{A4) gesticulated towards the complainant party with their fists.
In the course of such event, Jagat Singh A-1 and Rattan Singh
A-2 inflicted blows with their respective Gatras on the chest of
the deceased. On seeing the deceased being stabbed, the
0
complainant - {PW-1) stepped forward to save him. Rattan
Singh {A-2) gave a blow to the complainant with his Gatra on
the right side of his chest. Jag at Singh {A-1) also gave a blow
with his Gatra on his right elbow. A-3 and A-4 gave fist blows
to the deceased. On seeing him crying, his wife, Avtar Kaur, E
daughter, Gurdeep Kaur, daughter in law Sarbjit Kaur and
complainant's son Harnek Singh {PW-3) reached the place of
incident. On seeing these persons, all the accused ran away
from the spot. The deceased, who was bleeping profusialy and
the complainant were taken to District Hospital, Una at about F
3.30 p.m. However, Bachittar Singh succumbed to the injuries .
suffered by him on way to the hospital. The complainant, after
being given medical firsl aid was referred to Dayanand Medical
College, Ludhiana. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the
-+- police by the complainant and on that basis, FIR was registered G
being FIR No. 243 of 1997 at Police Station, Una. After trial,
by order dated 01.04.1998, the trial Court acquitted all the
accused. In the appeal filed by the State, {A-1) alone was
convicted: as {A-2) died during the pendency of the case and
~he appeal against {A-3) and {A-4) was dismissed. H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
A 5. Before considering the case of the prosecution, as
discussed by the trial Court and the High Court, it is useful to
refer the stand of the appellant-Jagat Singh (A 1) from his
statement made under Secuon 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). He stated
B that he was working in the field when the ASO accompanied
by Kanungo and Patwari came to their village. His brother
Rattan Singh (A-2) had filed an application in which he had ·
complained against the members of the staff of the Settlement
Department. The ASO enquired his brother Rattan Singh. When
C the ASO was enquiring his brother, Bachittar Singh (the
deceased) and Vikram Singh (PW-1) came there and started
using abusive language against them. On seeing the situation,
the ASO along with his staff left the village, however Vikram
Singh and Bachittar Singh did not leave the courtyard of one
Sehdev Singh and they continued using abusive language
D against them for about 20 minutes. Thereafter, Bachittar Singh
pounced upon Rattan-Singh (A-2), Vikram Singh (PW-1) had
pounced upon him. Though he wanted to run away h~ found
himself overpowered. Vikram Singh (PW-1) laid him down on
the ground and started throttling him. He requested Vikram
E Singh to release him from his clutches but of no use. He
continued throttling him. Since he is an asthma patient and
realizing that Vikram Singh was not going to release him then
he took out his gatra Ext.P-12 and tried to frighten him by ,.. .
showing it to him but he did not release him. When he
F apprehended that Vikram Singh may kill him, he gave a Gatra
blow, firstly, on his shoulder then on his chest but he continued
to throttle him. Then he inflicted some more blows on his
person. After receiving the blows, his grip loosened on his neck
and then he managed to get up and ran away. Though similar
G statements were made by other accused, there is no need to
refer the same.
6. We have to find out whether the act of the appellant
along with the other accused was deliberate and pre-planned
H in order to do away the life of the deceased or the offences
JAGAT SINGH v. STATE OF H. P. 9
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
alleged to have been committed have arisen from a free fight A
which had erupted at the spur of the moment. It is also relevant
to ascertain whether the accused exceede.d their right of
private defence. It is not in dispute that in the fight between the
persons belonging to the complainant and the accused,
Bachittar Singh lost his life. Vikram Singh (PW-1) sustained B
injuries on his chest. The offences alleged to have been
committed are the result of the same sequence of events which
took place on 29.04.1997 at 2.30 p.m., near the house of
Sehdev Singh at Village Dehlan. There is no dispute that the
accused Jagat Singh (A-1) had filed a suit for permanent c
injunction against Vikram Singh (PW-1), Bachittar Singh (the
deceased) and Smt. Thakri widow of Dina Nath. The said suit
was compromised to the effect that none of the parties shall
raise any construction over the land measuring 4 Marlas
comprising of Khasra No. 2857 till the same is partitioned. D
When the ASO came to the spot in order to rectify wrong
settlement work as claimed by the parties, a heated wordy
quarrel started which ended with loss of life of one person.
There is no controversy that during the course of fight, Bachittar
Singh (the deceased) sustained injuries on account of which E
he died. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of the
deceased was performed by Dr. R.S.Dadhwal (PW-15) and he
opined that the deceased died due to shock resulting from
massive hemorrhage and injuries on the vital organs. The
doctor noticed six wounds on the person of the deceased, on
the nose, below the tip of left shoulder, posterior, on the right F
of the midhne of the chest, on the left side of the chest and on
the interior to the left ;:ixilla on the mis axillary line. Apart from
the above injuries of the deceased as well as PW1, it is also
relevant to note that the appellant Jagat Singh (A-1) and his
brother Rattan Singh (A-2) also sustained injuries in the same G
commotion. Dr. Mrs. S. Sharma (DW-1), medically examined
all the four accused and copies of which are marked as Exs.
DA to DD respectively. Here again, we are concerned with the
injuries on the person of Jagat Singh-appellant alone.
H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
A 1. There was a reddish brown small bruise of the size
of 2 ems x 1 cm on the chest on the left side of the
lower one third of sternum. +-
2: There was bluish bruise on the left hip of the size
of 8 cm x 7 cm.
B
3. There was bluish bruise 1O cm x 1/3cms with
intervening healthy area on the left side of the
abdomen 5 ems above the left iliac crest.
c 4. He had complained of pain on the right fore-arm.
The injured was referred for treatment of bronchial
asthama."
7. As rightly observed by the trial Judge, the perusal of the
statement of PWs 1 and 3 and the doctors leave no scope for
D doubt that a free fight had taken place in which members of
both sides got injured and one person succumbed to the ~
injuries. We have already adverted to the statement recorded
under Section 313 of the Code, more particularly, the statement
of the appellant-Jagat Singh which have thrown light that in what
E manner the fight ensued and ended. We have already
mentioned that from the evidence of prosecution side as well
as the statement by the accused recorded under Section 313
of the Code, it is very much clear that a free fight had taken
place. It is also clear and. as narrated by the accused under
F Section 313 of the Code that to save themselves, they stabbed
the deceased and the complainant. Both A 1 and A2 happened
to be baptized Sikhs and as per religious necessity they have
to carry Gatra on their persons and in order to save them from
the clutches of the deceased and the complainant, free blows
G were exchanged through Gatras. It is also seen from the
evidence that the main blow on the chest of the deceased was ......
caused by Rattan Singh who died pending appeal before the
High Court. (A-3) and (.4.-4) were acquitted by the trial Court
and the High Court dismissed the appeal against them.
H Considering the evidence of the doctor with regard to the
JAGAT SINGH v. STATE OF H. P. 11
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
•injuries sustained by the deceased, the complainant (PW-1) as A
: well as the appellant/ accused and the evidence Of (DW-1) who
examined the accused, the trial Court has rightly observed that ·
: they had no requisite! intention to kill the deceased as envisaged
' under Section 300. As discussed earlier, on account of 'f
meddling with the enquiry conducted by the_ASO, both the a
1
parties sustained injuries out of which the-deceased
succumbed to the injuries.
8. From the materials placed by the prosecution as well
as the defence, ·taking note of the fact that the trial Court has C
acquitted (A-3) and (A-4) and (A-2) died during the pendency
of the appeal before the High Court, considering the nature of
the injuries sustained by the deceased as opined by Dr. R.S.
Dadhwal, (PW-15), and the injuries sustained by the appellant
(A-1) as explained by Dr. Mrs. S. Sharma (DW-1), we hold that
at the most, the appellant could be held under Section 323 IPC D
for causing hurt on the body of the deceased. We are also of
· the view that there is no acceptable evidenc~·to the fact that
the appellant had voluntarily caused hurt on the person of the
deceased. Considering all these events and taking note of the
fact that the·persons in both the groups, namely, complainant E
and the c;iccused sustained injuries in a free fight and. also of
the fact that the appellant A 1 alone is before us, we feel that
the ends of justice would be met by altering the cohviction from
Section 302 to Section 323. It is brought to our notice that ·he .
had served about a year in prison (pending trial) and is in prison F
for approximately seven months after conviction by the High
Court, aged about 82 years and also suffering from asthma and .
other old age ailments. c6nsidering all these aspects, we feel
that the period undergone is sufficient and he be released
forthwith if he is not required in ariy other offence. 'The appeal G
is allowed to this extent. -
R.P. Appeal partly allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land dispute"Sign in to search