Holding

A criminal appeal must be decided on the basis of the evidence on record; an acquittal without such consideration is impermissible and must be set aside.

Summary

The respondents, members of the Harijan community, were convicted of murder and related offences for the killing of Dhian Singh, a Rajput, amid a land dispute between the two factions. While hearing the criminal appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court attempted to settle the underlying civil land dispute by convening village panchayats, re‑disposed a separate civil appeal, and then acquitted the accused without examining the evidentiary record. The Supreme Court held that a criminal appeal cannot be decided by acquitting the accused without a proper consideration of the evidence on record, irrespective of any civil compromise. It set aside the High Court’s acquittal and the order altering the civil appeal, restoring the original civil judgment, and remanded the criminal appeal for disposal in accordance with law. The Court emphasized that "panchayat justice" cannot replace statutory criminal procedure and that the offence of murder cannot be compounded.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court may acquit accused persons in a criminal appeal without considering the evidence on record.
Whether a civil settlement of a land dispute can affect the criminal conviction for murder.
Whether the High Court erred in re‑disposing a separate civil appeal while hearing the criminal appeal.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedures. 145
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 149, s. 302

Subjects

murdercriminal appealacquittal without evidenceland disputepanchayat settlementprocedural fairnessSection 302 IPCSection 149 IPCSection 145 CrPCevidence appraisal

Judgment

811
•
JAi SINGH
A
••
SARWAN SINGH & OTHERS

' November 14, 1983
B
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, J.]
\
Criminal Proceedings-Appeal against conviction-Accused cannot be
acquitted without considering evidence on record. .
' c
• The respondents were convicted and sentenced for committing n1urder
and other offence$. The deceased and the respondents, who respectively
} belonged to the Rajput and the Harijan factions of the village, bad a dispute
over a piece of land which had been decided in favour of the Rajputs by a
final order of the lligh Court in second appeal. When the respondents' appeal
against conviction in the criminal case came up for hearing, the H~gh Court
took the view that 'the matter could be settled by a compromise' and invited the D
Harijans and Rajput panc~ayats of the village to appear before it and, ulti~
mately, called for the papers of the second appeal decided earlier and passed an
order to the effect that, as agreed between the parties, t'he claiin of the Harijcins
for four kanals of land was allowed. Finding that some.of the affected parties
were not served, the High Court directed that if any unserved party had a
grievance, it could apply for review of the judgn1ent. After re-disposing Of the
). second appea'l relating tO the d.isputc over land in the manner stated above, the E
High Court took up the criminal appeal for hearing and, without considering
the evidence before it, delivered a short judgmellt acquitting the respondents.
' Remanding the appeal,

HELD : It is impossibIC to appreciate hoW the High Court could dispose F
of the criminal appeal in this e~traordinary fashion. It 'is obvious that the
High Court had made up its mind to :.1cquit the accused Without considering
the evidence before it. Finding that the offence of murder cannot be com- I
pounded, the High Court took the facile course of acquitting the accused who,
by a considered judgment, wore convicted by the trial Court. (814 C·DJ

The judgment of the High Count shows how important it is for the judges G
to observe the norms laid d~wn by law. for dispensing j~stice. •JustiCe under the
tree' or 'panchayat justice' have advanta&es of their own, but they cannot be
confUsed with justice accord.ins to the Chancellor's foot. [812 FJ

CRIMINAL APP&l;LATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. ~62 H
of 1983.
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] l S.C.R.

From the Judgment and Order dated the 29th July, '1982 of
A the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal
Appeal No. 78-DB/80.

Prem Malhotra for the Appellant.

B R.K. Garg and D.K. Garg for the respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by I
CHANDRACHUD, C. J. Thirteen persons were sentenced to life
imprisonment by the Jea'rned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala,
c under section 302 read with settion 149 of the Penal Code. For
•
other offences connected with the main offence of murder, they were
sentenced to lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment. The charge i.
against th~ accused is that they committed the murder of one Dhian
Singh and caused injuries to six others on June 6, 1980.
D
The accused are Harljans while the deceased Dhian Singh
belonged to the Rajput faction of the village of Sultanpur. There
were disputes between the two groups over a piece of land. The
Harijans filed a suit to establish their title to that land but they lost
that suit, having taken it upto the High Court in Second Appeal
E Proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
were instituted against the two factions, which also the Rajputs '·
won.

The judgment which the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
declared in this case show~ how important it is for Judges to observe
F the norms laid down by Jaw for dispensing justice. 'Justice under
the tree' or the 'Panchayat justice' have advantages of their own,
but they cannot be confused with justice according to the Chancel·
• ]or's foot. If anything, the strange procedure adopted by the High
Court in this case has only succeeded in giving a bad name to a
useful innovation which, if tried cautiously and with circumspection,
G will take away at least a frivolous chunk of litigation which clogs the
wheels of justice in Courts of law.

When the appeal filed by the accused came up for hearing
before the High Court, it took the view that "the matter could be
H
settled by a compromise". It invited· the Harijan Panchayat
and the Raj put Panchayat of the village of Sultanpur •to
appear before it. On May 28, 1982 the two Panchayats
JAi SI l\GH v. SARWAN SINGH (Chandrachud, C.J.) 813

·1. agreed that the Harijans should be allotted four kanals out of the
disputed land. The High Court accordingly directed that the Revenue
authorities should go to the spot, demarcate that land and report
back to it along with the plans. The report submitted by the Revenue
A

authorities showed, according to the High Court, that its order was
not understood correctly. The High Court then entered into a
dialogue with Shri Bhasin, Districi Attorney, Haryana, who informed
B
it that he had discussed the matter with the S.D.O. (Civil), Kalka,
and that the said Officer was of the view that the land could be·
deD?arcated so that four kanals could be. allotted therefrom to the
Harijans.

While hearing the criminal appeal against the order of c
conviction for murder and the other offences, the High Court called
for the papers of Second Appeal No. 742 of 1978, which was disposed
of in 1980 by a final order in favour of the Rajputs. All the effected
parties were not before the High Co.urt as they possibly could not
be, since what was before the High Court was the criminal appeal D
and not the Second Appeal. The High Court, finding that some of
the affected parties were n.ot served, directed that if any unserved
party bad a grievance, it could approach it for review of its
judgment.

The High Court thereafter recorded the statements of the two E
learned counsel, Shri F.C. Aggarwal and Shri C.D. Dewan who
appeared for the parties. Sbri Aggarwal stated that he· agreed that
-.
• I
four kanals from the land should be allotted to the Harijans. Shri
Dewan made a statement that he agreed with what Shri Aggarwal
had stated. The High Court then had Second Appeal No, 742 of
F
1978 called out and passad an order to the effect that as agreed
between the parties, the claim of the Harijans for four kanals of the
land was allowed.

Having thus re-disposed of the Second Appeal, the High Court
took up the criminal appeal for hearing. The entire judgment of the G
High Court runs thus :

"We do not wish to give a detailed judgment in this
case. It suffices to mention that there is ·abundant
evidence on record to intlicate that actual possession of
H
the land falling under the Asthan of Sidh Baba, the well
and the adjoil\ing houses was of the accused. It looks
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] l S.C.R.

more probable that when some force being used to dis-
A possess them, they protested and when their protests' were ' "''
. unavailing violence was used resulting in the death of
Dhian Singh, deceased.

In the circumstances, we give the benefit of. doubt to
the accused persons, and acquit them of all the charges.
B We do hope that in future the parties will Jive together
amicably. With these observations, the appeal is
allowed."

With respect, it is impossible to appreciate how tlie High Court
c could dispose of the criminal appeal in this extraordinary .fashion.
It is obvious that the High Court had made up its mind to acquit the
accused without considering the evidence before it. Finding that the
offence of murder cannot be compounded, the High Court took the
facile course of acquitting the accused who, by a considered judg·
ment, were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is
D less than just to allow the judgment of the High Court to stand.
Shri R.K. Garg, who appeared on behalf of the accused, found it
impossible to support the judgment of the High Court.

Accordingly, we set aside, the judgment of the High Court dated
July 29, 1982 and remand the appeal to it for disposal in accordance
E with law. We also set aside the order passed on that date by the
High Court in Second Appeal No. 74l of 1978. The earlier judgment
of the High Court in that appeal will be restored. We hope that the
High Court will be able to take up the criminal appeal for hearing at
an early date. If the evidence warrants the acquittal, of the accused,
11 they will be entitled to be acquitted. We express no opinion on the
merits of that matter.

H.L.C. · Appeal Remanded.

,,

y-