Holding

The High Court may not alter the term of imprisonment once a conviction under IPC 307 is affirmed, but it may enhance the fine.

Summary

An incident on 23 September 1989 outside a Munsif court led to cross‑fire between two rival groups, resulting in one death and several injuries. The trial court convicted Amarjit Singh under IPC 307 and the Arms Act, sentencing him to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine, while Jagsir Singh was convicted under the Arms Act. Both appealed; the Rajasthan High Court upheld Amarjit’s conviction but reduced his imprisonment to the time already served and acquitted Jagsir, also dismissing the State’s appeal against other acquittals. The Supreme Court held that once a conviction under IPC 307 is affirmed, the High Court cannot alter the term of imprisonment, though it may enhance the fine. Consequently, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, leaving the reduced imprisonment intact but increasing the fine to Rs 25,000 with a default six‑month rigorous imprisonment for non‑payment, and criticised the High Court for not applying its mind to the evidence.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can interfere with the term of imprisonment after upholding a conviction under IPC 307.
Whether the High Court erred in hearing two appeals arising from the same incident together.
Whether the fine imposed can be enhanced despite the reduction of imprisonment.
Whether the High Court's judgment constitutes a legal judgment amenable to appellate review.

Legislation cited

Arms Acts. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 307

Subjects

criminal lawIPC 307sentence enhancementfine enhancementappellate jurisdictionprivate defencecross‑firingArms Actmiscarriage of justice

Judgment

KULWANT SINGH A
v.
AMARJIT SINGH AND TWO ORS. ETC.

MARCH 7, 2000

[S. SAGHIRAHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) B

Penal Code, 1860-Section 307-Sentence of imprisonment and fine-
Inteiference with-Respondent sentence to five five years rigorous imprison-
ment and fine of Rs. 500 High Court reduced the sentence to three-and-half
years already undergone-Held, High Court should not have inteifered with C
the sentence of imprisonment-Further, in the circumstances of the case
sentence of imprisonment as reduced by the High Court need not be
inteifered with-Instead the sentence of fine be enhanced to Rs. 25,000.

/ Criminal appeal-Disposal of-By the High Court-Two appeals aris-
ing out of the same accident resulting in cross sessions cases heard together- D
Non-application of mind to the facts ofthe case-Did not consider evidence led
in the case-Merely appreciated the evidence and the reasoning recorded by the \
trial court-wst sight of relevant considerations which weigh with the court ·
while ·hearing criminal appeal against conviction and sentence-Thus, judg-
ment of High Court is not legal judgment in the eyes of law. E
Cross tiring between the two groups resulted in the death of one 'SK'
and injuries to others. First Information Report was lodged by one 'S' of
one group and another Fm was lodged by the appellant who belongs to the
other group. Respondent was convicted under section 307 IPC and section
27 of the Arms Act. 'J' was convicted under the Arms Act. T~eriifne F
accused were acquitted. Respondent and 'J' filed an appeal against their
conviction and sentence. State filed an appeal against acquittal of nine
other accused. High Court maintained conviction of the respondent but
reduced his sentence to the period already undergone. It acquitted J.
Appeal tiled by the State was dismissed. Hence this appeal. G

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Once the High Court has held the respondent guilty of
an offence under section 307 Indian Penal Code it should not have inter-
fered with the sentence of imprisonment. High Court reduced the sentence ll
141
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 2 S.C.R.
A of imprisonment to the period of three-and-half years already undergone.
In the circumstances of the case though the sentence of imprisohment as
reduced by the High Court cannot be interfered with yet the sentence of
fine can be enhanced to Rs. 25,000 and in default of payment of fine to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. [147-E]

B 2.1. The two appeals, which arose out of the same incident and
resulted in cross sessions cases, could not have been heard together. High
I
Court did not consider the evidence led in the case and merely appreciated ,.
the evidence and the reasoning recorded by the trial court. It was expected
of the High Court to apply its mind to the facts of the case and to find out
c who was the aggressor; whether there was right of private defence and if
so was it exceeded in the circumstances of the case. High Court unfortu-
\
nately lost sight of the relevant considerations which weigh with the court
while hearing criminal appeal against conviction and sentence. Thus, the
impugned judgment of the High Court is not legal judgment in the eyes t>f
law. [145-E; 146-G]
·n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 258
of 2000 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 3.2.98 of the Rajasthan High Court
in S.B. Crl.A Nos. 458 and 489 of 1996.
E
Harinder Mohan Singh and AP. Chhabra for the Appellant.

Pallav Shishodia, AP. Medh and Ms. Sandhya Goswami for the
Respondents.
F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D.P. W ADHWA, J. We condone the delay and grant leave to appeal
in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 510 of 1999. Special Leave Appeal
(Criminal) No. 511 of 1999 is, however, dismissed.
dQ
By judgment dated April 4, 1996 District and Sessions Judge, Sri
Ganganagar convicted Amarjit Singh and Jagsir Singh. Amarjit Singh was
convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced
to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and also fine of Rs.500 and in default
of payment of fine, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
Amarjit Singh was also convicted for an offence under Section 27 of the Arms
'·

KULWANT SJNGH v. AMARJIT SJNGH [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 143

Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years A
and fine of Rs.200 and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of another one month. Jagsir Singh was
convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for two years and also to fine of Rs.200 and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one
B
month. Nine other accused (Jitender Singh, Surender Singh, Rajinder Singh,
Kewal Singh, Bhola Singh, Gurmail Singh, Paramjit Singh, Richpal Singh and
Mani Ram), also tried along with Arnarjit Singh and Jagsir Singh, were,
however, acquitted.

Against the judgment of District and Sessions Judge two appeals were c
filed in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur - one by
Arnarjit Singh and Jagsir Singh against their conviction and sentence and
other by the State of Rajasthan against acquittal of nine other accused. By the
impugned judgment dated February 3, 1998 learned Single Judge of the High
Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan holding that the
acquittal of the accused was by a well reasoned order. In the other appeal D
High Court maintained the conviction of Arnarjit Singh but reduced his
sentence to already undergone. Jagsir Singh was, however, acquitted of the
offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Aggrieved complainant has sought
leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
E
When both the special leave petitions came up for admission this Court
on February 2, 1999 directed issue of notice and on July 19, 1999 passed the
following order : -

"Issue notice to the respondents for enhancement of the sentence.
Since the respondents have put in appearance through counsel these F
matters shall be listed after six weeks with the clear understanding that
the sentence awarded by the High Court may ultimately be interfered
with by this Court."

An incident took place on September 23, 1989 outside the court of
Munsif, Sadul Shahar. Two groups were involved. There was firing from both G
the sides resulting in the death of one Sukhmander Singh and injuries to
others. One group of which the two respondents are before us comprised of
eleven persons (Group-I) and the other group of which one of the accused
(also the complainant in FIR against Group-1) is the appellant before us
comprised nine persons (Group-2). Five persons of Group-1 were accused .in H
)

I44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A a case before the Munsif, which included Sukhmander Singh and two of the
Group-2 were complainants in that case. It is stated that parties had entered
into a compromise and that compromise was to be recorded by the Munsif
on that day. Tue· accused were present in the court premises and so also the
two complainants. Amarjit Singh, Respondent No.1, who was having a I2
bore gun and belonged to· Group- I, had also come there and. so were other
B
members of Group- I. Respondent Jagsir Singh of this group was also q11ving
,. I a I 12 bore gun. 1

I I I
A.w,.ellant Kulwant Singh along with other members of Grollp-2 also
came there. Appellant was having a pistol in his hand. Jagjit Singh was having
c a 3 I5 bore rifle and two or· three of Group-2 had I2 bore guns. · I

In the FIR lodged on the same day at about 2. I5 p.m. Surinder Singh
of Group- I alleged that on the aU"ival of Group-2 persons they surrounded
Group- I and fired with the result Sukhmander Singh, Jagsir Singh, Paramjit
Singh and Amarjit Singh received bullet injuries. A case under Sections 307,
D- I47, I48, 149 IPC and under Section 27 of the All'ns Act was registered
against persons comprising in Group-2. Sukhmander Singh, however, died on
his way to the hospital and Section 302 IPC was added. ·

At the same time another FIR was lodged by Kulwant Singh, the
appellant. According to him when he was entering the court premises, persons
E belonging to Group- I came there with guns. Out of them one Kewal Singh
was having a 3 I5 bore gun and others had I2 bore guns. They started abusing
the appellant who ran away. After an hour or so other persons of Group-2
amved and when Jagjit Singh and Radha Krishan of Group-2 were going to
the room of the Tehsildar in the court premises they were fired upon by
F Amarjit Singh and Jagsir Singh (respondents). Amarjit Singh fired at Radha
Krishan of Groi.ip-2, which hit him on the face and he fell down. While falling
down Radha Krishan also returned fire on the persons of Group- I. In his
firing other members of Group-2 also suffered bullet injuries. On the basis of
the FIR a case under Sections 307, I47, I48, I49 IPC and Section 27 of the
All'ns Act was registered against persons belonging to Group- I.
G
Two sessions cases - one arising out of FIR lodged by Surinder Singh
of Group- I (Sessions Case No. I23/94) and the other lodged by Kulwant
Singh of Group-2 (Sessions Case No. 65/94) - were tried in the Court of
Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. Eye witnesses from both the groups appeared
H against the accused in the opposite groups, other evidence was recorded by
KULWANT SINGH v. AMARJIT SINGH [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 145
the learned Sessions Judge. He delivered judgments in both the Sessions A
Cases on April 4, 1996. In Sessions Case No. 123/94, whi~h pertained to
Group-1, learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons except the
respondents 1 and 2. As noted above, Respondent 1, Amatjit Singh was
convicted under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Jagsir
Singh was convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In Sessions Case No.
B
65/94 where Kulwant Singh, the appellant before us, was one of the accused,
learned Sessions Judge convicted Jagjit Singh under Section 302 IPC for
causing death of Sukhmander Singh. Seven others were convicted under
Sections 302/149 IPC. Jagraj Singh, accused, was however, acquitted. It is
stated that Radha Krishan and Saheb Ram accused in Group-2 have since
died. Both the groups filed their respective appeals in the High Court of c
Judicature at Rajasthan. While appeal filed by Group-2 is still pending in the
High Court, that filed by Group-I was decided by learned Single Judge of the
High Court by the judgment dated February 3, 1998, which is impugned
before us.

-we are quite amazed as to why the two appeals, which arose out of the D
same incident and in fact resulted in cross sessions cases, could not have been
heard together. This is apart from the fact that the impugned judgment of the
High Court is not legal judgment in the eyes of law. High Court did not at
all consider the evidence led in the case and merely said that it was adopting
the appreciation of the evidence and the reasoning recorded by the trial court. E
This is how the High Court disposed of the appeal in one paragraph: -

- "With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused as also
the learned Public Prosecutor, I have re-scrutinised the evidence on
record and re-appreciated the same in light of contentions raised by
the rival sides. A careful scrutiny of the evidence leads me to a F
conclusion that no error either of law or of fact in appreciation of
evidence is committed by the learned Judge. His approach to the case
is correct, his reasoning for convicting the accused persons as also for
acquitting some others is faultless and I entirely agree with the
reasons given by the learned Judge for reaching the conviction and G
acquittal. I, therefore, see no reason to reiterate the entire case and
give my findings on the same all over again. I am concurring with
the observations of the findings of the learned Judge. I, therefore,
accept the same and dismiss both the appeals."

On the question of sentence High Court said as under:- H
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 2 S.C.R.
A "It has then contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
Amar Jeet Singh that he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
a period of 5 years under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code and he
has already undergone three and half years of that sentence. Taking
into consideration the fact that the violence occurred due to pre-
existing enmity, interest of justice would be met, if he is allowed to
B
be released on the sentence already undergone. It was then contended
that Jagsir Singh is convicted under Sec.27 of the Arms Act for two
years rigorous imprisonment. Only evidence that occurs against him
is that Jagsir Singh instigates Amar Jeet Singh to fire from the gun.
Even if this allegation of instigating accepted as true, he cannot be
c guilty of offence under Sec.27 of the Arms Act."

Finally, High Court disposed of two appeals as under: -

"In the result, accepting these reasons, I partially accept the
appeal No. 258/96, maintain the conviction of Amar Jeet Singh and
D he be released on sentence already undergone and acquit Jagsir Singh
for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act as his actions are
not culpable. under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appeal against
acquittal is also liable to be dismissed as the acquittal is well
reasoned."
E
It may be noticed that while the trial court judgment runs into as many
as 109 pages High Court thought it fit to dispose of the appeal in four pages.
Though number of pages may not be apposite but this does indicate the
sloppy manner in which the High Court dealt with the criminal appeal.

F It was expected by the High Court to apply its mind to the facts of the
case and to find out who was the aggressor; whether there was right of private
defence and if so was it exceeded in the circumstances of the case. High Court
unfortunately lost sight of the relevant considerations which weigh with the
court while hearing criminal appeal against conviction and sentence. How-
G ever, the respondent Amarjit Singh does not feel aggrieved.

In the present case we had issued notice for enhancement of sentence.
Acquittal of Jagsir Singh by the High Court cannot be interfered. The incident
was a serious one occurring in the court complex. Our consideration of the
case against Amarjit Singh may affect the criminal appeal filed by Group-2
H and still pending in the High Court. It has been contended before us by Mr.
KULWANT SINGH v. AMARJIT SINGH [D.P. WADHWA, J.] I47

- H.M. Singh, learned advocate for the appellant, that it were the accused of
Group-I, who were responsible and aggressors in the violence. It is not
A

disputed that there was cross firing between the two groups but he submitted
that it was Amarjit Singh who first fired the shot and injured Radha Krishan,
while Amarjit Singh and Jagsir Singh had only simple injuries on them. It was
the further submission of Mr. Singh that the manner in which the occurrence
B
took place clearly showed that whatever accused of Group-2 did was in right
to private defence and since they were fired upon they had to resort to firing
to protect themselves from the onslaught of Group- I.

_ As stated above it is difficult for us to comment on the exact role played
by Amarjit Singh as whatever we say might affect the appreciation of. the c
evidence by the High Court in the appeal filed by Group-2 and pending
before it. However, what we find is that once High Court held Amarjit Singh
guilty of an offence under Section 307 IPC it should not have interfered with
the sentence of imprisonment. High Court noticed that Amarjit Singh had
already undergone imprisonment for three and a half years. In the circwn-
stances of the present case though we do not wish to interfere with the D
sentence of imprisonment as reduced by the High Court we will, however,
enhance the serttence of fme on Amarjit Singh to Rs.25,000 and in default
of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
months. The fine shall be payable within one month and when realized shall
be paid over to the legal representatives of deceased Radha Krishan as it was E
he who suffered bullet injuries from gun fired by Amarjit Singh. In the end
we express our anguish in the way High Court disposed of the criminal
appeal. It has certainly led to miscarriage of justice.

The appeal is thus partially allowed.
F
N.J. Appeal partly allowed and
petition dismissed.