Supreme Court of India
ST ATE OF HARYANAversusBALKAR SINGH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 409
- Decided
- 26 March 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused under Sections 302, 323 and 34.
Summary
On 9 February 1993 a dispute over deepening a drain led to a physical altercation in which accused Balkar Singh, Chuhar Singh and Surinder Singh allegedly struck Sher Singh, who later died, and injured Shamsher Singh, who survived as an eyewitness. The three were charged under Sections 302, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted them, finding that the evidence did not establish which party was the aggressor and that the injuries could not be directly attributed to the accused, describing the incident as a "free fight". The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the acquittal. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the trial and High Court judgments were justified, noting the insufficiency of evidence to prove common intention, and dismissed the appeal, leaving the acquittal undisturbed.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of Sher Singh and injuries to Shamsher Singh under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34.
- Whether the doctrine of common intention under Section 34 applies to the alleged assault.
- Whether the evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical reports, is sufficient to identify the aggressor and attribute the injuries to the accused.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 323, s. 34
Subjects
murderculpable homicidecommon intentionacquittalevidentiary insufficiencyfree fightIPC sections 302 323 34criminal appeal
Judgment
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 322
'f
A STATE OF HARYANA
....
v.
BALKAR SINGH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 2004)
MARCH 26, 2009
B '-
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 323 rw s. 34 - Charge sheet
c framed under - Prosecution case that altercation between
parties resulting in death of one and injuries to other -
Acquittal by courts below holding that evidence not sufficient
to establish guilt of accused person - Occurrence took place
in course of free fight and more severe injuries caused on
D person of accused than deceased and so-called eyewitness .>
- It could not be ascertained as to which party was aggressor
- Interference with - Held: Not called for.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
--
No. 260 of 2004.
E
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.7.2003 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No.
659-DBA/1995.
F Rajeev Gaur Naseem and T.V. George for the Appellant. f
Nikhil Goel, Sayid Marsook and Sheela Geol for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J, 1. State of Haryana is in appeal
against the judgment of a Division Bench of th Punjab and
Haryana High Court upholding the judgment of acquittal passed
by learned Additional and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra.
H 322
STATE OF HARYANA v. BALKAR SINGH & ORS. 323
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~
2. The respondents, three in number, were charged for A
;
commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and
323 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (in
short 'IPC').
3. The factual position as projected by the prosecution is
B
as follows:
4. On 9.2.1993 at about 8.00 A.M.,Dev Singh was heading
from the house to his fields carrying a Sutli and Sua for the
purpose of stitching the bags in which potatoes were to be
packed and he had hardly covered a distance of 4/5 yards c
when he found accused Balkar Singh, Chuhar Singh, Surinder
Singh, Sher Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') and
injured Shamsher Singh standing near the tubewell of Chuhar
Singh, where a drain existed and some water had stagnated
>. by the road side, because the height of the drain was more than D
the height of the road and some water had tricked inside the
house of Harbans Singh. Sher Singh and ~hamsher Singh
requested Balkar Singh and Chuhar Singh to deepen the drain
so that water would not flow into their houses, to which Balkar
Singh and Chuhar Singh did not agree and asked them to do E
themselves and thereafter the accused left the place. Deceased
Sher Singh and Shamsher Singh started deepening the drain
with the help of a kassi. After about one minute accused Balkar
Singh carrying a Gandasi and the remaining two Chuhar Singh
and Surender Singh armed with lathis came there. Balkar Singh F
1
gave a gandasi blow to Sher Singh, which hit his left temple.
Chuhar Singh gave a lathi blow which hit the left side of the
temple and Surender Singh gave a blow on the head of Sher
Singh, who fell down and Shamsher Singh ran towards his
house. Thereafter there was free exchange of danda blows.
from both sides. Shamsher Singh was injured by all the three
G
accused, who received injuries on both shoulders, left side of
the chest and head. The occurrence was witnessed by him and
Prem Singh, who was standing at a distance of 5/7 paces.
Thereafter the accused left with their respective weapons and
H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 5 S.C.R.
41
A the injured Sher Singh and Shamsher Singh were removed in
'-
a tractor-trolley and got admitted in Civil hospital, Ladwa. The
police came there and recorded statement.Ex. PD/2 which was
thumb-marked by him in token of its correctness.
5. Injured Sher Singh and Shamsher Singh were got
B i..
medico-legally examined. Sher Singh, who had been referred
to P.G.I. Chandigarh.succumbed to the injuries on 132.1993,
where upon Faqir Chand ASI (PW-12) conducted inquest
proceedings Ex. PJ/3 and autopsy was conducted by Dr. B.Suri
(PW-14). From the accused side all the three suffered injuries
c and were medico-legally examined by PW-2 Dr. P.R.Pruthi,
Medical Officer, CHC, Ladwa.
6. After investigation, accused were challaned for the
offence and a charge under Section 302 and 323 read with
D Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the A
accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to substantiate the accusations, prosecution ~
examined 14 witnesses. The accused persons, to support their
plea of innocence, examined the Draftsman DW1. The trial
E
court found that the evidence Is not sufficient to establish the
guilt of the accused person and accordingly directed acquittal.
The same was questioned in appeal before the High Court. The
stand of the State before the High Court was that the injury was
caused to Sher Singh and Shamsher Singh. Sher Singh had
F died and Samsher Singh was an injured eye-witness who t
appeared as PW10. PW9 was eye-witness who was present
at the spot where the incident took place. It was stated that the
accused persons also had sustained injuries and had taken
similar plea in their defence. The accused persons placed
G reliance on the evidence of Dev Singh. In his statement made
to the police he had stated about having reached the place of
occurrence after hearing the cries for help. The High Court
noticed that the trial court was justified in holding that Dev Singh
and Prem Singh had reached the spot after hearing the cries.
H The High Court also noticed that the possibility of injuries on
STATE OF HARYANA v. BALKAR SINGH & ORS. 325
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
.> " the body of the deceased and the accused could not be directly A
attributable to the accused persons. The trial court and the High
Court noticed that the occurrence took place in the course of
free fight and there were more severe injuries caused on the
- )
person of the accused person than the deceased and the so-
called eye witness. Considering the nature of evidence, the trial B
Court and the High Court have come to hold that the
prosecution version is not acceptable. In the circumstances, the
High Court observed that the number of injuries make it clear
that it was a case of free fight and it cannot be ascertained as
to which party was the aggressor. Therefore, the view taken by c
the trial court was a possible view and the High Court did not
interfere.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-State vehemently
argued that the analysis made by the trial court and the High
.i.. Court and the conclusions arrived at are not in line with the D
evidence adduced including that of the eye-witness and injured
eye-witness. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the
judgment of the trial court as upheld by the High Court.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we feel that E
both the trial court and High Court were justified in their
respective view.
10. There is no scope for interference in this appeal which
is accordingly dismissed.
- "' N.J. Appeal dismissed
F
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search