Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.1718      OF     2009   

Satbir @ Lakha ….Appellant

VERSUS

State of Haryana                …Respondent

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. The second accused is the appellant before us. The  

challenge is to the common judgment of the High Court of  

Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal  

Nos.488-SB/1995 and 580-SB/1995 dated 30.04.2009. By  

the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge of the High  

Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on  

all the accused.  The facts relating to the filing of this  

appeal, briefly stated, are that on 18.02.1992, Ravi Dass  

Jayanti was being celebrated in the village Saniana from  

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      1 of 20  

Page 2

donations collected from public. One Joginder Singh asked  

the appellant and Dalbir to spend the excess amount for  

the upkeep of the temple.  At about 8 p.m. on that day, one  

Subhash s/o Nafe Singh (complainant), Jasbir Singh (PW-

7), Kashmir Singh (PW-6), Joginder Singh and Surender  

Singh were present in the shop of one Kitab Singh, a tailor  

master.   At that point of time, accused came to the spot  

and the appellant stated to have questioned Subhash  

(complainant) and others as to on what authority they were  

demanding for the accounts of the donation collections.  

When exchange of words took place between the  

complainant party and the accused party, the tailor Kitab  

Singh asked them not to indulge in such quarrel inside his  

shop and to get out of the shop.  Thereafter all of them  

went out and came down to the public street and in the  

course of their continued quarrel, the first accused also by  

name Subhash s/o Ram Kumar stated to have inflicted a  

knife blow on the back of the complainant Subhash s/o  

Nafe Singh (PW-5) while Ram Das (A-4) caught hold of  

Kashmir Singh and Dalbir Singh (A-3) caught hold of one  

Joginder Singh.  Accused No.1, Subhash s/o Ram Kumar  

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      2 of 20  

Page 3

stated to have inflicted knife injuries to Jasbir Singh and  

Kashmir Singh.  The tailor master Kitab Singh, Surender  

Singh and Joginder Singh tried to pacify both the groups  

and in that process Surender Singh also stated to have  

suffered knife injuries.  

2. According to the complainant party, by way of private  

defence, they threw brickbats on the accused and that the  

accused stated to have fled away from the scene of  

occurrence. It was specifically alleged that two of the  

accused, namely, the appellant and Ram Das (A-4) also  

received injuries at the hands of Subhash s/o Ram Kumar  

(A-1) while he was giving knife blows to Jasbir Singh and  

Kashmir Singh PWs-6 and 7 respectively. The injured  

complainants stated to have gone to CHC Uklana in the  

vehicle belonging to one Baldev Singh where Subhash s/o  

Nafe Singh was admitted and given treatment while PWs-6  

and 7, namely, Kashmir Singh and Jasbir Singh were  

referred to civil hospital, Hisar as the injuries sustained by  

them were serious injuries.  Surender Singh stated to have  

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      3 of 20  

Page 4

gone to CHC Uklana, Saniana on the next day where he  

was also given treatment.

3. On receipt of the memo from the hospital, the sub-

Inspector L.R. Sharma, PW-9 recorded the statement of  

Subhash s/o Nafe Singh pursuant to which the case was  

registered under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34  

IPC.  Subsequently, after the receipt of report from the  

G.H., Hisar of the injuries sustained by Kashmir Singh  

PW-6, which were noted as serious injuries and were  

dangerous to life, the offence under Section 307 IPC was  

also added.  PW-9 stated to have recovered a knife from the  

possession of Subhash s/o Ram Kumar (A-1) based on his  

disclosure statement. Since the said knife was a spring  

actuated knife, a separate case under the Arms Act was  

also registered against him.

4. Based on the investigation and after its conclusion the  

final report was lodged and a specific charge under section  

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      4 of 20  

Page 5

307, IPC was framed against the first accused Subhash  

s/o Ram Kumar and a charge under Section 307 read with  

Section 34 IPC was framed against the appellant Dalbir (A-

3) and Ram Das (A-4).  A charge under Section 323 IPC  

read with Section 34 IPC was made against all the accused  

persons.  PW-1 was the doctor J.S. Bhatia who was  

examined to prove the X-ray report Exhibits PD and PE  

relating to PWs-6 and 7 Kashmir Singh and Jasbir Singh  

respectively.  As per the said Exhibit, it was stated that air  

was found under the diaphragm of both the injured. PW-2  

Dr. Sukhdev proved the MLRs Ex.PF and Exhibit PG of  

Subhash s/o Nafe Singh and Surender Singh respectively.  

He found one incised wound on the back of Subhash s/o  

Nafe Singh and two incised wounds near the chest and two  

simple injuries of blunt weapon on the person of Surender  

Singh.  He also proved in cross-examination the MLRs  

Exhibit DA, of Satbir, Exhibit DE of Dalbir and also  

deposed about the injuries of Ram Das. He found one  

incised wound on the back of Satbir Singh and one incised  

wound on the back of Ram Das. Two injuries on the person  

of Satbir, two injuries on the person of Dalbir and one  

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      5 of 20  

Page 6

injury on the person of Ram Das were found to be simple  

injuries caused with blunt weapons. PW.3 Dr. C.R. Garg  

proved the MLRs Exhibit PL and Exhibit P.M. according to  

which five injuries caused with sharp edged weapon, one of  

which consisted of two incised wounds, were found on the  

person of Kashmir Singh and two incised wounds were  

found on the person of Jasbir Singh.  Injury No.5 on the  

person of Kashmir Singh which consisted of two incised  

wound in the left axillary midline was declared to be  

dangerous to life.

5. PW-8 Ram Niwas was a Panch witness who confirmed  

Exhibit PS, the disclosure statement made by Subhash (A-

1) about the concealment of knife and the recovery memo  

Exhibit PS/2 at his instance pursuant to which the knife  

was taken into possession. The recovery of knife Exhibit  

PS/2 based on the disclosure statement of Subhash was  

produced to support the case of the prosecution that A-1  

caused the knife injuries on PW6 Jasbir. Exhibit PY and  

PY/1 were the reports of FSL and Serologist marked in the  

trial Court.  In the 313 questioning, while the first accused  

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      6 of 20  

Page 7

denied his involvement in the offence, the other accused  

took up the defence that it was Kashmir Singh who gave  

knife blows to the appellant and Ram Das (A-4) while  

complainant-Subhash, Joginder Singh and Surender threw  

brickbats at the accused while Jasbir Singh (PW-7) alleged  

to have caught hold of Ram Das A-4. The trial Court  

recorded that no evidence was led on the defence side.

6. The trial Court, on a detailed analysis of the entire  

evidence and after making a thorough discussion of the  

respective contentions made on behalf of the accused  

including that of the appellant found that no offence was  

made out as against Dalbir Singh (A-3) inasmuch as he did  

not effectively participate in the occurrence and the knife  

blows were inflicted by A-1 Subhash s/o Ram Kumar to  

the members of the complainant party.  The trial Court  

also found that the allegation that Dalbir Singh (A-3)  

caught hold of Joginder to whom A-1 alleged to have  

inflicted the knife injuries was not proved inasmuch as no  

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      7 of 20  

Page 8

injury was found on the person of Joginder Singh. The trial  

Court, therefore, acquitted Dalbir Singh (A-3).

7. As far as others were concerned, the trial Court reached  

the conclusion that the accused party were the aggressors,  

that it was the appellant who was responsible for the  

aggression and that there was a pre-meditated intention in  

common to injure the complainant party with the weapon,  

such common intention was deliberately displayed in the  

course of committing the crime and, therefore, the accused  

No.1- Subhash s/o Ram Kumar,    A-2, Satbir @ Lakha  

and Ram Das (A-4) were found guilty of the offence alleged  

against them.

8. The trial Court, therefore, imposed the sentence of three  

years’  rigorous imprisonment on the appellant and Ram  

Das (A-4) for the offence under Section 307 read with  

Section 34 IPC along with fine of Rs. 1000/- and also  

rigorous imprisonment of 1 ½ years each for the offence  

under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC.  The  

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      8 of 20  

Page 9

sentences awarded to the accused under different sections  

were directed to run concurrently and in default of  

payment of fine each of the accused were to undergo  

further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months  

each.  As far as A-1 was concerned, he was imposed with a  

rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years along with  

fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 307 IPC and rigorous  

imprisonment of two years for the offence under Section  

324 IPC, in default of payment of fine he was to under go  

default sentence of three months.

9. The appellant along with Ram Das preferred Criminal  

Appeal No.488-SB/1995 while A-1 Subhash s/o Ram  

Kumar preferred Criminal Appeal No. 580-SB/1995 and by  

the common order impugned in this appeal, the learned  

Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at  

Chandigarh confirmed the conviction and sentence  

imposed on the appellant as well as the other convicted  

accused persons. The appellant has come forward with this  

appeal against that order of the High Court.

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      9 of 20  

Page 10

10. We heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned counsel for the  

appellant and learned counsel for the State.  We also  

perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as the High  

Court and all other material papers placed before us.  In  

the course of his submissions, counsel for the appellant  

contended that the injuries sustained by the appellant on  

his back which were three in number as proved by  

examination of the concerned doctor, and having regard to  

the nature of injuries sustained by him the theory of such  

injuries sustained by him at the hands of A-4 ought not  

have been accepted.  It was contended that there was  

nothing in evidence to show that the appellant was aware  

of the possession of knife by A-1, that the role attributed to  

the appellant was holding of Jasbir Singh (PW-7) and that  

there was no clinching evidence to show that he shared the  

common intention with A-1 or other accused in the  

infliction of injuries on the complainant party.  The learned  

counsel lastly contended that the appellant has suffered  

six months behind the bars and the imposition of three  

years sentence was on the higher side.

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      10 of 20  

Page 11

11. As against the above submissions, learned counsel for the  

State after referring to the evidence of PWs-5, 6 and 7  as  

well as that of the doctor (PW-3) who testified the medical  

report Exhibit PL of PW-6 Kashmir Singh which disclosed  

that the incised wound in the left axillary midline was  

declared to be a dangerous one to the life of PW-6 and the  

evidence which was elaborately led before the trial Court  

disclose that but for the overt act of the appellant in having  

held PW-6, there would have been no scope for A-1  

Subhash s/o Ram Kumar to have inflicted the said serious  

injury. The learned counsel contended that the conviction  

and sentence imposed on the appellant was well justified  

and the same does not call for interference.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties  

and having perused the judgments of the courts below we  

are also convinced and find force in the submission of  

learned counsel for the State.  At the very outset, it will  

have to be stated that the occurrence has happened on  

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      11 of 20  

Page 12

18.02.1992/19.02.1992 was not disputed. It is also not in  

dispute that the appellant and Dalbir A-3 were in charge of  

the collection of donations for the celebrations of Ravi Dass  

Jayanti on 18.02.1992. There was an uncontroverted  

version of the prosecution side that after the celebration  

was over, there was a suggestion to the appellant and  

other accused party to spend the balance amount for the  

benefit of the temple. It is the case of the prosecution that  

enraged by the questioning by the members of the  

complainant party about the donation collected by the  

appellant and A-3, the amounts spent for the celebration  

and demand for spending the balance amount for the  

benefit of the temple, on the evening of 19.02.1992 at 8  

p.m. when PWs-5, 6 and 7 along with others were  

assembled in the tailor shop of one Kitab Singh, the  

accused party led by the appellant questioned the  

authority of the complainant party in having raised an  

issue about the availability of the balance amount collected  

by way of donation. The said fact about the quarrel relating  

to the said issue is also not in dispute. The further fact  

relating to the injuries sustained in that occurrence both  

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      12 of 20  

Page 13

by the complainant party as well as the accused is also not  

in dispute. Therefore, the trial Court rightly ventured to  

examine to find out which party was the real aggressor in  

order to find out whether the fault lie on the appellant  

party or the complainants.

13. While examining the said issue, the trial Court made an  

honest attempt and noted certain important features  

namely :

a) That PWs 5, 6 and 7 gave a detailed and convincing  

version of the prosecution story.   

b) Their version amply proved their presence as well as the  

presence of accused at the place of occurrence on  

19.02.1992.

c) As per the direction of the tailor Kitab Singh when both  

the groups came out of his shop to the street, A-1  

Subhash s/o Ram Kumar wielded a knife and started  

inflicting injuries first on Subhash s/o Nafe Singh (PW-

5) and thereafter on Kashmir Singh (PW-6) and Jasbir  

Singh (PW-7) whose mobility was restricted at the  

instance of the appellant and Ram Das (A-4).   

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      13 of 20  

Page 14

d) Though Dalbir Singh (A-3) stated to have held Joginder  

Singh no injury was found on the body of Joginder  

Singh.

e) In the scuffle appellant and Ram Das (A-4) also received  

injuries at the hands of Subhash Singh s/o Ram Kumar  

(A-1).   

f) Admittedly the injured witnesses threw brickbats by way  

of self-defence against the accused.  

g) The medical evidence through Dr. C.R. Garg (PW-3)  

disclosed five incised wounds on the person of Kashmir  

Singh (PW-6) and two incised wounds on the person of  

Jasbir Singh (PW-7).  

h) The injury No.5 on the person of Kashmir Singh PW-6  

consisted of two incised wounds in the left axillary  

midline which was declared to be dangerous to life by  

PW-3, the doctor who examined him.

i) The X-ray examination of the injury sustained by Jasbir  

Singh (PW-7) as well as Kashmir Singh (PW-6) disclosed  

that air was found in the diaphragm of each of the  

injured as per the version of PW-1, Dr. J.S. Bhatia.

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      14 of 20  

Page 15

j) The causing of knife injuries on the person of PWs-5, 6  

and 7 was at the instance of Subhash s/o Ram Kumar  

(A-1) and the appellant and that the injury in the body  

of Jasbir Singh was by virtue of the overt act of the  

appellant in having made him immobile which facilitated  

Subhash Singh s/o Ram Kumar (A-1) to inflict the  

injuries on him.   

k) Similar overt act was attributed to Ram Das (A-4) which  

caused severe injuries on Kashmir Singh (PW-6).   

l) The injury sustained by appellant and Ram Das was  

also at the instance of A-1 Subhash s/o of Ram Kumar  

only as stated by prosecution witnesses.  

m) While the injuries sustained by PW-5 Subhash s/o Nafe  

Singh, PW-6 Kashmir Singh and PW-7 Jasbir Singh  

were severe, some of the injuries sustained by PWs-6-7  

were proved to be serious in nature.  

n) The injuries sustained by the accused party including  

that of the appellant were minor in character.  

o) The very fact that immediately after the aggression  

started the appellant and other accused namely, A-3  

and A-4 caught hold of PWs-6, 7 and Surender Singh  

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      15 of 20  

Page 16

while A-1 Subhash s/o Ram Kumar inflicted the injuries  

on the witnesses made it clear that the common  

intention was formulated then and there to indulge in  

the crime, though there would not have been a pre-

meditation or any conspiracy on the part of the accused.

p) Having regard to the serious and dangerous injuries  

suffered by PW-6 Kashmir Singh, as well as the other  

injuries sustained by all the three of them namely, PWs-

5 6 and 7, offence falling under Sections 307,323 and  

324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was made out.

14. When we consider the above conclusion of the trial Court,  

which was also affirmed by the learned Judge of the High  

Court, we find that there was no contra evidence or  

material placed before the Court to take a different view  

than what has been held by the trial Court.  Though in the  

313 questioning on behalf of the appellant and other  

accused other than A-1, it was contended that Kashmir  

Singh (PW-6) only gave knife blows to the appellant and  

Ramdas (A-4) while Subhash s/o Nafe Singh (PW-5) and  

Joginder along with Surender threw brickbats and that  

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      16 of 20  

Page 17

Jasbir Singh (PW-7) caught hold of Ram Das (A-4), as  

rightly noted by the trial Court no evidence was led in  

support of the said stand.

15. Though it was claimed that the knife injury sustained by  

the appellant was at the hands of Kashmir Singh, it was  

for the appellant to have led necessary evidence in support  

of the said claim.  Except the ipse dixit of the appellant  

throwing the blame on PW-6 Kashmir Singh, there was  

nothing on record to support the said stand.  On the other  

hand it has come out in evidence that the responsibility of  

colleting the donations was entrusted to the appellant and  

the said stand of the prosecution was not in dispute. As  

stated earlier the happening of occurrence on 19.02.1992  

at 8 p.m. over the issue relating to collection of donation,  

the available balance of such collection and the suggestion  

of one of the members of the complaining party to use the  

said available balance amount for the benefit of the temple  

were never disputed.  If that be so, when indisputably the  

appellant was responsible for the collection and the  

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      17 of 20  

Page 18

spending of the donation amount for the temple  

celebrations, it was quite natural that the complainant and  

the accused party who were youngsters and who were  

stated to be fully involved in the celebrations of the Temple  

festival felt that entirety of the donation amount collected  

should be spent out and it should not go to the personal  

benefit of any one individual with whom the collection was  

entrusted.  Apparently the appellant who was enraged by  

the questioning of his authority about the collection made  

and the balance amount available with him, felt insulted  

who apparently threw a challenge to the complaining party  

on 19.02.1992 at 8 p.m. which unfortunately ended in the  

fateful occurrence of causing injuries on PWs-5,6 and 7  

who had to ultimately face the wrath of the  appellant and  

his supporters. Apart from the simple knife injuries  

sustained by appellant and A-4 Ram Das, the other  

injuries were admittedly by a blunt weapon which could  

have been caused by the throwing of the brickbats at the  

instance of injured witnesses which was also admitted. It  

is quite natural that when the injured witnesses were  

attacked and A-1 had come there with a knife by which he  

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      18 of 20  

Page 19

caused the injuries and the other accused other than A-3  

aided him to cause such injuries which intention was  

gathered at the moment of the occurrence, the injured  

witnesses could have made every attempt to save  

themselves by throwing brickbats which would have been  

available on the road against the accused in order to save  

themselves from any further attack.  Therefore, no fault  

can be found with the said action of the injured witnesses  

which would have caused some minor injuries on the  

appellant and the other accused.

16. Taking an overall consideration of the evidence available  

on record both ocular as well as documentary the  

reasoning of the trial Court as well as that of the High  

Court we are also convinced that the conviction and  

sentence imposed on the appellant for the offences under  

Sections 307, 323 read with Section 34 IPC was fully made  

out and we do not find any good grounds to interfere with  

the same. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      19 of 20  

Page 20

17. The appellant is on bail. The bail bond stands cancelled  

and he shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out  

the remaining part of sentence, if any.

.…..……….…………………………...J.                   [Swatanter Kumar]

  ………….………………………………J.           [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]

New Delhi; October 18, 2012

Criminal Appeal No.1718 of 2009                                                                                      20 of 20