REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1145 OF 2010

Jagat Singh                                       .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of H.P.              .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

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.  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 I.P.C.  

2) The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as  

follows:

1

(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.  

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 Patwari had come to the  

spot for carrying out the demarcation of the said land.  Jagat  

Singh (A-1), and Rattan 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 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.  

2

(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) 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 Kaur-wife,  

Gurdeep Kaur-daughter, Sarabjit Kaur-daughter-in-law of the  

deceased accompanied by Harnek Singh – son of Vikram Singh  

(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  

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.  During the course of  

investigation,  one  Gatra  was  recovered  pursuant  to  the  

3

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.  

(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 Section 34  

I.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 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 I.P.C.  However, the appeal filed  

by the State against 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,  

4

sentenced Jagat Singh (A-1) to undergo imprisonment for life  

and to  pay a  fine  of  Rs.  2000/-  and in  default  to  undergo  

imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence  

punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C.  As  

regards the offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C., the appellant  

shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay  

a  fine  of  Rs.1000/-,  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.

(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 (PW-

1) is that he had a land dispute with the accused for the past  

four or five years.  The second accused i.e Rattan Singh (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  

5

spot for carrying out the demarcation of the said land.  At that  

time, the Complainant,  PW-1,  his brother -  Bachittar  Singh  

(the 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  (A1)  and Rattan  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 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.  Jagat 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, daughter, Gurdeep  

Kaur,  daughter  in  law  Sarbjit  Kaur  and  complainant’s  son  

6

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 bleeding  profusely  and the  complainant  

were  taken  to  District  Hospital,  Una  at  about  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  first  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 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 the appeal against (A-3) and   (A-4) was dismissed.  

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  (A1)  from  his  

statement made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal  

Procedure (hereinafter  referred to as ‘the Code’).   He stated  

that he was working in the field when the ASO accompanied  

7

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 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  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 he found himself overpowered.  Vikram Singh (PW-1)  

laid him down on the ground and started throttling him.  He  

requested Vikram 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.  

8

When he 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  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  

in order to do away the life of  the deceased or the offences  

alleged to have been committed have arisen from a free fight  

which  had  erupted  at  the  spur  of  the  moment.   It  is  also  

relevant to ascertain whether the accused exceeded 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 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  

9

the accused Jagat Singh (A-1) had filed a suit for permanent  

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.  

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 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 of the midline of the chest, on the left side of the  

chest and on the interior to the left axilla on the mis axillary  

line.  Apart from the above injuries of the deceased as well as  

1

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 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.  

1. There was a reddish brown small bruise of the size of 2  cms 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.

3. There  was  bluish  bruise  10  cm  x  1/3cms  with  intervening healthy area on the left side of the abdomen  5 cms above the left iliac crest.

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  

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  

1

statement  of  the  appellant-Jagat  Singh  which  have  thrown  

light that in what 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  Section  313  of  the  Code  that  to  save  

themselves, they stabbed the deceased and the complainant.  

Both A1 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  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 (A-4)  

were  acquitted  by  the  trial  Court  and  the  High  Court  

dismissed the appeal against them.  Considering the evidence  

of  the  doctor  with  regard  to  the  injuries  sustained  by  the  

deceased,  the complainant (PW-1)  as well  as the appellant/  

accused  and  the  evidence  of  (DW-1)  who  examined  the  

1

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  meddling  

with  the  enquiry  conducted  by  the  ASO,  both  the  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  

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 for causing hurt on the body of the deceased.  We are also  

of the view that there is no acceptable evidence 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  

and the accused sustained injuries in a free fight and also of  

1

the fact that the appellant A1 alone is before us, we feel that  

the ends of  justice would be met by altering the conviction  

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 for approximately seven months after conviction by  

the High Court, aged about 82 years and also suffering from  

asthma  and  other  old  age  ailments.   Considering  all  these  

aspects, we feel that the period undergone is sufficient and he  

be released forthwith if he is not required in any other offence.  

The appeal is allowed to this extent.  

  ……...…………………………………J.            (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)                                  

  ...…………….…………………… ……J.                                 

         (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

  …....…………………………………J.    (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)  

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 3, 2011                   

1

1