State of Punjab Vs. Raj Singh & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 889-890 of 1995
Petitioner: State of Punjab
Respondent: Raj Singh & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 889-890 of 1995
Judges: U.C. BANERJEE & B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 10, 2002
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 100 – Self defence – Accused party suffering grievous injury. Held that High Court has rightly given benefit of section 100 and no interference called for. (Paras 3, 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The state of Punjab is in appeal against the order of reversal of conviction under section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment to an order of acquittal. The High Court has dealt with the issue with a detailed judgment. The principal issue involved is whether there was any excess in the matter of exercise of right of private defence. It is on this score, the High Court stated as below:
“The question then arises whether the accused had exceeded the right of exercise of self defence by giving fatal injuries to Sukhminder Singh after his fall on the ground as contended by Mr. Dhaliwal in this regard. It is notwithstanding that the accused had suffered injuries on their person with sharp edged weapon including grievous injuries. Thus they had reasonable apprehension of atleast suffering grievous hurt if not death at the hands of the complainant party. Their case squarely falls under clause first as well as second of section 100 of the Indian Penal Code. Once it is taken that the deceased was the aggressor then Thana Singh, Jarnail Singh, Raj Singh, Dev Singh, Balraj Singh and Malkiat Singh accused were not expected to weigh the force used by them in golden scales especially when there is no reliable and acceptable evidence as to which of the accused had given injuries on the neck of the victim after his fall although the eye witnesses alleged that Jit Singh accused appellant had done so and in the next breath they took shelter of the darkness of night when questioned as to on what part of their body the accused had received injuries at the hands of the deceased. The factum that Jit Singh accused had not suffered any injury in this occurrence also makes his participation in the occurrence highly doubtful.”
2. Admittedly, the deceased had suffered grievous injuries and so are the accused persons. Dr. Gurdeep Singh proved the injuries and the High Court dealt with it in the manner as below:
“Dr. Gurdeep Singh DW 1 medically examined Raj Singh accused at 3.15 a.m. on 26.5.1987 and found an incised wound measuring 16 cms x 10 cms x 4 cms on the outer aspect of his right shoulder cutting the underlying bone. The injury was declared grievous in nature. Thana Singh accused was medically examined at 3.45 a.m. on that day and two incised wounds were found on his person one of which was located on the lateral aspect of the neck and other on the right index finger. The neck injury was kept under observation while the other injury was declared simple in nature. Jarnail Singh accused was examined by this doctor on that day at 4.00 a.m. and five injuries were found on his person out of which four were incised wounds located on the right side of the head cutting underlying bone, the other on the base and dorsum of left middle finger and third on the left forearm and fourth on the back of the right shoulder. A contusion was also found on the left forearm. Injury no. 1 on the head was declared grievous in nature while injuries 2 and 5 were kept under observation subject to x-ray examination. Injuries 3 and 4 were, however, found simple in nature. Balraj Singh accused was medically examined by this doctor on that day and five incised wounds were found on his person, one of which was located on the palmer aspect of the left hand, the other on the left side of the head cutting underlying bone, the third on the right cheek, fourth on the right leg and fifth on the palmer aspect of the left little finger. Injury no. 2 was declared grievous while the rest were simple.
On the same day at 4.30 a.m. this doctor medically examined Dev Singh accused and found incised wound on the dorso lateral aspect of right forearm situated transversely 10 cms above the wrist joint. It was kept under observation subject to x-ray examination. Malkiat Singh accused was examined by this doctor on the same day at 4.45 a.m. and an incised wound was found on the back of right forearm cutting underlying bone. This injury was declared grievous in nature.”
3. It is on the basis of the aforesaid injuries that the High Court came to the conclusion that there is no escape but to accept the submissions of the appellant before the High Court to give them the benefit of exception contained in section 100, clauses first and second of the Indian Penal Code. For convenience sake the same is set out hereinbelow:
“First – such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
Second – Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;”
4. Having considered the same, the High Court thought it fit to allow the appeal and upon acceptance of the defence version did attribute the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.
5. The learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal rather emphatically contended that considering the nature of the injuries, the High Court has fallen into a manifest error. He has taken us through the injuries as suffered by the deceased as appears from the post mortem report. Similar is the submissions by learned counsel for the complainant. But upon consideration of the same, we do not find any justifiable reason to warrant intervention as regards the appreciation of the judgment and order of the High Court.
6. The order of reversal of the High Court, as noticed above, cannot be termed to be perverse in any way and the reasoning available in the judgment are otherwise plausible and thus worthy of acceptance.
7. On the wake of the aforesaid, we are unable to lend our concurrence to the submissions made in support of the appeal. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Bail bonds shall stand discharged.
1. The state of Punjab is in appeal against the order of reversal of conviction under section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment to an order of acquittal. The High Court has dealt with the issue with a detailed judgment. The principal issue involved is whether there was any excess in the matter of exercise of right of private defence. It is on this score, the High Court stated as below:
“The question then arises whether the accused had exceeded the right of exercise of self defence by giving fatal injuries to Sukhminder Singh after his fall on the ground as contended by Mr. Dhaliwal in this regard. It is notwithstanding that the accused had suffered injuries on their person with sharp edged weapon including grievous injuries. Thus they had reasonable apprehension of atleast suffering grievous hurt if not death at the hands of the complainant party. Their case squarely falls under clause first as well as second of section 100 of the Indian Penal Code. Once it is taken that the deceased was the aggressor then Thana Singh, Jarnail Singh, Raj Singh, Dev Singh, Balraj Singh and Malkiat Singh accused were not expected to weigh the force used by them in golden scales especially when there is no reliable and acceptable evidence as to which of the accused had given injuries on the neck of the victim after his fall although the eye witnesses alleged that Jit Singh accused appellant had done so and in the next breath they took shelter of the darkness of night when questioned as to on what part of their body the accused had received injuries at the hands of the deceased. The factum that Jit Singh accused had not suffered any injury in this occurrence also makes his participation in the occurrence highly doubtful.”
2. Admittedly, the deceased had suffered grievous injuries and so are the accused persons. Dr. Gurdeep Singh proved the injuries and the High Court dealt with it in the manner as below:
“Dr. Gurdeep Singh DW 1 medically examined Raj Singh accused at 3.15 a.m. on 26.5.1987 and found an incised wound measuring 16 cms x 10 cms x 4 cms on the outer aspect of his right shoulder cutting the underlying bone. The injury was declared grievous in nature. Thana Singh accused was medically examined at 3.45 a.m. on that day and two incised wounds were found on his person one of which was located on the lateral aspect of the neck and other on the right index finger. The neck injury was kept under observation while the other injury was declared simple in nature. Jarnail Singh accused was examined by this doctor on that day at 4.00 a.m. and five injuries were found on his person out of which four were incised wounds located on the right side of the head cutting underlying bone, the other on the base and dorsum of left middle finger and third on the left forearm and fourth on the back of the right shoulder. A contusion was also found on the left forearm. Injury no. 1 on the head was declared grievous in nature while injuries 2 and 5 were kept under observation subject to x-ray examination. Injuries 3 and 4 were, however, found simple in nature. Balraj Singh accused was medically examined by this doctor on that day and five incised wounds were found on his person, one of which was located on the palmer aspect of the left hand, the other on the left side of the head cutting underlying bone, the third on the right cheek, fourth on the right leg and fifth on the palmer aspect of the left little finger. Injury no. 2 was declared grievous while the rest were simple.
On the same day at 4.30 a.m. this doctor medically examined Dev Singh accused and found incised wound on the dorso lateral aspect of right forearm situated transversely 10 cms above the wrist joint. It was kept under observation subject to x-ray examination. Malkiat Singh accused was examined by this doctor on the same day at 4.45 a.m. and an incised wound was found on the back of right forearm cutting underlying bone. This injury was declared grievous in nature.”
3. It is on the basis of the aforesaid injuries that the High Court came to the conclusion that there is no escape but to accept the submissions of the appellant before the High Court to give them the benefit of exception contained in section 100, clauses first and second of the Indian Penal Code. For convenience sake the same is set out hereinbelow:
“First – such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
Second – Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;”
4. Having considered the same, the High Court thought it fit to allow the appeal and upon acceptance of the defence version did attribute the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.
5. The learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal rather emphatically contended that considering the nature of the injuries, the High Court has fallen into a manifest error. He has taken us through the injuries as suffered by the deceased as appears from the post mortem report. Similar is the submissions by learned counsel for the complainant. But upon consideration of the same, we do not find any justifiable reason to warrant intervention as regards the appreciation of the judgment and order of the High Court.
6. The order of reversal of the High Court, as noticed above, cannot be termed to be perverse in any way and the reasoning available in the judgment are otherwise plausible and thus worthy of acceptance.
7. On the wake of the aforesaid, we are unable to lend our concurrence to the submissions made in support of the appeal. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Bail bonds shall stand discharged.
