Supreme Court of India
Balaur Singh And Others Etc. Etc. vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1995SC1956, 1995CRILJ3611, AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1956, 1995 AIR SCW 3050, 1996 REVLR 1 248, (1995) 2 CIVLJ 699, (1995) 2 MAH LJ 340, (1995) 3 CURCC 111, (1995) 2 RENTLR 250, (1995) MPLJ 751, 1995 PUNJ LJ 517, (1996) 1 LANDLR 256, (1996) 1 GUJ LH 615, (1996) 1 LJR 30, (1996) LACC 64, (1995) 3 SCR 857 (SC)
Author: Madan Mohan Punchhi
Bench: Madan Mohan Punchhi
JUDGMENT Madan Mohan Punchhi, J.
1. The judgment and order under appeal, as passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is common to an occurrence which admittedly took place between two sets of people arraigned respectively as accused in the respective cross cases. Separate appeals however have been filed by both the parties. We need not go into the details thereof. It is enough to mention that we have four accused persons on one side and four on the other. On one side, we have Balaur Singh and his sons, namely, Darshan Singh, Mukand Singh and Sant Singh as accused persons; on the other side, we have Tara Singh, Naib Singh, Harnek Singh and Karnail Singh appellants-as accused persons. The person who died was Bhag Singh belonging to the latter mentioned party of Tara Singh and three others. The injuries received by Balaur Singh, Darshan Singh, Mukand Singh and Sant Singh total up to 19, whereas the injuries on the side of Tara Singh, Naib Singh, Harnek Singh and Karnail Singh total up to S. The sole injury on Bhag Singh deceased distinctively was on his head, caused by means of a Gandasa - the blow having been given by Darshan Singh, appellant.
2. Bhag Singh did not succumb to his injury instantaneously and had to be taken to the hospital for treatment. Apparently, he was attended upon inasmuch as his wound was stitched. He died six days later. According to the opinion of the Doctor, he died on account of coma and asphyxia because of the head injury. The other injuries on other persons need not be detailed out.
3. The consistent view of the two Courts below is that there was a free-fight between the parties and therefore each and every assailant was accountable for the individual acts performed by him. It is on that basis that cross convictions have been recorded by the Courts below and a measure of sentence has been set inasmuch as those found guilty of grievous hurts, be they be by blunt weapon or sharp-edged weapon, have been sentenced to two years' R.I. ; the ones guilty of causing simple hurt by sharp-edged weapon to one year's R.I. and the ones held guilty of causing simple hurt by blunt weapons have been sentenced to six months' R.I. there is smattering some fine here and there, in one or the other conviction.
4. On hearing learned Counsel and on going through the record, we find that the view taken by the Courts below with regard to the free-fight and accountability of the appellants other than Darshan Singh to the individual injuries they cross-inflicted on each other, was fairly sound. We have no two opinions in that regard. The convictions and sentences of the appellants other than Darshan Singh as recorded by the Courts below are hereby affirmed.
5. Insofar as Darshan Singh, appellant, is concerned, who has been held responsible for causing the sole fatal injury to Bhag Singh deceased, we are of the view that he cannot be held guilty for offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. The dimension of injury and the situs thereof cannot, in the facts and the circumstances, be called to be calculated or targeted while being caused by the assailant. In a free-fight there is movement of body of the victim and the assailant who are themselves participants or expected participants in the cross assault on the other side. In such a situation, it cannot conclusively be held that Darshan Singh caused the injury intentionally to achieve that objective. It was a single blow and was not repeated. Furthermore, Bhag Singh died six days later because of complications of coma and asphyxia, resulting on account of the injury, despite the medical attention. We would thus in the circumstances, hold him guilty for offence under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C, setting aside his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. For the offence altered, we shall think that imposition of seven years R.I. shall be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The same is thus imposed on him.
6. The end result is that the appeals of all the appellants herein save that of Darshan Singh fail and are hereby dismissed. The appeal of Darshan Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 1992) is partially allowed to the extent that his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. is set aside and instead, he is convicted under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. whereunder he is sentenced to seven years' Rule 1. The appeals thus stand disposed of.