Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

We have extracted the material portion of the judgment of the High Court to indicate that the line of approach adopted by the High Court is wholly wrong. There is no discussion of the evidence much less any reasoning. The respondents herein along with five others had been found guilty by the trial court accepting the testimony of the two eye-witnesses and other material evidence on record. A brief resume of the facts is necessary. Lal Chand and Tara Chand are brothers. Ved Singh, Puran, Balwan and Ishwar are the sons of Tara Chand and Dhapan is his wife. Jagdish is the son of Lal Chand. Partap and Bhim Singh are brothers. Sham Sunder is the son of Bhim Singh. Roshan is the son of Partap. Tara Chand owns sugarcane field adjoining the wheat field of Partap. On 10.3. 1981 in the morning, Ved Singh burned sugarcane patties causing damage to the wheat crop. The protest raised by Roshan was not heeded. Bhim Singh arrived at the scene and altercation 'ensued. Partap later raised protest before Tara Chand. His grievance was not redressed. At about 6.00 P.M. Partap raised the protest before Puran who also turned down the same. Shortly thereaf- ter Puran and the other members of his family including his wife, brother and their children all numbering about eight reached in front of the house of Partap. They were armed and attacked Partap. The allegation is that the respondents Tara Chand and Puran had attacked Partap with jailies, first they gave jailies blows from the prong side in the chest and when Partap fell down, they gave jailies blows like lathi on his head, back and shoulder. Partap died on his way to the hospital. It is further alleged that in the course of the incident Lal Chand and Jagdish caused injuries to Roshan; Ishwar caused injuries to Dhapan wife of Partap; Puran, Ved, Balwan caused injuries to Sham Sunder. It has come out in evidence that Ved, Dhapan, Lal Chand, Puran and Ishwar also received injuries in the course of the incident. Sham Sunder and Roshan are the two eye-witnesses, be- sides Smt. Dhapan the wife of deceased Partap. There had been no independent witness. Sham Sunder and Roshan said that they had caused injuries to the members of the opposite party in self-de- fence. They do not however state in what circumstances they had to use force. The evidence does not disclose the genesis of the occurrence; how it developed and culminated in fatal injuries to Partap. There had been no enmity between the two groups. The immediate provocation for the quarrel is the damage to the wheat crops. It is admitted that Partap raised his protest right from the morning till the arrival of Puran who was employee of the Medical College, Rohtak. The prose- cution has, it appears, given a twist when they say that at 6.00 P.M. Partap met Puran who turned down his request and went home and after 15 minutes all the members of his family including the womenfolk reached the house of Partap and started the assault. It is significant to note that the women and even the minor children of both families were present and received injuries recording their presence at the place. It would therefore appear that it was a continu- ous transaction and when Partap persistently raises the protest and started abusing Puran, other members of his household had come out. The quarrel had taken a serious turn and in the course of further development fatal injuries had been caused to Partap. The plea of the respondents was that they did not cause any injury, that there was a Panchayat where a large crowd assembled and there had been brick- batting and altercation. The plea of private defence was not specifically set up. However, if there are material in evidence to indicate that the incident could not have hap- pened in the manner spoken to by the eye-witnesses and in all probability the respondents had used the force exercis- ing the right of private defence, then accused are entitled to the benefit thereof. Whether the respondents have in such circumstances exceeded their right and are justified in causing death, has necessarily to be considered. In the absence of a full discussion of the evidence by the High Court, we have been constrained to consider the materials on record. We have seen that there is the evidence of only the interested witnesses who have the tendency to exaggerate and involve even innocent persons. We have seen that most of the accused have sustained injuries and in explaining the same, the prosecution witnesses have not come forward with a truthful account. We are led to draw the inference that in the melee and ensued on account of the aggressive attitude of Partap, the respondents and other members of the family participated and used the force against Partap and his associates in all probabilities in the exercise of right of private defence. However, the circumstances did not warrant the causing of death and the respondents must be deemed to have exceeded their- right. The nature of the injuries indi-