http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: RAM SINGH AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/04/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      The appeal  is directed  against the judgment and order of the  Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 242 DB/88.  The High  Court confirmed  the conviction of the appellants under  Section 148  and Sections 324, 325 and 302 I.P.C. all  read with  Section 149  I.P.C. recorded  by  the Sessions Court. Ambala in Sessions Case No. 22/87.      The appellants  on the  one hand and the two deceased - Bachittar Singh  and Bachan  Singh on  the other  hand  were distant collaterals  and they  had ‘baras’  situated side by side on  the outskirts  of their  village  near  the  common boundary of  two ‘baras’  there was  a ‘kikar’  tree  and  a dispute was  going on  between them  since long  as  regards ownership of that tree. On June 5, 1987, at about 6.00 p.m., appellant No.5 - Swaran Kaur was seen by Bachittar singh and Bachan   singh standing  near that kikar tree. they also saw Avtar Singh - appellant No. 4 cutting branches of that tree. So, Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh went to that ‘bara’ and protested against Avtar Singh cutting the branches. That led to an  exchange of  hot words  and  abuses  followed  by  an assault on  Bachittar Singh  and Bachan  Singh. According to the prosecution case, seeing this assault on Bachittar singh and Bachan  Singh, Labh Singh - PW 17 and Pala Singh - PW 18 went to  their rescue  but they were also assaulted by Avtar Singh, Ram  Singh - appellant No. 1, Didar singh - appellant No. 2 and Piara Singh - appellant No. 3 who had also by that time reached  that place  armed with weapons. As a result of that assault,  Bachittar Singh  and Bachan  Singh lost their lives and Labh Singh and Bachan Sing received some injuries.      In  order  to  prove  its  case,  the  prosecution  had examined three eye-witnesses, Labh Singh - pw 17, Pala Singh - PW  18 and  Kirpal Singh  - 19.  The trial  court believed their evidence  and convicted  all the  five appellants. The High  Court  accepting  evidence    of  those  eye-witnesses confirmed the conviction  of all the appellants.      Mr. Tulsi,  learned senior  counsel for the appellants, submitted that  the High  Court has  failed to consider that the eye-witnesses  have not  correctly stated  the manner in which the incident had started and also failed to appreciate that Didar  Singh -  appellant No. 4 was falsely implicated.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

He also  submitted that  the defence  version that appellant No. 1,  4 and  5 had  acted in  self-defence  while  causing injuries to  Bachittar Singh,  Bachan Singh,  Labh singh and Pala singh,  was more probable than the version given by the eye witnesses.  On the  other hand,  learned counsel for the respondent -  State submitted  that  looking  to  the  large number of  injuries received  by Bachittar  Singh and Bachan Singh, the  plea  of  self-defenceurged  by  the  appellants cannot be believed  and was, therefore, rightly  rejected by the High  Court. He also submitted that the evidence of Labh Singh and Pala Singh is also corroborated by the evidence of an independent-witnesse  PW 19,  Kirpal singh  and therefore the High  Court was  right in  accepting their  evidence and confirming the conviction of appellants.      We have  carefully gone  through the  evidence  of  the three eye-witnesses.  All of  them have  stated that  seeing appellant No.  5 -  Swaran Kaur standing near the Kikar tree and Avtar  Singh -  appellant No. 4 cutting branches of that tree. Bachittar  Singh and  Bachan Singh  had  gone  to  the ‘bara’ and  seeing an  assault on  them Labh  Singh and Pala Singh had  rushed to  that place.  Though their  evidence is consistent, it  is quite  vague as  regards the  assault  on Bachittar Singh  and Bachan  singh. There were nine injuries on the  body of  Bachittar singh  but the eye-witnesses have not explained  how those  nine injuries  were caused to him. They have only vaguely stated that Piara Singh and Ram Singh assaulted their  father with  ‘sotis’ and  therefore he  had fallen  down.   Both  Labh   Singh  and   Pala  Singh  stand contradicted by  their police  statements, wherein  they had stated that  they had  not seen Avtar Singh cutting branches of the  tree. Their  version before  the court was that they had  heard  noise  of  cutting  branches  of  a  tree.  This improvement made  by  the  witnesses  was  not  without  any purpose. No  cut branches  were  noticed  at  the  place  of occurrence. There  is neither mention of it in the site plan nor any  cut wood  was seized  by  the  police.  Both  these infirmities  in   their  evidence  create  a  serious  doubt regarding the  reason why  and the  manner in which they had gone to that ‘bara’. The evidence also discloses that during this very  incident Avtar  Singh had received three injuries and Swaran  kaur had  also received  two blows. According to the eye-witnesses,  none from  their side  had  carried  any weapon. An  attempt was  made by Labh singh before the court to explain  the injury on the hand of Swaran Kaur by stating that Avtar  Singh had  aimed a  blow  at  him,  but  he  had retreated with  the result  that it  fell on Swaran Kaur. He then stated  that by  that hands  of Ram  singh and then had given  some   blows  to  Avtar  Singh.  This  was  again  an improvement made  by him  as he  had not  so stated  in  his police  statement.  We  fine  that  the  eye-witnesses  have neither given the correct account regarding how the incident started nor  explained  satisfactorily  injuries  caused  to appellant Nos. 4 and 5.      We also  find that  appellant No.  2 Didar Singh was in all  probability  falsely  involved  by  the  eye-witnesses. According to them. Didar Singh had run to that ‘bara’ with a ‘Gandasa’ in  his hand  and given one blow with it to Bachan Singh.  ‘Gandasa’  is  a  sharp  edged  weapon.  No.  injury possible by  a sharp edged weapon was found on the person of Bachan Singh.      All these  infirmities in the evidence create a serious doubt  regarding  the  manner  in  which  the  incident  had happened.  Appellant  Nos.1,4  and  5  have  admitted  their persence at the seen of the offence. They have explained why Swaran kaur  had gone to their ‘bara’ and how and under what

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

circumstances they had gone there and caused injuries to the other side. What they have said appears to be more probable. For all  these reasons,  conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained.      We,  therefore,   allow  this  appeal,  set  aside  the judgment  and  order  of  the  High  Court  and  acquit  the appellants of  all the  charges levelled against them. Their bail bonds are ordered to be  cancelled.