http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: LAJO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUKHDEV SINGH & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/01/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S.S.M. QUADRI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI. J      The widow  of Lal Chand, who was killed in the incident which took  place on  28.6.1985 and  in respect of which six accused including  respondent Nos.  1 to 5 were tried in the Court  of  the  Additional  Session  Judge.  Kurukshetra  in sessions case  No.5/1 Add  of 1986/Session  Trial No.  25 of 1986, has  filed these  appeals, as  respondent Nos.  1 to 5 have been acquitted by the High Court.      Lal Chand deceased and his brother Ram Sarup claimed to be in  possession of  Khasra No.24/21.  The prosecution case was that on 28.6.1985 at about 5.00 p.m. while Lal Chand and his Brother  Ram Sarup and his wife P.W. 6 Ishro were in the field, Sukhdev  Singh,  respondent  No.1  along  with  other accused came  there and started ploughing the land. When Lal Chand tried to persuade them not to plough the land, Sukhdev Singh fired  a shot  from his  double barrel  gun and caused injuries to  Lal Chand.  Thereafter other  accused assaulted Ram Sarup,  Ishro and  others who  came to  their rescue and caused injuries  to them  also. The trial court relying upon the evidence  of P.W. 4 Ram Sarup. P.W. 6, Ishro, and P.W. 7 Nirmal Singh  convicted Sukhdev  Singh for  the  offence  of murder and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section  323 IPC. Respondent No. 5 Sukhwinder Kaur was also convicted under Section 325 IPC.      All the  convicted accused  challenged their conviction before  the   Punjab  &   High  Court.  The  High  Court  on reappreciation of  the evidence  came to the conclusion that the prosecution  has filed  to establish  that Lal Chand and his son  were put into possession of the field and that they were, in  fact, in possession of the same on the date of the incident. The  High Court also found that the eye witnessess had not  failed to  explain the injuries which were found on th e  accused. The  accused Harvinder Singh had as many as 5 injuries on  his person  and  a  ccused  Ajit  Singh  had  a fracture of  his arm.  The High  Court also  found that  the defence version  that Sukhdev  Singh was  in possession  and that on  the fateful day when he was ploughing the land, Lal Chand, Ram  Sarup, Ishro  and Rulia  Ram had  gone to  their field  with  ghandasis  and  attacked  Harvinder  Singh  and

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

thereupon accused  Sukhdev Singh  had fired  a shot from his double barrel  gun in  exercise of  right of private defence was more acceptable.      Having gone  through the evidence and judgments of both the courts,  we find  that the  view taken by the High Court appears to  be quite  reasonable except  the oral version of the four  prosecution  witnesses  namely  Ram  Sarup,  Ishro Gurmukh Singh  and Nirmal  Singh there was no other evidence to show  that Lal Chand and his son were in possession of th field. The Entries produced from the revenue records clearly show that  the field  was in possession of accused Harvinder Singh. The  evidence also  discloses that  accused Harvinder Singh and Ajit were examined by Dr. T.L.Gilhotra, D.W. 1, on 2.7.85 and  had found injuries on their persons. He has also stated that  those injuries  were of  3 to  4 days duration. Those injuries do not appear to be self inflicted. Therefore the High  Court was  right in  holding that  the prosecution witnesses had  failed to  explain the injuries caused to the accused The  High Court  has also  pointed out  th at P.W. 7 Nirmal SIngh  was on  inimical terms  with  the  accused  as proceedings  under  Section  107  Cr.  P.C.  were  initiated against him  by the  accused. The  relations of  Ram  Sarup, (P.W.4) and  Ishro, (P.W.6)  were  also  inimical  with  the accused. If  in these  circumstances the  High Court did not think it  fit to place reliance on the prosecution witnesses it cannot  be said  that the view taken by the High Court is unreasonable.      We therefore dismiss these appeals. The bail b onds are ordered to be cancelled.