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

PETITIONER: JAI SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SARWAN SINGH & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1983

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1983 AIR 1326            1984 SCR  (1) 811  1984 SCC  (1) 165        1983 SCALE  (2)677

ACT:      Criminal Proceedings-Appeal  against conviction-Accused cannot be acquitted without considering evidence on record.

HEADNOTE:      The  respondents   were  convicted  and  sentenced  for committing murder  and other  offences. The deceased and the respondents, who respectively belonged to the Rajput and the Harijan factions  of the village, had a dispute over a piece of land which had been decided in favour of the Rajputs by a final order  of the  High Court  in second  appeal. When the respondents’ appeal  against conviction in the criminal case came up  for hearing, the High Court took the view that ’the matter could  be settled  by a  compromise’ and  invited the Harijans and  Rajput panchayats  of the  village  to  appear before it  and, ultimately,  called for  the papers  of  the second appeal  decided earlier  and passed  an order  to the effect that, as agreed between the parties, the claim of the Harijans for  four kanals  of land was allowed. Finding that some of the affected parties were not served, the High Court directed that  if any  unserved party  had a  grievance,  it could apply  for review  of the judgment. After re-disposing of the  second appeal  relating to  the dispute over land in the manner stated above, the High Court took up the criminal appeal for  hearing and,  without considering  the  evidence before  it,   delivered  a  short  judgment  acquitting  the respondents.      Remanding the appeal, ^      HELD: It is impossible to appreciate how the High Court could dispose  of the  criminal appeal in this extraordinary fashion. It  is obvious  that the High Court had made up its mind to  acquit the accused without considering the evidence before it.  Finding that  the offence  of murder  cannot  be compounded,  the  High  Court  took  the  facile  course  of acquitting the  accused who,  by a considered judgment, were convicted by the trial Court. [814 C-D]      The judgment  of the  High Court shows how important it is for  the judges to observe the norms laid down by law for dispensing justice.  ’Justice under  the tree’ or ’panchayat justice’ have  advantages of  their own,  but they cannot be confused with  justice according  to the  Chancellor’s foot.

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

[812 F]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 562 of 1983. 812      From the  Judgment and  Order dated the 29th July, 1982 of the  Punjab and  Haryana  High  Court  at  Chandigarh  in Criminal Appeal No. 78-DB/80.      Prem Malhotra for the Appellant.      R.K. Garg and D.K.Garg for the respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHANDRACHUD, C.  J. Thirteen  persons were sentenced to life imprisonment  by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, under section 302 read with section 149 of the Penal Code. For  other offences connected with the main offence of murder, they  were sentenced  to lesser  concurrent terms of imprisonment. The  charge against  the accused  is that they committed the  murder of one Dhian Singh and caused injuries to six others on June 6, 1980.      The accused are Harijans while the deceased Dhian Singh belonged to  the Rajput faction of the village of Sultanpur. There were  disputes between  the two groups over a piece of land. The  Harijans filed a suit to establish their title to that land  but they lost that suit, having taken it upto the High Court in Second Appeal Proceedings under section 145 of the Code  of Criminal  Procedure were instituted against the two factions, which also the Rajputs won.      The judgment which the High Court of Punjab and Haryana declared in  this case  shows how important it is for Judges to observe  the  norms  laid  down  by  law  for  dispensing justice. ’Justice under the tree’ or the ’Panchayat justice’ have advantages  of their  own, but  they cannot be confused with  justice   according  to   the  Chancellor’s  foot.  If anything, the strange procedure adopted by the High Court in this case  has only  succeeded in  giving a  bad name  to  a useful  innovation  which,  if  tried  cautiously  and  with circumspection, will take away at least a frivolous chunk of litigation which  clogs the  wheels of  justice in Courts of law.      When the  appeal filed  by  the  accused  came  up  for hearing before  the High  Court, it  took the view that "the matter could  be settled  by a  compromise". It  invited the Harijan Panchayat and the Rajput Panchayat of the village of Sultanpur to  appear before  it. On  May 28,  1982  the  two Panchayats 813 agreed that  the Harijans should be allotted four kanals out of the  disputed land.  The High  Court accordingly directed that  the   Revenue  authorities  should  go  to  the  spot, demarcate that  land and  report back  to it  along with the plans. The  report  submitted  by  the  Revenue  authorities showed, according  to the High Court, that its order was not understood correctly.  The High  Court then  entered into  a dialogue with  Shri Bhasin,  District Attorney, Haryana, who informed it that he had discussed the matter with the S.D.O. (Civil), Kalka,  and that  the said  Officer was of the view that the  land could be demarcated so that four kanals could be allotted therefrom to the Harijans.      While hearing  the criminal appeal against the order of conviction for murder and the other offences, the High Court called for  the papers  of Second  Appeal No.  742 of  1978, which was  disposed of in 1980 by a final order in favour of

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

the Rajputs.  All the  effected parties  were not before the High Court  as they  possibly could  not be,  since what was before the  High Court  was the  criminal appeal and not the Second Appeal.  The High  Court, finding  that some  of  the affected parties  were not  served,  directed  that  if  any unserved party  had a  grievance, it  could approach  it for review of its judgment.      The High  Court thereafter  recorded the  statements of the two  learned counsel,  Shri F.C.  Aggarwal and Shri C.D. Dewan who  appeared for  the parties.  Shri Aggarwal  stated that he  agreed that  four kanals  from the  land should  be allotted to  the Harijans.  Shri Dewan made a statement that he agreed with what Shri Aggarwal had stated. The High Court then had Second Appeal No. 742 of 1978 called out and passed an order  to the  effect that as agreed between the parties, the claim  of the  Harijans for  four kanals of the land was allowed.      Having thus  re-disposed of the Second Appeal, the High Court took  up the  criminal appeal  for hearing. The entire judgment of the High Court runs thus:           "We do  not wish  to give  a detailed  judgment in      this  case.  It  suffices  to  mention  that  there  is      abundant evidence  on record  to indicate  that  actual      possession of the land falling under the Asthan of Sidh      Baba, the  well and  the adjoining  houses was  of  the      accused. It looks 814      more probable  that  when  some  force  being  used  to      dispossess them, they protested and when their protests      were unavailing  violence was  used  resulting  in  the      death of Dhian Singh, deceased.           In the circumstances, we give the benefit of doubt      to the  accused persons,  and acquit  them of  all  the      charges. We  do hope  that in  future the  parties will      live together  amicably. With  these observations,  the      appeal is allowed."      With respect,  it is  impossible to  appreciate how the High Court  could dispose  of the  criminal appeal  in  this extraordinary fashion. It is obvious that the High Court had made up  its mind  to acquit the accused without considering the evidence  before it.  Finding that the offence of murder cannot be  compounded, the High Court took the facile course of acquitting  the accused  who, by  a considered  judgment, were convicted  by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is less than just to allow the judgment of the High Court to stand. Shri  R.K.  Garg,  who  appeared  on  behalf  of  the accused, found  it impossible to support the judgment of the High Court.      Accordingly, we  set aside  the judgment  of  the  High Court dated  July 29,  1982 and  remand the appeal to it for disposal in accordance with law. We also set aside the order passed on  that date  by the High Court in Second Appeal No. 742 of  1978. The earlier judgment of the High Court in that appeal will be restored. We hope that the High Court will be able to  take up the criminal appeal for hearing at an early date. If the evidence warrants the acquittal of the accused, they will be entitled to be acquitted. We express no opinion on the merits of that matter. H.L.C.                                      Appeal Remanded. 815