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

PETITIONER: POHAP SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/12/1997

BENCH: G.B. NANAVATI, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997 Present:               Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.T.Nanavati               Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Venkataswami Ajay  Siwatch,   Adv.Ms.Naresh  Bakshi,  Adv.(N.P)  for  the appellants Sushil   Kumar   Sr.Adv.,   Subhadra   Chaturvedi,   Amitabh Chaturvedi, Tarun  Bhalla, K.N.Rai  and Prem Malhotra. Advs. with him for the Respondents.                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: NANAVATI, J.      Both these  appeals arise  out of  the judgment  of the Punjab &  Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 579/DB/1986. The High  Court acquitted all the accused who were convicted by the  trial court.  Criminal Appeal  No.659/89 is filed by Pohap Singh  P.W.  13,  father  of  the  deceased  Bir  Pal. Criminal Appeal No.660/89 is filed by the State.      It was  the prosecution  case is that while Pohap Singh along with  his son  Bir Pal and complainant Umed Singh were passing through  a public  street had reached near the house of Abhey  Singh, they  were attacked  by Abhey  Singh and  6 others in  view of  the previous  enmity. As a result of the said attack  all the  three of  them and four others who had come to  their rescue  rescue  received  injuries.  Bir  Pal succumbed to  the injuries  soon after incident. All of them were, therefore  tried for  offences punishable  under Secs. 148, 302 read with 149, 325 with 149 and read 149 I.P.C. The trial court relying upon the evidence of Pohap Singh, P.W.13 and Hukam Singh, P.W. 12 convicted Abhey Singh and Ram Kumar for the  offence punishable  under  section  302  read  with sec.34 I.P.C.  Rest of  the  accused  were  convicted  under sections 148, 325 read with 149 and 324 rad with 149.      The High  Court on  reappreciation of  the evidence  of Pohap Singh and Hukam Singh came to the conclusion that they had not  given a  correct version  regarding the  manner  in which  the   incident  had   happened  Their   evidence  was desbelieved  by   the  High  because  the  medical  evidence disclosed that  the accused  had  received  as  many  as  26 injuries as against 18 injuries received by deceased Bir Pal

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

and his companions. The High Court has held that the two eye witnesses had  made material improvements while giving their evidence. It  also held  that the  eye  witnesses  have  not explained when  and under  what circumstances  they  started giving blows  to the accused. Only a vague statement made by them that  after they were injured some persons who had come there on  hearing their  cries had  wielded their sticks and that is  how they  received injuries. That version was found by the High Court as improbable and unnatural and therefore, it  recorded   a  finding   that  the  complainant  and  his companions  were  the  aggressors.  They  had  attacked  the accused and  whatever injuries  were received  by them  were caused by  the accused in exercise of their right of private defence. It  is not  possible to  say that the view taken by the High Court is so unreasonable as to call interference by the High Court is so unreasonable as to call interference by Court. The  findings recorded by the High Court are based on evidence and  the   reasons given  by it  cannot be regarded improper of perverse.      The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.