Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1718 OF 2009
Satbir @ Lakha ….Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. The second accused is the appellant before us. The challenge is to the
common judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in
Criminal Appeal Nos.488-SB/1995 and 580-SB/1995 dated 30.04.2009. By
the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge of the High Court
confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on all the accused. The
facts relating to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that
on 18.02.1992, Ravi Dass Jayanti was being celebrated in the village
Saniana from donations collected from public. One Joginder Singh asked
the appellant and Dalbir to spend the excess amount for the upkeep of
the temple. At about 8 p.m. on that day, one Subhash s/o Nafe Singh
(complainant), Jasbir Singh (PW-7), Kashmir Singh (PW-6), Joginder
Singh and Surender Singh were present in the shop of one Kitab Singh,
a tailor master. At that point of time, accused came to the spot and
the appellant stated to have questioned Subhash (complainant) and
others as to on what authority they were demanding for the accounts of
the donation collections. When exchange of words took place between
the complainant party and the accused party, the tailor Kitab Singh
asked them not to indulge in such quarrel inside his shop and to get
out of the shop. Thereafter all of them went out and came down to the
public street and in the course of their continued quarrel, the first
accused also by name Subhash s/o Ram Kumar stated to have inflicted a
knife blow on the back of the complainant Subhash s/o Nafe Singh (PW-
5) while Ram Das (A-4) caught hold of Kashmir Singh and Dalbir Singh
(A-3) caught hold of one Joginder Singh. Accused No.1, Subhash s/o
Ram Kumar stated to have inflicted knife injuries to Jasbir Singh and
Kashmir Singh. The tailor master Kitab Singh, Surender Singh and
Joginder Singh tried to pacify both the groups and in that process
Surender Singh also stated to have suffered knife injuries.
2. According to the complainant party, by way of private defence, they
threw brickbats on the accused and that the accused stated to have
fled away from the scene of occurrence. It was specifically alleged
that two of the accused, namely, the appellant and Ram Das (A-4) also
received injuries at the hands of Subhash s/o Ram Kumar (A-1) while he
was giving knife blows to Jasbir Singh and Kashmir Singh PWs-6 and 7
respectively. The injured complainants stated to have gone to CHC
Uklana in the vehicle belonging to one Baldev Singh where Subhash s/o
Nafe Singh was admitted and given treatment while PWs-6 and 7, namely,
Kashmir Singh and Jasbir Singh were referred to civil hospital, Hisar
as the injuries sustained by them were serious injuries. Surender
Singh stated to have gone to CHC Uklana, Saniana on the next day where
he was also given treatment.
3. On receipt of the memo from the hospital, the sub-Inspector L.R.
Sharma, PW-9 recorded the statement of Subhash s/o Nafe Singh pursuant
to which the case was registered under Sections 324, 323 read with
Section 34 IPC. Subsequently, after the receipt of report from the
G.H., Hisar of the injuries sustained by Kashmir Singh PW-6, which
were noted as serious injuries and were dangerous to life, the offence
under Section 307 IPC was also added. PW-9 stated to have recovered a
knife from the possession of Subhash s/o Ram Kumar (A-1) based on his
disclosure statement. Since the said knife was a spring actuated
knife, a separate case under the Arms Act was also registered against
him.
4. Based on the investigation and after its conclusion the final report
was lodged and a specific charge under section 307, IPC was framed
against the first accused Subhash s/o Ram Kumar and a charge under
Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the appellant
Dalbir (A-3) and Ram Das (A-4). A charge under Section 323 IPC read
with Section 34 IPC was made against all the accused persons. PW-1
was the doctor J.S. Bhatia who was examined to prove the X-ray report
Exhibits PD and PE relating to PWs-6 and 7 Kashmir Singh and Jasbir
Singh respectively. As per the said Exhibit, it was stated that air
was found under the diaphragm of both the injured. PW-2 Dr. Sukhdev
proved the MLRs Ex.PF and Exhibit PG of Subhash s/o Nafe Singh and
Surender Singh respectively. He found one incised wound on the back
of Subhash s/o Nafe Singh and two incised wounds near the chest and
two simple injuries of blunt weapon on the person of Surender Singh.
He also proved in cross-examination the MLRs Exhibit DA, of Satbir,
Exhibit DE of Dalbir and also deposed about the injuries of Ram Das.
He found one incised wound on the back of Satbir Singh and one incised
wound on the back of Ram Das. Two injuries on the person of Satbir,
two injuries on the person of Dalbir and one injury on the person of
Ram Das were found to be simple injuries caused with blunt weapons.
PW.3 Dr. C.R. Garg proved the MLRs Exhibit PL and Exhibit P.M.
according to which five injuries caused with sharp edged weapon, one
of which consisted of two incised wounds, were found on the person of
Kashmir Singh and two incised wounds were found on the person of
Jasbir Singh. Injury No.5 on the person of Kashmir Singh which
consisted of two incised wound in the left axillary midline was
declared to be dangerous to life.
5. PW-8 Ram Niwas was a Panch witness who confirmed Exhibit PS, the
disclosure statement made by Subhash (A-1) about the concealment of
knife and the recovery memo Exhibit PS/2 at his instance pursuant to
which the knife was taken into possession. The recovery of knife
Exhibit PS/2 based on the disclosure statement of Subhash was produced
to support the case of the prosecution that A-1 caused the knife
injuries on PW6 Jasbir. Exhibit PY and PY/1 were the reports of FSL
and Serologist marked in the trial Court. In the 313 questioning,
while the first accused denied his involvement in the offence, the
other accused took up the defence that it was Kashmir Singh who gave
knife blows to the appellant and Ram Das (A-4) while complainant-
Subhash, Joginder Singh and Surender threw brickbats at the accused
while Jasbir Singh (PW-7) alleged to have caught hold of Ram Das A-4.
The trial Court recorded that no evidence was led on the defence side.
6. The trial Court, on a detailed analysis of the entire evidence and
after making a thorough discussion of the respective contentions made
on behalf of the accused including that of the appellant found that no
offence was made out as against Dalbir Singh (A-3) inasmuch as he did
not effectively participate in the occurrence and the knife blows were
inflicted by A-1 Subhash s/o Ram Kumar to the members of the
complainant party. The trial Court also found that the allegation
that Dalbir Singh (A-3) caught hold of Joginder to whom A-1 alleged to
have inflicted the knife injuries was not proved inasmuch as no injury
was found on the person of Joginder Singh. The trial Court, therefore,
acquitted Dalbir Singh (A-3).
7. As far as others were concerned, the trial Court reached the
conclusion that the accused party were the aggressors, that it was the
appellant who was responsible for the aggression and that there was a
pre-meditated intention in common to injure the complainant party with
the weapon, such common intention was deliberately displayed in the
course of committing the crime and, therefore, the accused No.1-
Subhash s/o Ram Kumar, A-2, Satbir @ Lakha and Ram Das (A-4) were
found guilty of the offence alleged against them.
8. The trial Court, therefore, imposed the sentence of three years’
rigorous imprisonment on the appellant and Ram Das (A-4) for the
offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC along with fine of
Rs. 1000/- and also rigorous imprisonment of 1 ½ years each for the
offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The sentences
awarded to the accused under different sections were directed to run
concurrently and in default of payment of fine each of the accused
were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
months each. As far as A-1 was concerned, he was imposed with a
rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years along with fine of
Rs. 1000/- under Section 307 IPC and rigorous imprisonment of two
years for the offence under Section 324 IPC, in default of payment of
fine he was to under go default sentence of three months.
9. The appellant along with Ram Das preferred Criminal Appeal No.488-
SB/1995 while A-1 Subhash s/o Ram Kumar preferred Criminal Appeal No.
580-SB/1995 and by the common order impugned in this appeal, the
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellant as well as the other convicted accused persons. The
appellant has come forward with this appeal against that order of the
High Court.
10. We heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the State. We also perused the judgment of the
trial Court as well as the High Court and all other material papers
placed before us. In the course of his submissions, counsel for the
appellant contended that the injuries sustained by the appellant on
his back which were three in number as proved by examination of the
concerned doctor, and having regard to the nature of injuries
sustained by him the theory of such injuries sustained by him at the
hands of A-4 ought not have been accepted. It was contended that
there was nothing in evidence to show that the appellant was aware of
the possession of knife by A-1, that the role attributed to the
appellant was holding of Jasbir Singh (PW-7) and that there was no
clinching evidence to show that he shared the common intention with A-
1 or other accused in the infliction of injuries on the complainant
party. The learned counsel lastly contended that the appellant has
suffered six months behind the bars and the imposition of three years
sentence was on the higher side.
11. As against the above submissions, learned counsel for the State after
referring to the evidence of PWs-5, 6 and 7 as well as that of the
doctor (PW-3) who testified the medical report Exhibit PL of PW-6
Kashmir Singh which disclosed that the incised wound in the left
axillary midline was declared to be a dangerous one to the life of PW-
6 and the evidence which was elaborately led before the trial Court
disclose that but for the overt act of the appellant in having held PW-
6, there would have been no scope for A-1 Subhash s/o Ram Kumar to
have inflicted the said serious injury. The learned counsel contended
that the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant was well
justified and the same does not call for interference.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having
perused the judgments of the courts below we are also convinced and
find force in the submission of learned counsel for the State. At the
very outset, it will have to be stated that the occurrence has
happened on 18.02.1992/19.02.1992 was not disputed. It is also not in
dispute that the appellant and Dalbir A-3 were in charge of the
collection of donations for the celebrations of Ravi Dass Jayanti on
18.02.1992. There was an uncontroverted version of the prosecution
side that after the celebration was over, there was a suggestion to
the appellant and other accused party to spend the balance amount for
the benefit of the temple. It is the case of the prosecution that
enraged by the questioning by the members of the complainant party
about the donation collected by the appellant and A-3, the amounts
spent for the celebration and demand for spending the balance amount
for the benefit of the temple, on the evening of 19.02.1992 at 8 p.m.
when PWs-5, 6 and 7 along with others were assembled in the tailor
shop of one Kitab Singh, the accused party led by the appellant
questioned the authority of the complainant party in having raised an
issue about the availability of the balance amount collected by way of
donation. The said fact about the quarrel relating to the said issue
is also not in dispute. The further fact relating to the injuries
sustained in that occurrence both by the complainant party as well as
the accused is also not in dispute. Therefore, the trial Court rightly
ventured to examine to find out which party was the real aggressor in
order to find out whether the fault lie on the appellant party or the
complainants.
13. While examining the said issue, the trial Court made an honest attempt
and noted certain important features namely :
a) That PWs 5, 6 and 7 gave a detailed and convincing version of the
prosecution story.
b) Their version amply proved their presence as well as the presence
of accused at the place of occurrence on 19.02.1992.
c) As per the direction of the tailor Kitab Singh when both the groups
came out of his shop to the street, A-1 Subhash s/o Ram Kumar
wielded a knife and started inflicting injuries first on Subhash
s/o Nafe Singh (PW-5) and thereafter on Kashmir Singh (PW-6) and
Jasbir Singh (PW-7) whose mobility was restricted at the instance
of the appellant and Ram Das (A-4).
d) Though Dalbir Singh (A-3) stated to have held Joginder Singh no
injury was found on the body of Joginder Singh.
e) In the scuffle appellant and Ram Das (A-4) also received injuries
at the hands of Subhash Singh s/o Ram Kumar (A-1).
f) Admittedly the injured witnesses threw brickbats by way of self-
defence against the accused.
g) The medical evidence through Dr. C.R. Garg (PW-3) disclosed five
incised wounds on the person of Kashmir Singh (PW-6) and two
incised wounds on the person of Jasbir Singh (PW-7).
h) The injury No.5 on the person of Kashmir Singh PW-6 consisted of
two incised wounds in the left axillary midline which was declared
to be dangerous to life by PW-3, the doctor who examined him.
i) The X-ray examination of the injury sustained by Jasbir Singh (PW-
7) as well as Kashmir Singh (PW-6) disclosed that air was found in
the diaphragm of each of the injured as per the version of PW-1,
Dr. J.S. Bhatia.
j) The causing of knife injuries on the person of PWs-5, 6 and 7 was
at the instance of Subhash s/o Ram Kumar (A-1) and the appellant
and that the injury in the body of Jasbir Singh was by virtue of
the overt act of the appellant in having made him immobile which
facilitated Subhash Singh s/o Ram Kumar (A-1) to inflict the
injuries on him.
k) Similar overt act was attributed to Ram Das (A-4) which caused
severe injuries on Kashmir Singh (PW-6).
l) The injury sustained by appellant and Ram Das was also at the
instance of A-1 Subhash s/o of Ram Kumar only as stated by
prosecution witnesses.
m) While the injuries sustained by PW-5 Subhash s/o Nafe Singh, PW-6
Kashmir Singh and PW-7 Jasbir Singh were severe, some of the
injuries sustained by PWs-6-7 were proved to be serious in nature.
n) The injuries sustained by the accused party including that of the
appellant were minor in character.
o) The very fact that immediately after the aggression started the
appellant and other accused namely, A-3 and A-4 caught hold of PWs-
6, 7 and Surender Singh while A-1 Subhash s/o Ram Kumar inflicted
the injuries on the witnesses made it clear that the common
intention was formulated then and there to indulge in the crime,
though there would not have been a pre-meditation or any conspiracy
on the part of the accused.
p) Having regard to the serious and dangerous injuries suffered by PW-
6 Kashmir Singh, as well as the other injuries sustained by all the
three of them namely, PWs-5 6 and 7, offence falling under Sections
307,323 and 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was made out.
14. When we consider the above conclusion of the trial Court, which was
also affirmed by the learned Judge of the High Court, we find that
there was no contra evidence or material placed before the Court to
take a different view than what has been held by the trial Court.
Though in the 313 questioning on behalf of the appellant and other
accused other than A-1, it was contended that Kashmir Singh (PW-6)
only gave knife blows to the appellant and Ramdas (A-4) while Subhash
s/o Nafe Singh (PW-5) and Joginder along with Surender threw brickbats
and that Jasbir Singh (PW-7) caught hold of Ram Das (A-4), as rightly
noted by the trial Court no evidence was led in support of the said
stand.
15. Though it was claimed that the knife injury sustained by the appellant
was at the hands of Kashmir Singh, it was for the appellant to have
led necessary evidence in support of the said claim. Except the ipse
dixit of the appellant throwing the blame on PW-6 Kashmir Singh, there
was nothing on record to support the said stand. On the other hand it
has come out in evidence that the responsibility of colleting the
donations was entrusted to the appellant and the said stand of the
prosecution was not in dispute. As stated earlier the happening of
occurrence on 19.02.1992 at 8 p.m. over the issue relating to
collection of donation, the available balance of such collection and
the suggestion of one of the members of the complaining party to use
the said available balance amount for the benefit of the temple were
never disputed. If that be so, when indisputably the appellant was
responsible for the collection and the spending of the donation amount
for the temple celebrations, it was quite natural that the complainant
and the accused party who were youngsters and who were stated to be
fully involved in the celebrations of the Temple festival felt that
entirety of the donation amount collected should be spent out and it
should not go to the personal benefit of any one individual with whom
the collection was entrusted. Apparently the appellant who was
enraged by the questioning of his authority about the collection made
and the balance amount available with him, felt insulted who
apparently threw a challenge to the complaining party on 19.02.1992 at
8 p.m. which unfortunately ended in the fateful occurrence of causing
injuries on PWs-5,6 and 7 who had to ultimately face the wrath of the
appellant and his supporters. Apart from the simple knife injuries
sustained by appellant and A-4 Ram Das, the other injuries were
admittedly by a blunt weapon which could have been caused by the
throwing of the brickbats at the instance of injured witnesses which
was also admitted. It is quite natural that when the injured witnesses
were attacked and A-1 had come there with a knife by which he caused
the injuries and the other accused other than A-3 aided him to cause
such injuries which intention was gathered at the moment of the
occurrence, the injured witnesses could have made every attempt to
save themselves by throwing brickbats which would have been available
on the road against the accused in order to save themselves from any
further attack. Therefore, no fault can be found with the said action
of the injured witnesses which would have caused some minor injuries
on the appellant and the other accused.
16. Taking an overall consideration of the evidence available on record
both ocular as well as documentary the reasoning of the trial Court as
well as that of the High Court we are also convinced that the
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offences
under Sections 307, 323 read with Section 34 IPC was fully made out
and we do not find any good grounds to interfere with the same. The
appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
17. The appellant is on bail. The bail bond stands cancelled and he shall
be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of
sentence, if any.
.…..……….…………………………...J.
[Swatanter Kumar]
………….………………………………J.
[Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]
New Delhi;
October 18, 2012
