Bhola Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana on 19 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bhola Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana on 19 February, 2024

Author: Sureshwar Thakur

Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Lalit Batra

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023053-DB




CRA-S-1066-2022 (O&M)                                                            -1-


       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

                                                  CRA-S-1066-2022 (O&M)
                                                  Reserved on: 24.01.2024
                                                  Date of Decision: 19.02.2024

BHOLA SINGH AND OTHERS
                                                                        .....Appellants
                                         Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
                                                                      ......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA

Present:    Mr. Kamal Narual, Advocate
            for applicant-appellant No.1.

            Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate and
            Mr. Shubham Mangla, Advocate for appellants
            No.2 to 13, 15 to 17 and 19.

            Mr. Rishu Garg, Advocate for appellant No.14.

            Mr. Randeep S. Dhull, Advocate with
            Mr. Aman Yadav, Advocate
            for appellant No.18.

            Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG Haryana with
            Mr. Pradeep Parkash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana and
            Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
                      ****

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned verdict, as

made on 10.03.2022, upon case bearing CIS No.SC No.26 of 2016, by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, wherethrough in respect of

charges drawn against the accused qua offences punishable under Sections

148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 325, 341, 427 of the IPC, thus the learned trial

Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against the

appellants-convicts. However, the other co-accused namely Gurmeet son of

Karam Singh, Kuldeep Singh of Sukha Singh, and, Virender Singh @ Babbu

son of Jagir Singh were acquitted from the charges drawn against them.

                               1 of 12
            ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 23:29:48 :::
                                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023053-DB




CRA-S-1066-2022 (O&M)                                                         -2-


Moreover, through a separate sentencing order drawn on 11.03.2022, the

learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the appellants-convicts in the

hereinafter extracted manner.

            Offence/        Quantum of Sentence
            Section
            148 IPC         Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each

and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment
of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three months each.

341 read with Simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and
section 149 to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of
IPC fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three days each.

323 read with Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each
section 149 and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment
IPC of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
one month each.

324 read with Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each
section 149 and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment
IPC of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
two months each.

325 read with Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each
section 149 and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment
IPC of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three months each.

307 read with Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each
section 149 and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment
IPC of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
five months each.

427 read with Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each
section 149 and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment
IPC of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
one month each.

2. All the above imposed sentences of imprisonment, were ordered

to run concurrently but the period of detention undergone by the appellants-

convicts, during the investigations, and, trial of the case, was, in terms of

Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., rather ordered to be set off from the above

imposed sentence(s) of imprisonment.

3. All the accused-convicts become aggrieved from the above

drawn verdict of conviction, besides also, become aggrieved from the

consequent thereto sentence(s) of imprisonment, and, of fine as became
2 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 23:29:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023053-DB

CRA-S-1066-2022 (O&M) -3-

imposed, upon them, by the learned convicting Court concerned, and, hence

have chosen to institute thereagainst the instant criminal appeal, before this

Court.

4. Learned State counsel has intimated to this Court, that neither

the State nor the complainant has constituted any appeal, before this Court,

against the verdict of acquittal, as made by the learned trial Judge concerned,

qua the acquitted persons (supra). Thus, the verdict of acquittal, as made in

respect of the acquitted accused, does acquire a conclusive, and, binding

effect.

Factual Background

5. The genesis of the prosecution case becomes embodied in the

appeal FIR, to which Ex. P1 is assigned. The narrations carried in Ex. P1

are, that the present FIR was registered on the statement of complainant

Baljeet Singh to the effect that he is an agriculturist and he along with

Balwan Singh, Mahinder, Karamveer and Mukhtiar had taken the land of

Panchayat on lease for six months and they had sown wheat on the same. On

5.11.2015, at about 10.30 am, when he along with Lal Singh, Avtar Singh,

Surjeet Singh, Balwan Singh, Karnail Singh, Raghbir Singh, Sukhwinder

Singh and Mukhpal Singh having fan, pipe and engine went to their fields in

tractor-trolley of Lal Singh bearing registration No.HRQ-1417 for irrigating

the fields and when they reached near the plot of Karamveer, all the accused

persons having gandasis, dandas and lathies in their hands were present

there, who got stopped them and attacked upon them with their respective

weapons and also damaged the motorcycles and tractor-trolley along with its

implements. On hearing the hue and cry, people working in their fields came

on the spot and on seeing them, accused persons fled away from the spot

along with their respective weapons while threatening to kill them in future.

                               3 of 12
            ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 23:29:49 :::
                                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023053-DB




CRA-S-1066-2022 (O&M)                                                         -4-


All the accused persons caused injuries to them with an intention to kill

them. Thereafter, they were shifted to CHC Pehowa for treatment, from

where, he (Baljeet). Lal Singh and Avtar Singh were referred to LNJP

Hospital, Kurukshetra and from there, Lal Singh was referred to GMCH

Sector-32, Chandigarh due to his critical condition. He prayed for taking

legal action against the accused persons. On the basis of these allegations,

F.I.R. under Sections 148, 307, 323, 324 and 341 read with section 149 of

IPC was registered.

Investigation proceedings

6. After investigation, challan against accused Bhola Singh,

Devinder Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Randhir Singh a Dheera, Kuldeep Singh

s/o Sukha Singh, Malkeet Singh, Gurnam Singh, Prem Singh, Kashmir

Singh, Virender Singh @ Babbu, Surender Singh @ Chhinda, and, Nishan

Singh was filed. Thereafter, supplementary challan against accused

Lakhwinder Kaur was filed.

7. Copies of challan was supplied to the accused free of costs as

envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C. On finding a prima-facie case for the

commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 341, 323, 324, 325,

307, 427 read with section 149 IPC against accused Bhola Singh, Devinder

Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Randhir Singh @ Dheera, Kuldeep Singh s/o Sukha

Singh, Malkeet Singh, Gurnam Singh, Prem Singh, Kashmir Singh, Virender

Singh @ Babbu, Surender Singh @ Chhinda, Nishan Singh and Lakhwinder

Kaur, the accused were charge-sheeted vide order dated 9.8.2016, to which

they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8. Thereafter, vide order dated 6.2.2017, an application under

section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed and Lakhwinder Singh, Daljeet Singh,

Jaswant Singh, Naib Singh, Satnam Singh, Jhorawar Singh, Dharam Singh,
4 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 23:29:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023053-DB

CRA-S-1066-2022 (O&M) -5-

Talwinder Singh, Balbir Singh, Kuldeep Singh s/o Kundan Singh and

Mukhtool Singh were ordered to be summoned to face the trial as additional

accused.

Committal Proceedings

9. Since the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of

Session, thus, the learned committal Court concerned, through a committal

order made on 8.07.2016, hence proceeded to commit the accused to face

trial before the Court of Session.

Trial Proceedings

10. The learned trial Judge concerned, after receiving the case for

trial, made an objective analysis of the incriminatory material, adduced

before him. Resultantly, he proceeded to draw a charge against accused, for

the commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 341, 323, 324,

325, 307, 427 read with section 149 IPC. The afore drawn charge was put to

the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty, and, claimed trial.

11. In proof of its case, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses,

and, thereafter the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, closed the

prosecution evidence. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned

trial Judge concerned, drew proceedings, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,

but thereins, the accused pleaded innocence, and, claimed false implication.

They also chose to adduce defence evidence, and, Ex.D4 to D14 were

tendered into evidence.

12. As above stated, the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to

convict the appellants-convicts, for the charges (supra), as became drawn

against them, and, also as above stated, proceeded to, in the hereinabove

manner, impose the sentence(s) of imprisonment, as well as of fine, upon the

convicts-appellants.

                               5 of 12
            ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 23:29:49 :::
                                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023053-DB




CRA-S-1066-2022 (O&M)                                                         -6-


Submissions of the learned counsels for the appellants

13. The learned counsels for the convicts-appellants have

submitted, that the appellants had well propagated a right of private defence

or property, and, of person, yet the said propagation becoming untenably

disrobed of its efficacy by the learned trial Judge concerned. In making the

said submission, the learned counsels for the appellants submit, that since

the crime event, took place at a site which was in the physical possession of

the appellants. Therefore, but necessarily when the complainant party made,

an impermissible ingress thereinto, thereby for repulsing the said

impermissible ingress onto the crime site, by the complainant party, they

lawfully exercised their right of private defence of property, and, of person.

Consequently, they submit, that they were required to be endowed with the

benefit of the said exception against the fastening of criminal liability rather

by the learned trial Judge concerned. However, when the said endowment

has not been made to the present appellants, thereby the impugned verdict

suffers from a gross fallacy.

Submissions of the learned State counsel

14. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has argued before

this Court, that the verdict of conviction, and, consequent thereto sentence(s)

(supra), as become imposed upon the convicts-appellants, are well merited,

and, do not require any interference, being made by this Court in the

exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, he has argued that the

appeal, as preferred by the convicts-appellants, be dismissed.

For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter the above made submission of
the learned counsels for the appellants lack any vigor, and, is rejected

15. All the injured-eye witnesses who respectively entered into

witness box as PW-4, PW-7, PW-9, and, PW-20, thus in their respectively

6 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 23:29:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023053-DB

CRA-S-1066-2022 (O&M) -7-

made depositions assigned the fullest credence to their respectively made

previous statements in writing. Though, the learned counsels for the

appellants submit, that since they are injured eye witnesses thereby, their

respective testifications rather are to be discarded. However, the above made

submission is not acceptable to this Court, as a keenest and wholesome

appraisal of their respectively made testifications, necessarily discloses, that

they have neither grossly improved nor direly embelished, upon their

respectively made previous statements, in writing, thereby with wants of the

above taints occurring in their respectively made testifications, resultantly

immense creditworthiness is acquired by their respective testifications.

16. Even otherwise, since the principal submission addressed before

this Court by the learned counsels for the appellants, devolves, upon, the non

assigning to them by the learned trial Judge concerned, vis-a-vis the

exception (supra) against imposition of criminal liability, upon, the

appellants inasmuch as, despite the appellants ably propagating the right of

private defence of person, and of property, yet the efficacy of said

propagation becoming disarmed, but yet therebys the appellants not only

admit the occurrence taking place at the crime site, but also acquiesce to the

testifications (supra) of the injured eye witnesses, thus being not devoid of

any evidentiary sanctity. Resultantly, therebys the taint of interestedness, if

any, ingraining the testifications made by the injured witnesses to the

occurrence but pales into insignificance.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT AND CONSEQUENT
THEREWITH RECOVERIES

17. During the course of investigations being made into the FIR, the

investigating officer concerned, had put the accuseds’ to police remand.

During the course of the appellants, being put to police remand, they

7 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 23:29:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023053-DB

CRA-S-1066-2022 (O&M) -8-

respectively made signatured disclosure statements, which are respectively

enclosed in Ex.P-4, P-5, P-9, P-10, P-11, P-12, P-15, P-16, P-17, P-18, P-22,

and, P-23.

18. Since all the disclosure statements are signed by all the accused,

resultantly when readings of the signatured disclosure statements, as

respectively made by accuseds’, candidly reveal that thereins they not only

confessed their guilt in the crime event, but also each spoke thereins, that

they can ensure the causings of recoveries of gandasis and lathis, to the

investigating officer concerned, from the respective places of theirs

respectively hiding, and, concealing them, given the said sites being

exclusively known to them. Since in pursuance thereof through recovery

memos respectively embodied in Ex.P-13, P-19, P-25, P-94, P-95, P-96,

P-97, they caused the recovery of gandasis and lathis (supra). Significantly,

since the appellants have not been able to either ably deny their signatures as

occur on Ex.P-4, P-5, P-9, P-10, P-11, P-12, P-15, P-16, P-17, P-18, P-22,

and, P-23, nor when have been able to also prove the apposite denial.

Moreover, since they have also not been able to bring forth tangible

evidence but suggestive that the recoveries are either contrived or invented.

Therefore, all the memos are concluded to be holding the utmost evidentiary

tenacity.

Medical Evidence in respect of injured-witnesses

19. In pursuance to the assault, as made upon the injured namely

Lal Singh, Baljeet Singh, Avtar Singh, Raghubir, Karnail Singh, Sukhwinder

Singh, Balwan, Surjeet, and, Mukhpal, they became subjected to medical

examination by PW-22, who during the course of hers, making her

examination-in-chief, has proven all the respectively drawn MLRs, vis-a-vis

8 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 23:29:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023053-DB

CRA-S-1066-2022 (O&M) -9-

the injured witnesses, as are respectively carried in Ex.P-67 to P-75, thus

detailing thereins, the hereinafter extracted injuries, as became noticed to be

occurring on the injured persons.

Sr. No. Name of injured Injuries

1. Lal Singh 1. Incised wound on skull.

2. Incised wound on Skull.

3. Incised wound over left ear.

2. Baljeet Singh 1. Incised wound on left parietal region skull.

2. Pain in left leg.

3. Incised wound on the skull.

3. Avtar Singh 1. Lacerated wound over parietal region of skull.

2. Pain in left hand.

3. Incised wound on the skull.

4. Raghubir 1. Lacerated wound over left eye brow.

5. Karnail Singh 1. Lacerated wound on ear.

2. Superficial laceration on left shoulder.

3. Superficial laceration over left lower abdomen.

4. Contusion over left lower back.

6. Sukhwinder Singh 1. Swelling on left ear.

7. Balwan 1. Pain in left forearm.

2. Lacerated wound on right index finger.

8. Surjeet 1. Superficial laceration on left leg.

2. Laceration wound over parietal region of skull.

9. Mukhpal 1. Superficial laceration over right lower lip, mild
swelling.

2. Pain in right forearm, localized swelling.

20. Since the doctor concerned, hence therebys thus cogently

proved that the said injuries became entailed, on the respective persons of

the victims, thus as a sequel of users thereon, of the incriminatory recovered

weapons of offence, thereupon the above medical evidence, thus also

cogently corroborates the credible ocular account rendered qua the

occurrence.

21. Now proceeding to dwell, upon, the tenacity of the principal

argument raised before this Court, that the appellants rather had well

exercised their right of private defence of property as well as body, it is but

necessary to delve into the records, thus to gather therefroms, whether the

crime site was evidently possessed by the appellants, besides it is also

9 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 23:29:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023053-DB

CRA-S-1066-2022 (O&M) -10-

required to be discerned from the evidence available on record, that whether

the aggression became initiated by the appellants, and/or, by the complainant

party. Moreover, it is also required to be gauged from the records whether

the numerical strength of the appellants was lesser or superior to the

numerical strength of the adversarial party. In addition, it is also required to

be gauged from the evidence available on record, whether the adversarial

party, was equally armed as were the appellants. Significantly also it is

required to be determined whether the appellants exceeded or did not exceed

the exercisings of their rights of private defence of body, and/or, of party.

22. In determining the above it is but necessary to allude to the

grave factum, that the numerical strength of the complainant party was 9,

whereas, the numerical strength of the appellants was 24. Therefore, given

the superior numerical strength of the appellants, than the numerical strength

of the complainant party, thus thereby besides, when the complainant party

was also not as well armed as were the appellants, who all were but

evidently respectively wielding weapons of offences, as became recovered,

at their respective instances, some of which are also sharp edged weapons.

Resultantly, thereby a conclusion becomes garnered that given the superior

numerical strength of the appellants vis-a-vis the numerical strength of the

complainant party, besides with the complainant party, not being so well

armed, as were the appellants, thereby the appellants did exceed the right of

private defence of body, and, of property.

23. Be that as it may, fortifying strength to the above inference, is

thus garnered from the trite factum, that the crime site was not evidently

possessed by the appellant, but rather as also echoed in the FIR enclosed in

the instant appeal, besides in the cross case, the crime site occurred on a

“Gair Mumkin” rasta. Necessarily, thus the “Gair Mumkin” rasta was not
10 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 23:29:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023053-DB

CRA-S-1066-2022 (O&M) -11-

owned either by the complainant party or by the appellants. Therefore, the

appellants cannot ably argue, that with the crime event, taking place on a

public path, that they were owners thereof, nor they can propagate, that in

theirs defending their rights as owners thereofs, thus theirs for repulsing the

ingress made thereon, as became purportedly made by the complainant

party, rather they made an able assault on the persons’ of the complainant

party.

24. Furthermore, therefroms too immense strength, is garnered by

the above inference recorded by this Court, planked importantly, on account

of the superior numerical strength of the appellants, than the numerical

strength of the complainant party, besides too, from the evident factum of

the complainant party being lesser armed than the appellant party, resultantly

therebys there is thus inconsequentiality too, either qua the complainant

party or the appellants party being the initiators of the aggression.

Contrarily, it has to be well concluded, that the appellants in theirs

purportedly exercising the right of private defence of body, rather theirs

exceeding the said right, but as revealed by the injuries (supra), as enclosed

in the MLRs (supra). As a corollary thereof, it has to be concluded, that the

appellants were not liable to be assigned the benefit of the exceptions

(supra), against the fastening of criminal liability upon them, as became

aptly denied to them by the learned trial Judge concerned.

Final order

25. In consequence, the impugned verdict of conviction, and, also

the consequent therewith order of sentence, as becomes respectively

recorded, and, imposed, upon the convicts by the learned trial Judge

concerned, does not suffer from any gross perversity, or absurdity of gross

mis-appreciation, and, non-appreciation of the evidence on record. In
11 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 23:29:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023053-DB

CRA-S-1066-2022 (O&M) -12-

consequence, there is no merit in the appeal, and, the same is dismissed. If

the appellants are on bail, thereupon they are ordered to be forthwith taken

into custody, through the learned trial Judge concerned, forthwith drawing

committal warrants against the accused. Case property, if any, be dealt with

in accordance with law, but only after the expiry of the period of limitation

for the filing of an appeal.

26. Records be sent down forthwith.

27. The miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are, also disposed

of.

(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE

(LALIT BATRA)
JUDGE
February 19, 2024
Ithlesh

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023053-DB

12 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 23:29:49 :::

[ad_2]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *