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
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 February, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Lalit Batra
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023052-DB CRM-A-569-2022 -0- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-569-2022 Reserved on: 24.01.2024 Date of decision: 19.02.2024 KULDEEP SINGH ...Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA Present: Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the appellant. 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 instant appeal is directed by the aggrieved-complainant against
the verdict of acquittal, as made on 10.03.2022, by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, upon Sessions Case No.SC No.66 of 2017, and, is
led to institute thereagainst the instant appeal before this Court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the present case is the
cross version of case titled as “State Versus Bhola Singh and others” in FIR
No.498 of 06.11.2015, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 341, 427, 307 of
the IPC, registered at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.
3. After investigation copies of challan was supplied to the accused
free of costs as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C. On finding a prima facie
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 23:29:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023052-DB
CRM-A-569-2022 -1-
case for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 324 and 326
read with Section 149 IPC against accused Surjeet Singh, Dalip Singh, Mam
Chand, Mukhpal, Balwan Singh, Baljit Singh and Avtar Singh; the accused were
charge sheeted vide order dated 21.03.2017, to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
4. Thereafter vide order dated 13.04.2018, an application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed and Mohinder Singh son of Phool Singh
was ordered to be summoned to face the trial as an additional accused and the
application qua summoning of Lal Chand son of Juglal, Rajesh @ Jassi son of
Labh Singh and Malkeet Singh son of Sadha Singh was dismissed.
5. On finding a prima facie case for the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 148, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC against
accused Mohinder Singh; the accused was charge sheeted vide order dated
06.07.2018, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS
6. Since the afore offences were exclusively triable by the Court of
Session, thus the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa,
Kurukshetra, committed the accused to face trial before the Court of Session.
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
7. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses, and,
subsequently, the public prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence. After the
closure of the prosecution case, the learned trial Judge drew proceedings under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., whereins, the accused pleaded innocence, and, claimed false
implication. They also choose to adduce defence evidence, and, Ex.D4 to D46
were tendered into evidence.
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 23:29:06 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023052-DB
CRM-A-569-2022 -2-
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that though the
private respondents, did not well propagate the right of private defence of
property, and, of person, yet the said propagation became untenably accepted by
the learned trial Judge concerned. In making the said submission, the learned
counsel for the appellant submits, that since the respondents were the initiators
of the aggression, besides when the crime event took place at a site which was in
the physical possession of the appellant party. Therefore, but necessarily when
the private respondents made an impermissible ingress thereinto, thereby for
repulsing the said impermissible ingress onto the crime site by the private
respondents, rather the present appellant, but lawfully exercised the right of
private defence of property, and, of person. Contrarily, he submits that yet the
learned trial Judge concerned, untenably endowed to the private respondents,
thus the benefit of the exception(s) (supra), against the imposition of criminal
liability, upon the private respondents. Therefore, it is argued that the impugned
verdict of acquittal suffers from a gross fallacy.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
9. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has argued before this
Court, that the verdict of acquittal (supra), as become passed by the learned trial
Judge concerned, 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 appellant, be dismissed.
FOR THE REASONS TO BE ASSIGNED HEREINAFTER THE ABOVE
MADE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANT LACK ANY VIGOR, AND, IS REJECTED
10. The submission addressed before this Court by the learned counsel
for the appellant devolves, upon the assigning by the learned trial Judge
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 23:29:06 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023052-DB
CRM-A-569-2022 -3-
concerned, to the private respondents the benefit of the apposite exception to the
imposition of criminal liability.
11. Now proceeding to dwell, upon, the tenacity of the argument raised
before this Court, that the private respondents, did not well exercise the right of
private defence of property as well as body, it is but necessary to delve, into the
records to gather therefroms, whether the crime site was evidently possessed by
the private respondents, besides it is also required to be discerned from the
evidence available on record, that whether the aggression becoming initiated, by
the private respondents, and/or, by the appellant party, besides is also required to
be gauged from the records whether the numerical strength of the appellant party
was lesser or superior to the numerical strength of the private respondents.
Moreover, it is also required to be fathomed from the evidence available on
record whether the private respondents were equally armed as was the appellant
party. Significantly also it is required to be determined whether the private
respondents exceeded or did not exceed the exercisings of their rights of private
defence of body, and/or, of party.
12. In determining the above, it is but necessary to allude to the grave
factum, that the numerical strength of the private respondents was 9, whereas,
the numerical strength of the appellant party was 24. Therefore, given the
superior numerical strength of the appellant party, than the numerical strength of
the private respondents, thus thereby besides, when the private respondents were
also not as well armed as was the appellant party, who were respectively
wielding weapons of offences, as became recovered, some of which are also
sharp edged weapons. Resultantly, thereby a conclusion becomes garnered, that
given the superior numerical strength of the appellant party, vis-a-vis, the
numerical strength of the private respondents, besides with the private
respondents not being so well armed, as were the appellant party, thereby the
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 23:29:06 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023052-DB
CRM-A-569-2022 -4-
private respondents did not exceed their right of private defence of body, and, of
property. Resultantly, the endowment vis-a-vis them of the apposite exception to
the fastening of criminal liability, thus was well merited.
13. 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 party, but rather as also echoed in the FIR enclosed in the appeal
bearing No.CRA-S-1066-2022, the crime site occurred on a “Gair Mumkin”
rasta. Necessarily, thus the “Gair Mumkin” rasta was not owned either by the
appellant party or by the private respondents. Therefore, the appellant party
cannot ably argue, that with the crime taking place on a public path, rather they
were owners thereof, nor they can propagate, that in the exercise of theirs
defending their rights as owners thereofs, or for repulsing the ingress made
thereon, as became purportedly made by the private respondents, thus they made
an able assault on the persons of the private respondents.
14. Furthermore, therefroms too immense strength, is garnered by the
above inference recorded by this Court planked importantly, on account of
superior numerical strength of the appellant party than the numerical strength of
the private respondents, besides too, from the evident factum of the private
respondents being lesser armed than the appellant party resultantly therebys,
there is thus inconsequentiality too, either qua the private respondents or the
appellant party being the initiators of the aggression. Contrarily, rather therebys
it has to be well concluded, that the private respondents in theirs purportedly
exercising the right of private defence of body, theirs not exceeding the said
right. As a corollary thereof, it has to be concluded, that the private respondents
were liable to be assigned the benefit of the exceptions (supra), against the
fastening of criminal liability upon them, as became aptly granted to them by the
learned trial Judge concerned.
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 23:29:06 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023052-DB
CRM-A-569-2022 -5-
FINAL ORDER
15. For the reasons assigned hereinabove, the instant appeal is
dismissed, and the impugned verdict of acquittal is maintained and affirmed.
16. Bail bonds, if any, are ordered to be forthwith cancelled and
discharged. 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.
17. Records be sent down forthwith.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
19.02.2024 (LALIT BATRA)
Ithlesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023052-DB
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 23:29:06 :::