Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others 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

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 :::
 

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

VISHAL SAINI ADVOCATE