# HARJIT SINGH AND ORS v. STATE OF PUNJAB

- **Citation:** [2002] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 581
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2002-08-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.814 of2001
- **Bench:** N. Santosh Hegde, D.M. Dharmadhikari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/harjit-singh-and-ors-v-state-of-punjab-18491
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

B
Penal Code, 1860:
Section 34-Common intention-Could be inferred from the objective
conduct displayed by accused-Mere participation in crime with others not C
sufficient· Jn absence of common intention between parties, one accused
cannot be vicariously liable for commission of criminal acts of other accusedSuch accused would be liable for individual acts only.
Section JOO-Right of Self defence-Availability of-Discussed
Evidence Act, I 872-Section 3-Recovery of weapons-Reliance
thereon-When there is no independent witness and place of concealment is
accessible to public, the evidence of disclosure statement and consequent
recovery of weapons cannot be relied on.
Appreciation of evidence-Interference with-Permissible only when it
is unreasonable.
Six accused persons were convicted under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324,
D
E
326 read with Sections 148 and 149 IPC by trial Court. It was alleged that
accused were members of an unlawful assembly and committed murder and p
other offences with common object. On the fateful day H was asserting his
right on a piece of land over which he placed his stock of woods. A2, A4 and
other co-accused as members of first party came there armed with lethal
weapons. They abused H and shouted that they would teach him a lesson. Father
of H raised an alarm. Members of complainant party- prosecution witnesses
came there. Accused and others inflicted blows on the deceased and G
eyewitnesses. It is alleged that A4 inflicted gandhali blows to PW5 and his
father and A2 inDicted kirpan blows to H and PW 5. Subsequently members
of party No 2, Al armed with revolver, A3 with pistol and A6 with double barrel
gun came on the spot on hearing commotion. It is alleged that they were
raising lalkaras and were abusing. Also Al and A6 fired at deceased and H
581
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A members of complainant party whereas A3 fired towards complainant party
with co-accused A6 and AS. PW-1 stated that when he saw members of party
No 2 who joined later he got his double barrel gun and when H and PW3 fell
on the ground after sustaining injuries he fired which hit Al. In the ~lashes
H died and members of complainant party and also accused party sustained
B injuries. On disclosure statement made by AS weapons were recovered but
memoranda ofdisclosure and recovery was not signed by any independent
witnesses. Prosecution relied on the evidence of eyewitnesses who were
injured in the incident and medical evidence. High Court confirmed the
conviction of three accused but set aside the conviction of other co-accused.
Hence the present appeals.
c
Appellants contended that neither the accused-members of the first party
nor the accused-members of the second party had a common intention to
commit murder of deceased; that the High Court erred in inferring that as
A-1 had suffered serious injuries on his legs, he could not have fired in selfdefence and rejected his plea of defence whereas admittedly A-1 had not
D suffered any injury on any vital part; that the Investigating Officer made no
investigations regarding injuries sustained by the members of the accused
parties; that the eye-witness account given by PW-I-father of deceased and
being his near and dear one should not be believed in the absence of
independent corroboration to his version; that PW 1 made a material
E improvement in the statement in court that both the members of the parties
were raising Lalkaras indicating common intention on their part; that PW1 took a false plea that he had to take out his own gun and fire at accused Al to save the deceased which was an after thought by PW-1 to explain serious
injuries caused to A-1 with fire arms whereas the fact of his own firing was
not stated by him in his statement made to the police, thus since there are
F improvements and omissions in the statement of PW 1 the plea of self defence
should be accepted. It was further contended that accused A-2 who was a
member of the first party could not be convict

## Text

_Characters 0–39,896 of 63,290. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39896 for what follows._

..
HARJIT SINGH AND ORS.
A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
AUGUST 16, 2002
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.]
B
Penal Code, 1860:
Section 34-Common intention-Could be inferred from the objective
conduct displayed by accused-Mere participation in crime with others not C
sufficient· Jn absence of common intention between parties, one accused
cannot be vicariously liable for commission of criminal acts of other accusedSuch accused would be liable for individual acts only.
Section JOO-Right of Self defence-Availability of-Discussed
Evidence Act, I 872-Section 3-Recovery of weapons-Reliance
thereon-When there is no independent witness and place of concealment is
accessible to public, the evidence of disclosure statement and consequent
recovery of weapons cannot be relied on.
Appreciation of evidence-Interference with-Permissible only when it
is unreasonable.
Six accused persons were convicted under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324,
D
E
326 read with Sections 148 and 149 IPC by trial Court. It was alleged that
accused were members of an unlawful assembly and committed murder and p
other offences with common object. On the fateful day H was asserting his
right on a piece of land over which he placed his stock of woods. A2, A4 and
other co-accused as members of first party came there armed with lethal
weapons. They abused H and shouted that they would teach him a lesson. Father
of H raised an alarm. Members of complainant party- prosecution witnesses
came there. Accused and others inflicted blows on the deceased and G
eyewitnesses. It is alleged that A4 inflicted gandhali blows to PW5 and his
father and A2 inDicted kirpan blows to H and PW 5. Subsequently members
of party No 2, Al armed with revolver, A3 with pistol and A6 with double barrel
gun came on the spot on hearing commotion. It is alleged that they were
raising lalkaras and were abusing. Also Al and A6 fired at deceased and H
581
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A members of complainant party whereas A3 fired towards complainant party
with co-accused A6 and AS. PW-1 stated that when he saw members of party
No 2 who joined later he got his double barrel gun and when H and PW3 fell
on the ground after sustaining injuries he fired which hit Al. In the ~lashes
H died and members of complainant party and also accused party sustained
B injuries. On disclosure statement made by AS weapons were recovered but
memoranda ofdisclosure and recovery was not signed by any independent
witnesses. Prosecution relied on the evidence of eyewitnesses who were
injured in the incident and medical evidence. High Court confirmed the
conviction of three accused but set aside the conviction of other co-accused.
Hence the present appeals.
c
Appellants contended that neither the accused-members of the first party
nor the accused-members of the second party had a common intention to
commit murder of deceased; that the High Court erred in inferring that as
A-1 had suffered serious injuries on his legs, he could not have fired in selfdefence and rejected his plea of defence whereas admittedly A-1 had not
D suffered any injury on any vital part; that the Investigating Officer made no
investigations regarding injuries sustained by the members of the accused
parties; that the eye-witness account given by PW-I-father of deceased and
being his near and dear one should not be believed in the absence of
independent corroboration to his version; that PW 1 made a material
E improvement in the statement in court that both the members of the parties
were raising Lalkaras indicating common intention on their part; that PW1 took a false plea that he had to take out his own gun and fire at accused Al to save the deceased which was an after thought by PW-1 to explain serious
injuries caused to A-1 with fire arms whereas the fact of his own firing was
not stated by him in his statement made to the police, thus since there are
F improvements and omissions in the statement of PW 1 the plea of self defence
should be accepted. It was further contended that accused A-2 who was a
member of the first party could not be convicted under Section 302 with aid
Section 34 IPC by attributing common intention to him with A-1 since A-2,
member of the first party, carried kirpan and inflicted simple and grievous
G injuries whereas H died by fire arm injuries caused to him by A-1 and this is
supported by medical evidence.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD:l.l. Common intention is a state of mind ofan accused, which
H can be inferred objectively from his conduct displayed in the course of
HARJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
583
commission of crime as also prior and subsequent attendant circumstances. A
Mere participation in the crime with others is not sufficient to attribute
common intention to one of others involved in the crime. The subjective
element in common intention, therefore, should be proved by objective test It
is only then one accused can be made vicariously liable for the acts and deeds
of the other co-accused. ( 600-G-H; 601-A (
Hira la/ Malik v. Slate. AIR (1977] SC 2236, relied on
1.2. In the instant case the members of party No.I reached the spot
variously armed with weapons other than firearms. They declared their
intention to teach a lesson to the deceased for his stubborn attitude in
asserting right to a piece of land intended for common us.e. A common
intention can be inferred on their part from their conduct in reaching the
spot together on a tractor and their subsequent acts in causing grievous and
simple injuries to deceased and eyewitnesses. (601-A-B]
B
c
1.3. A-6 had rushed on hearing commotion created due to fight between D
members of party No.I on one part and members of deceased party on the
other part, reached towards the scene of occurrence along with other coaccused who constituted party No.2. The accused who subsequently rushed
towards the spot with firearms in their hands cannot be said to have gone
with any common intention because there was hardly any time with them for
meeting of minds. Also they cannot be said to have a common intention with E
members of party No.I who had already reached the spot. The members of
party No.2 who rushed to the place of occurrence acted individually on their
own impulses and reactions to the altercation, which had already commenced
between members of party No. I and the deceased's party. Since the incident
happened in two parts, common intention can be inferred inter-se between
members of party No.I who had earlier reached on tractor but, no common F
intention can be inferred against them with members of party No.2 who had
rushed with firearms towards the place of occurrence afterwards and fired at
members of accused party. Also there is no evidence to come to a conclusion
that after the members of party No.2 rushed with firearms to the place of
occurrence a common intention developed between them. Members of party G
No.2 reacted differently in their own manner and therefore, would be liable
for their individual acts and in the absence of common intention on their part,
they cannot be held vicariously liable for the commission of criminal acts of
other co-accused who were members of party No.2. (601-C-F; 600-B(
1.4. As per the medical report of the injured eye witness, A6 can be H
584
.SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. I S.C.R.
A said to have caused grievous and simple injuries by use of fire arms and is
liable to be acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 and 307 IPC read
with Section 34 IPC. His conviction and sentences under Section 326, 324
and 3231.PC read with Section 34 IPC is maintained.1601-F, G, HJ
2.1. In spite of infir111~ties in the prosecution case, the plea of self-defence
B is not available to the _A.-1 ~for other reasons. There is nothing on record to
disbelieve the versim1 of prosecution witnesses that three accused as members
of the first party armed with lethal weapons eame on the tractor and challenged
deceased who was asserting his right to a piece of land over which he had
placed his stock of wood. The first party had a serious grievance against
C deceased. A.;1 was member of Panchayat and was making efforts through
Panchayat and Revenue Authorities to get the land cleared from encroachment
of deceased so that access through the path to their houses remains
unobstructed. His version is that he was attracted by the noise of quarrel
between accused (who had first arrived on the spot) and the deceased. He
admitted that on hearing Raula or commotion, he went to the spot with his
D revolver which clearly indicates that he had gone there to help the three other
co-accused who had reached the spot before him on a tractor with weapons in
their hands. A-1 joined the three accused. Thus he was one of the members
of the aggressor party who joined others on the spot with his revolver and
I
being one of the aggressors can claim no right ofself-defence. His plea that .
E being on the hit list of terrorists he always carried his licensed arms, does
not satisfactorily explain his conduct of rushing towards the spot with revolver.
Accepting the defence version that the deceased fired at A-1 and seriously
injured him oil the legs, it can be said to be an act committed by deceased in
exercise of his right of private defence. In such circumstances, ifthe deceased
had first fired at the A-1, as the latter arrived on the spot with a revolver, the
F right of private defence was available to deceased and not to accused.
1595-A-F)
2.2. It has been admitted that accused persons had not filed any counter
complaint or First Information Report against the members of the deceased
party. There is no explanation for the same. Even if A-1 was admitted in
G hospital, nothing prevented him or other co-accused from lodging a report of
commission of offence by members of the deceased party. The plea of selfdefence is clearly an after-thought. A-1 had suffered serious fire arm injuries
in the incident and could not possibly have denied his presence and
participation in the incident. Thus plea of self-defence is not worthy of
H acceptance and conviction of A-1 under Section 302 IPC as also under sections
HARJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
585
324, 323 and 326 IPC is maintained. (595-G, H; 596-A, B I
3.1. The evidence on record does not show that A-2 had any common
intention with A-1 in commission of murder of the deceased. A-2 was member
A
of the first party who came on tractor, he cannot be attributed common
intention with A·I who joined the first party at a later point of time with his
revolver. Therefore trial court and High Court cannot be held to be right in B
convicting accused A-2 for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34
IPC. The conviction of accused A-2 under Section 302 read with Section 34
IPC is set aside. )597-C, E, Fl
3.2. On an appreciation of evidence common intention would be inferred
against party No.I who had come on a tractor with lethal weapons but not C
firearms. Party No.2, which rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing
commotion, cannot be held to have acted with any common intention amongst
themselves. Therefore, A-2 cannot he held guilty of offence under Sections
302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. On the basis of the allegations found
to have been proved against him he caused grievous and simple injuries to D
the deceased and being member of party no.2 who had gone on a tractor with
common intention to cause injuries to the deceased and the eyewitness, is
liable to be convicted under Sections 326, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Thus
his conviction and sentence under Section 326, 324 read with Section 34 and
Section 322 read with Section 34 IPC is maintained. (598-H; 599-A, BJ
4.1. The evidence is not clinching against A 3, A 4 and A 5 acquitted by
trial court and the conclusion of High Court that the acquitted accused are
entitled to have the benefit of doubt cannot be said to be a wrong appreciation
of evidence or so perverse as to justify taking a different view and interfere
with the order of acquittal. (603-G]
4.2. It is unbelievable that all the accused persons who have allegedly
used their fire arms/weapons kept all the arms concealed in a open field in a
gunny bag under a heap of straw. In the absence of independent witnesses and
E
F
the alleged place of concealment being accessible to public, evidence of
disclosure statement and consequent recovery of arms and weapons do not G
in$pire confidence. In any case, it is not a piece of evidence which could be
relied on by trial Court to convict &ccused by treating it as eye-witness
account. (604-B, CJ
4.3. In appeal against acquittal, appreciation of evidence done by High
Court, unless it appears to be unreasonable, should not be interfered with. H
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A On appreciation of the whole evidence on record it is found that no overt acts
have been proved against A 3, A 4 and A 5 and they cannot be held guilty
either with the help of Section 149 IPC or with Section 34 IPC. Hence their
acquittal is sustained. Since the acquittal A 3, A 4 and A 5 is maintained the
acquittal of A 1, A 2 and A 6 under Sections 148 and 149 IPC is also
B sustained. 1604-D, EJ
c
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Crimin.al Appeal No .. 815
of200l.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27. l l.2000 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Crl. A. No. 590-DB of 1996.
WITH
Crl.A.No. 814 of200l.
K.B. Sinha, U.R. Lalit, Bimal Roy Jad, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Mrs. sunita
D Pandit, Ms. Kanwaljeet Kochar, S.C. Paul, C.L. Bansha and Ms. Kusum
Chaudhary, for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DHARMADHIKARI, J. This appeal by three-cojlvicted accused is being
E decided with Criminal Appeal No.814 of2001 preferred by the State of Punjab
against the acquittal of other three accused in the same incident. These
appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
dated 27th November, 2000. Additional sessions Judge, Amritsar in Sessions
Trial No.1/95 convicted all the six accused for offences under Sections
302,307,323,324,326 read with Sections 148 & 149 IPC and sentenced them all
F to life imprisonment and separate sentences with fines for other offences for
which they were charged.
G
The High Court in appeal set aside the conviction of accused lnderjit
Singh, Ajaib Singh and Satinderpal Singh. The High Court also acquitted the
other three co-accused for charge under Sections 148, 149, IPC.
The three accused namely, Harjeet Singh; Varinderjit Singh and Gursharan
Singh have been convicted under Sections 302, 307,326,324 and 323 read with
Section 34 IPC and the sentences imposed on them by the trial court have
been maintained.
H
All the six accused persons have been alleged to be members of an
•
HARJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [DHARMADHIKARI, J.] 587
unlawful assembly and with common object alleged to have committed murder A
of Harjinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased") on 15. I 0.1994
in Village Chhichrewal within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Jhobal .
The accused were also charged as members of unlawful assembly to
have fired at Gurvinder Singh and thus committed an offence under Section
307/149, IPC. They were also charged in the same capacity to have voluntarily B
caused grievous hurt to Ajeet Singh (not examined). The accused Varinderjit
Singh has been charged in furtherance of common intention of the unlawful
assembly with common object to have caused grievous injuries to Harjinder
Singh by means of "Kirpan," constituting· an offence under Section 326 read
with Section 149, IPC. Tarsem Singh (who died during the trial) was also C
charged for voluntarily causing hurt to Harjinder Singh (deceased) and thereby
committed an offence under Section 323 read with Section 149, !PC. Accused
Ajaib Singh is alleged to have voluntarily caused hurt to Ajit Singh (not
examined) and Darshan Singh PW5 with a sharp edged weapon called Gandhali
and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 324 read with
Section 149 !PC.
D
We shall first take up for decision Criminal Appeal No.815 of 2001
preferred by the convicted accused Harjit Singh, Varinderjit Singh and
Gursharan Singh hereinafter they shall be described as accused Nos.1,2 & 6
being the order in which they were arraigned before the trial court.
The prosecution case rests mainly on the alleged eye witness account
of the incident given by Hari Singh (PW!) who is father of the deceased.
Prosecution also examined Gurvinder Singh (PW3) who is also alleged to have
been an eyewitness to the incident and received injuries. Darshan Singh PW5
was also examined as alleged eyewitness who received injury in the incident.
E
F
The eyewitness account given by Hari Singh (PWI) before the trial
court is required to be stated in necessary details for the purpose of
appreciating and weighing the prosecution case. This version of the incident
given by him is that on 15.10.1994 at about 8.30 in the morning he was
proceeding with his son Harjinder Singh (deceased) towards their field. They G
reached near a circular road and at the place where their stock of wood was
lying. Accused No.2, Varinderjit Singh@ Vicky armed with a "Kirpan, Ajaib
Singh acquitted accused No.4 armed with a Gandhali and Tarsem Singh (who
died during trial) armed with Dang came. on a tractor. They were abusing the
deceased and shouting that 'they would teach him a lesson.' The witness
then raised an alarm 'Mar Ditta-Mar Ditta' whereupon his brother Ajit Singh H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. I S.C.R.
A (not examined), Darshan Singh s/o Ajit Singh (PWS), Sandeep Singh (not
examined) and Gurvinder Singh PW3 came there. Accused No.2, Varinderjit
Singh (Vicky) inflicted a Kirpan blow on the deceased which hit him on his
right elbow, Tarsem Singh; the co-accused who died during the trial gave a
Dang blow to deceased Harjinder Singh on the back of his shoulder. Ajit
Singh (not examined), Darshan Singh PWS and Gurvinder Singh, PW3 tried
B to rescue the deceased and in the process they also received injuries. Accused
Varinderjit Singh@ Vickey also inflicted a Kirpan blow on the leg ofDarshan
Singh PWS. Ajit Singh, who is not examined as witness, also received two
injuries on the left leg by blows of Kirpan inflicted by Varinderjit Singh @
Vicky.
c
When the three accused Varjinderjit Singh-A2, Ajaib Singh-A4 and
Tarsem Singh (who is dead) as members of the first party, who came in tractor,
were inflicting blows on the deceased i;ind the above named alleged eye
witnesses, the other three accused persons, namely, Harjit Singh (Al), armed
with revolver, Inderjit Singh (acquitted accused No.3) with pistol and convicted
D accused No.6 Gursharan Singh armed with a double barrel gun came on the
spot. It is stated that they were all raising Lalkaras and were abusing. All of
them came from the side of house of accused No.6 Gursharan Singh.Further
version of PWI Hari Singh is that when he saw the three accused who joined
later armed with firearms he went inside his house and took out a double
E barrel gun. The eyewitness further states that he saw accused No. I Harjit
Singh firing from his revolver at deceased from a distance of 4-5 Karmas.
Gursharan Singh accused No.6 also fired from his double barrel gun at the
deceased hitting him on head and arms. On receiving the injuries the deceased
fell down. It is alleged that accused No. I Harjit Sigh, accused No.6 Gursharan
Singh continued to fire with their firearms towards members of the complainant
F party. It is then stated that acquitted accused Satinder Pal Singh (AS) with
his firearm hit Gurvinder Singh PW3 causing him injury on the right knee. Hari
Singh (PW I) then stated that as he saw his son the deceased and Gurvinder
Singh PW3 to have fallen on the ground due to injuries caused to them by
· the bullets fired by the accused, he fired from his own double barrel gun
G which hit accused No. I Harjit Singh. He stated that after this incident of firing
the accused left the place of occurrence leaving their tractor at the spot.
According to the Autopsy Surgeon, Dr. Harpal Kaur (PW2), the following
ante-mortem ifrjuries were found on the person of the deceased:-
H
(l)
A' punctured lacerated wound with inverted margins measuring
HARJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 589
0.5 ems in diameter over left lumber region of the abdomen mid- A
way between iliac crest and left costal margins, in the mid axillary
line. Blackening present around the wound. On probing the wound
was found going deep into the abdominal cavity.
(2) A punctured lacerated wound measuring 0. 75 ems in diameter on
right lumber region of the abdomen mid-way between iliac crest B
and the right costal margins, in the mid axillary line. Margins
were inverted. No blackening around the wound was found
present.
(3) A lacerated would 0.5 ems in diameter over ventral aspect of the
right fore-arm mid-way between elbow joint and wrist joint. The C
wound had inverted margins and on probing was directed upwards
towards the elbow. No blackening was found around the wound.
(4) A lacerated wound 1.5 ems x 0.25 cm. over the right side of the
scalp 3 ems lateral and parallel to the anterior posterior mid-line
of the scalp.
D
On dissection underlying subcutaneous tissue was lacerating and
enchoymosed. Underlying skull done was intact. On opening the skull manages
and brain matter was healthy.
(I) An incised wound 5 ems x 2 ems over the right elbow joint
dorsal lateral aspect. Underlying subcutaneous tissue and muscles E
cut. Underlying. olecralol process of right ulna was cut up to the
cortex.
(2) An abrasion present over left hop, laterranl aspect measuring 5
ems x 0.2 cm.
(3) Two paraffel abrasions 12 ems x 0.2 ems each at a distance of
2 ems from each other on the left arm posterior aspect over the
deltoyed region. Underlying sub-cutaneous tissue enchoymosed.
Muscles and bone healthy.
F
(4) An abrasion lcm x 1 cm on the dorsal aspect of the middle G
finger of the right hand over middle (sic) underlying muscles
and bone healthy.
Jn the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon injuries 1&2 caused to abdomen
communicated with each other. Doctor also found a cartridge measuring 2
ems in length and 0.25 diameter embedded in the muscles at a distance of 7 H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A ems from injury No.3 which was caused in right forearm midway between
elbow joint and wrist joint. The doctor in cross·examination said that injury
No. I caused a punctured lacerated wound with inverted margins measuring
0.5 ems in diameter over left lumber region of the abdomen. Injury No.2
punctured wound on right lumber region of the abdomen on which margins
were inverted and injury No.3 is on the right forearm from where an embedded
B cartridge was removed could be result of one single fire. She also admitted
that injuries 6 to 8 were possible by rubbing against hard surface. The autopsy
surgeon was very definite in her opinion that injury No.4 which is a lacerated
wound on the head cannot be the result of a firearm, as there was no blackening
or charassing. To support her Opinion that injuries I to 3 could be caused by
C one single bullet the doctor said that the dimensions of injuries I and 3 were
the same and injuries I to 3 were in the same line and were possible with one
bullet.
The prosecution also got medically examined injuries alleged to have
been caused to witnesses Darshan Singh (PW5) Gurvinder Singh (PW3) to
D ascertain the nature of injuries caused to them in the alleged incident. We
shall deal with that medical report at the appropriate stage when we take for
consideration the part allegedly played in the incident by the convicted accused.
According to the prosecution on a disclosure statement made by accused
E
Satinder Pal Singh (Ex.P4) all the firearms alleged to have been used by the
accused were recovered with 12 cartridges wrapped in a gunny bag under the
heap of crop in the field near the tubewell of. accused Inderjit Singh. The
recovery memoranda is Ex.PU/I. Memorandum of disclosure statement Ex.P4
and memorandum of recovery of arms Ex.PU/I have been signed as witness
by Faqir Chand and Virsa Singh both are Police Officer of the rank of Police
F
Assistant Sub·Inspector. Investigating Officer Puran Singh PW9 admits that
no independent witnesses have signed the memoranda of disclosure and
recovery. Firearms and cartridges recovered were sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Chandigarh for obtaining opinion of the Ballistic Expert. In the
opinion of the Ballistic Expert the empty cartridges sent for examination
G could have been fired from the recovered firearms. Copy of the report of the
Forensic Science Laboratory is Ex.PZ.
The defence of accused Harjit Singh Al as contained in his statement
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is as under: He accepts his presence on
the date and time of the incident. He also admits that he was carrying his
H licensed revolver. According to him he belongs to communist party and as
HARJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [DHARMADHIKARI, J.] 591
·was on the hit-list of the terrorists he was allowed to have a licensed fire-arm A
which he normally carried on his person for his self protection. According to
him the cause of the incident is long pending dispute regarding the piece of
land on which the complainant party had stocked their wood and thereby
caused obstructio.n to the path which led to the houses of the accused party.
To explain the nature of dispute over the piece of land he states that he is B
member of the Panchayat and with co-accused had approached the Gram
Panchayat with a request that the path by which they approached their houses
from the village be paved with bricks as the same gets flooded during rainy
season. Hari Singh PW! and their relations including his son deceased
Harjinder Singh were opposing such a move as they wanted to illegally
occupy that part of the village common land. The Panchayat had approached C
Hari Singh (PW!) and members of his family but they persisted in their
stand. In September 1994 an application was moved before the Naib Tehsildar
for demarcation of the street. The members of the staff of Revenue Department
and Panchayat visited the spot on 22.2.1994 and held measurement. Hari
Singh (PW!) was asked to sign the proceedings prepared by the Kanungo but
he refused to sign it. Villagers raised the level of the street by putting earth D
on it for paving the same with bricks. Deceased Harjinder Singh had placed
some logs of wood on the pavement which were removed by the Panchayat
before raising the level of the street. On 14.10.1994 the deceased and his
relations removed the earth from the pavement. The respectable members of
the Panchayat and village requested them to desist from doing so.
E
On 15.10.1994 the deceased brought the logs of wood on tractor and
placed them on the pavement. Tarsem Singh (accused who is dead) and
Varinderjit Singh@ Vicky A2 objected as obstruction was caused to passage
to their houses. Whereupon deceased who was accompanied with Gurvinder
Singh PW3 declared that they would not allow anyone to pave the street. The F
deceased was carrying a double barrel gun and Gurvinder Singh PW3 a
spear. According to accused Harjit Singh he was attracted towards the spot
from his nearby house as he heard a noise of quarrel (Raula). The deceased
and Gurvinder Singh PW3 made an attempt to assault accused Tarsem Singh
and Vicky. Accused Harjit Singh then requested the deceased not to pick up G
quarrels by placing logs of wood on the path. The deceased thereupon blamed
Harjit Singh being member of Gram Panchayat to be the root cause of quarrel
and he bad been instrumental in raising the level of the street. The deceased
on thus getting enraged fired two shots at Harjit Singh, which hit him. They
were maki11g further advances towards him to assault. It is at that time,
according to Harjit Singh, he opened fire in his defence from the revolver H
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A that he was carrying. He further stated that accused Gursharan Singh was also
attracted towards the spot on hearing Rau/a. Then he intervened to rescue
Harjit Singh and in the process was also assaulted by PW3 Gurvinder Singh.
According to Harjit Singh on receiving a shot from the firearm of the deceased
he was seriously injured and wa!. taken to Civil Hospital, Amritsar. He
remained indoor patient till 24.10.1994. His statement was recorded by the
B police in which he gave the version of the incident but the police did not
make any investigation against the members of the complainant party.
Thus the plea of Harjit Singh, accused No. 1 is that since his house was
near the place of incident he was attracted by the commotion and went to the
C spot. He was carrying his licensed revolver which he always carried being
member of the communist party and on the hit list of the militants; When
deceased fired at him and injured him he fired back at him in exercise of
right of pr:vate defence of his person. It is also stated that at that time Hari
Singh PWI Darshan Singh PWS and Ajit Singh were not present and they
have falsely been described as eyewitnesses to the incident.
D
CASE AGAINST HARJIT SINGH (A-1)
We take up for consideration first the case of Harjinder Singh (Al).
E
Learned senior counsel Mr. U.R. Lalit assails the conviction of·the
accused (A-1) on several grounds. Some of the grounds urged by him are
common in assailing the conviction of other two co-accused named Varinderjit
Singh @ Vicky (A-2) and Gursharan Singh (A-6). He submits that as has
been tried to be proved by the alleged eye-witnesses examined by the
prosecution, the incident resulting in death "Qf the deceased happened in two
F parts. In the first part of the incident, the co-accused Varinderjit Singh @
Vicky (A-2) armed with Kirpan, Ajaib Singh (A-4) armed with Gandhali and
Tarsem Singh (who died during trial) armed with a Dang came on tractor. It
is submitted that these three co-accused might have proceeded together on
the tractor but it is not possible from that evidence and from their subsequent
G acts to infer that they had a common intention to commit murder of the
deceased. They did not carry with them any fire arms. They had proceeded
towards the spot only because the deceased had been obstinate in asserting
his right to the portion of land on which he had stacked his wood. Learned
counsel submits that the other three accused viz., Harjit Singh (A-1), Inderjit
Singh (A-3) and Ajaib Singh (A-4) went to the spot after they had heard a
H commotion described as Raulaor noise of fighting. The act of members of
I
. I.-
' 1
HARJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 593
party No. 2 in rushing towards the scene of occurrence, where the members A
of the first party after reaching on a Tractor had already clashed with the
deceased and Gurvinder Singh (PW-3), does not show a common intention
on their part to commit murder of the deceased.
From the cross-examination of Hari Singh (PW-I), father of the
deceased, it is pointed out to us that version of giving of Lalkaras by the B
members of the second party who had rushed towards the scene is a material
improvement over version of the eye-witnesses given by them to the police
in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Reading portion of crossexarnination of Hari Singh (PW-I) it is pointed out that Hari Singh admitted
that he had taken out his own gun and had fired in self-defence. From the C
Injury Report of Harjit Singh (A- I), it is pointed out that he was seriously
injured and his condition was serious when he was admitted to the hospital.
On behalf of the accused, Harjit Singh (A-1), the learned counsel severely
criticized the reasoning of the High Court in rejecting his plea of self-defence.
The High Court on the basis of Injury Report of the accused (A- I) inferred
that as he had suffered serious injuries on his legs, he could not have fired D
in self-defence. Learned senior counsel appearing for the accused assails the
above reasoning and conclusion reached by the High Court for rejecting the
defence plea of the accused (A-1). He submits that the investigation in the
case made by the Investigating Officer was partisan, one sided and did favour
to the complainants. In his cross-examination, the Investigating Officer, Puran E
Singh (PW-9) admits that he had come to know that in the same incident,
accused Harjit Singh (A-1) had suffered serious injuries and co-accused
Varinderjit Singh and Gursharan Singh had also suffered injuries yet he had
made no investigation as to how those injuries were caused to the above
members of the accused party.
The learned counsel appearing for the accused argues that in incident
in which two parties clashed and there were allegations of cross-firing and
assaults on each other, it was the duty of the prosecution to have also explained
the injuries sustained by the members of the accused parties. Non-explanation
F
of the injuries to the members of the accused party shows that prosecution G
has not come out with full and truthful version of the incident. It has suppressed
the genesis of the crime. It is, therefore, argued that the eye-witness account
given by Hari Singh (PW-I) who is father of the deceased and being his near
and dear one should not be believed in the absence of independent
corroboration to his version. The incident took place in the day time in the
village and must have been witnessed by many independent witnesses but H
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A none of them was examined by the prosecution. He submits that there has
been a clear attempt on the part of Hari Singh (PW-1) to rope in as llJ/nY
members of the families of the accused party as was possible. In order t~
involve other co-accused who had taken no overt part in the incident, a
material improvement was made by him in the statement in court by attributing
that both the members of the parties (nos. I & 2) were raising Lalkaras
B indicating common intention on their part. It is further pointed out that attempt
has been made as an after thought by Hari Singh (PW-1) to explain serious
injuries caused to the accused (A-1) with fire anns by taking a false plea that
in order to save his son (the deceased Harjinder Singh}, Hari Singh (PW-I)
had to take out his own gun and fire at the accused, Harjit S'ingh(A-1). It is
. C argued that this version of Hari Singh (PW-l) is artificial and a lame attempt
on his part to some how explain serious fire anns injuries caused to accused
Harjit Singh (A-1). This fact of his own firing was nbt stated by him in his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C made to the police. The relevant part of
the statement of Hari Singh (PW-I) in the court reads thus:-
D
"I fired twice from my gun. Both the fires might have hit Harjit
Singh. But I had not stated to the police in my statement Ex.P.A that
any of my fire hit Harjit Singh. I did not state in my statement that
Harjit Singh was injured with my fire."
It is on the above circumstances, improvements and omissions, in the
E statement o( Hari Singh (PW-I) that the learned counsel appearing for the
accused Harjit Singh (A-1) submits that plea of self-defence of the accused ·
should be accepted by the court. The submission made is that accused (A-1)
was seriously injured. The medical report clearly shows that the injuries
caused to him were by fire ann. The statement of Hari Singh for the first time
in court that injuries to the accused (A-1) were caused by shots fired from
F his gun is an after-thought and cannot, therefore, be believed. It is, therefore,
submitted that Harjit Singh (A-~) who had suffered a fire ann shot from
deceased, had to open fire in exercise of his right of private defence of his
person. It is argued that there is fallacy in the reasoning of the High Court
that accused (A-1) having suffered serious injuries on the legs could not have
G fired back in self-defence and therefore, his case has to be disbelieved. It is
argued that admittedly accused (A-1) had not suffered any injury on any vital
part. It is not the medical opinion that by sustaining fire ann injuries on the
legs, he might have fallen unconscious. If that be so even after receiving the /
bullet injuries on his legs, he could have fired back to save himself.
H
We have given very careful consideration to the relevant evidence and
I-
··,
J. •
HARIIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [DHARMADHIKARI, J.] 595
the submissions made by the learned counsel on behalf of accused (A· I). In A :
our opinion, in spite of infirmities in the prosecution case as highlighted
above, the plea of self-defence is not available to the accused (A-I) for other
reasons. There is nothing on record to disbel. "ve the version of the prosecution
witnesses that three accused as members of t1.! first party armed with lethal
weapons came on the tractor ,and challenged the deceased who was asserting
his right on piece of land over which he had placed his stock of wood. The B
first party has, therefore, a serious grievance against the deceased. Accused
Harjit Singh (A· I) was member of the Panchayat and as per his own defence
version, he was making efforts through the Panchayat and Revenue Authorities
to get the land cleared from encroachment of the deceased so that access
through the path to their houses remains unobstructed. His version is that he C
was attracted by the noise of quarrel between the accused who had first
arrived on the spot and the deceased. He admits that on hearing Raula or
commotion, he went to the spot with his revolver. He as a member of the
Panchayat with other accused wanted that the encroached land be cleared for
access to the houses of the accused. His rushing towards the spot with revolver
in his hand clearly indicates that he had gone there to help the three other co- D
accused who had reached the spot before him on a tractor with weapons in
their hands. The accused Harjit Singh (A· I), thus, joined the three accused
who had earlier reached on the spot on tractor. He was, therefore, one of the
members of the aggressor party and had joined others on the spot with his
revolver. He being one of the aggressors can claim no right of self-defence. E
His plea that being on the hit list of terrorist he always carried his licensed
arms does not satisfactorily explain his conduct of rushing towards the spot
with revolver. Accepting the defence version that the deceased fired at the
accused (A-1) and seriously injured him on the legs, it can be said to be an
act committed by deceased in exercise of his (deceased's) right of private
defence. In such circumstances, if the deceased had first fired at the accused F
(A-I), as the latter arrived on the spot with a revolver, the right of private
defence was available to the deceased and not to the accused.
Not much importance can be attached to the fact that there was serious
lapse on the part of Investigating Officer in not investigating the facts leading G
to the cause of injuries to the accused (A· I) and the other co-accused in the
same incident. It has been admitted on behalf of the accused that they had
not filed any counter complaint or First Information Report against the
members of the deceased party. There is no explanation for the same. Even
if the accused (A· I) was admitted in hospital, nothing prevented him or other
co-accused from lodging a report of commission of offence by the members H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. I S.C.R.
A of the deceased party. The plea of self-defence, therefore, is clearly an afterthought. The accused (A-1) had suffered serious fire ann injuries in the
incident and could not possibly have denied his presence and participation in
the incident. Accused (A-I) has, therefore, come up with the false plea of
self-defence which, for the aforesaid reasons we do not find worthy of
B acceptance.