Harnam Singh vs State of Punjab

S. S. Grewal, J. (Oral)

Harnam Singh, his son Avtar Singh and latter''s sons Jaswinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh were tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, who, vide his order dated 25th of May, 1992, convicted Avtar Singh appellant under Section 326 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Harnam Singh appellant was convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Jaswinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh were convicted under Sections 326 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo various terms of imprisonment and fine as detailed in the aforesaid order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala.

In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that on 7.10.1990, at about 7 a.m. Narinder Singh son of Kundan Singh first informant was sowing Baseen in his fields. In the meantime, Avtar Singh appellant armed with a Gandasi, Bhupinder Singh alias Bhinder Singh armed with a Sua, Harnam Singh armed with a Dang and Jaswinder Singh armed with a Gandasa came there. Jaswinder Singh raised a Lalkara exhorting his other coaccused to teach lesson to the complainant party for demolishing the water channel. Meanwhile Kuldip Singh, Kundan Singh also came there. Avtar Singh appellant opened the attack and gave a Gandasi blow to Kuldip Singh on his right hand and gave another blow with Gandasi hitting Kuldip Singh on his right thigh. The latter fell down on receipt of the said injuries. Harnam Singh appellant gave three Dang blows to Kuldip Singh on his head. Bhupinder Singh alias Bhinder Singh gave a sua blow to Kuldip Singh on the right side of his head. Harnam Singh gave a Dang blow on the back side of the head of Kundan Singh and another blow hitting Kundan Singh on his right palm while the latter had raised his right hand to save himself from the impact of the blow. Kundan Singh fell down. Thereafter Harnam Singh gave a Dang blow to Kundan Singh on his back. Kundan Singh tried to get up when Jaswinder Singh appellant gave a Gandasa blow hitting Kundan Singh on his chin. Kundan Singh raised alarm hearing which Joginder Kaur his wife came there. Jaswinder Singh appellant then gave a Gandasa blow to Joginder Kaur hitting on her head. Narinder Singh also received injuries at the hands of the said appellant on various parts of his body. Bakshish Singh and Gajjan Singh also reached the spot and witnessed the entire occurrence. After causing injuries all the appellants ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons. After arranging conveyance Bakshish Singh brought the injured to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala where they were medically examined. After completion of the investigation, the appellants were tried, convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as detailed above. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence the appellants have filed the present appeal.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

According to the defence plea Harnam Singh appellant was sitting in his Tablela, his son Avtar Singh was fixing the pegs. Kuldip Singh started demolishing the water channel in the land of Harnam Singh. Harnam Singh asked Kuldip Singh not to do so. Kuldip Singh gave a Gandasa blow to Harnam Singh on his right eye blow. Narinder Singh and Kundan Singh also caused injuries. Harnam Singh and his son Avtar Singh then caused injuries in their self defence.

Admittedly, the occurrence in the instant case has taken place near the fields of both the parties. The dispute between the parties was over the demolition of water channel (Khal). The complainant party in the instant case has tried to suppress the injuries of Harnam Singh who had received four injuries on his person including two incised wounds one on his forehead and the other on the nose. Besides he also suffered fracture of second molar tooth on upper side. The appellants have specifically pleaded right of private defence of person and properly. According to the defence plea the complainant side was the aggressor and the accused party had acted bona fide in exercise of right of private defence of person and property. It is true that the accused party in the instant case inflicted far more injuries whereas out of the accused only Harnam Singh received four injuries as detailed above. Right of private defence of person and property, however, cannot be weighed in golden scales. Nor the party under attack is expected to modulate its defence step by step. Right of private defence of person and property exists till there is reasonable apprehension of danger of infliction of injuries from the opposite side. It seems that the accused party wanted to disarm the complainant party and in the process while defending it caused numerous injuries. This aspect of the case alone, however, would not be sufficient to hold either that the accused party itself was the aggressor and not the complainant party or that the accused had in any manner exceeded the right of private defence of person and property.

Apart from that the parties are corelations and they have entered into compromise Ex. C.1. Statement of Kundan Singh complainant was also recorded in which he stated that he had no objection in case this appeal is allowed and the accused are acquitted as it would help them to live peacefully in future.

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is accepted and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside and accused are acquitted. Fine, if realised, shall be refunded to the appellants.