LAXMAN SINGH Vs. POONAM SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2003-9-100
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on
September 10,2003
LAXMAN SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
POONAM SINGH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
JAI DEV HARI SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]MUNSHI RAM VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED]
BIRANSINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. BAI FATIMA [REFERRED]
LAKSHMI SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MOHAMMAD MUSHEER KHAN [REFERRED]
SALIM ZIA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
MOHINDER PAL JOLLY VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
BUTA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
WASSAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
SEKAR ALIAS RAJU SEKHARAN VS. STATE OF REP [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
AJAI PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-194] [REFERRED TO]STATE VS. KALISTA DESOUZA [LAWS(KAR)-2003-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2009-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
MATHAI ALIAS JOY VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2004-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
PATTABI ALIAS PATTABIRAMAN VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2006-3-257] [REFERRED TO]
PANDHRINATH PUNJARAM LAHANE VS. STETE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-67] [REFERRED TO]
PANDHARINATH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-175] [REFERRED TO]
DNYANESHWAR MUKINDA LAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANG VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-1-40] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-5-316] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2007-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
HARDU NAGESIA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2010-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM CHAND VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANBHAI BABULAL BHOSLE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2008-11-148] [REFERRED TO]
MODI VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(CHH)-2014-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
KALBE ALI VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [LAWS(UTN)-2004-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH SON OF TULA RAM VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2015-5-98] [REFERRED TO]
MUZAFFAR HUSAIN @ LALO ISMAIL HATHIWALA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-6-40] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. JATINDER KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
HIRABAN SAHANI VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-7-99] [REFERRED TO]
SUMIT KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. HARBANS LAL AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP CHAND VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SURJAN SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
CHHANGUR BHAR VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-395] [REFERRED TO]
AMAN VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-10-52] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-10-79] [REFERRED TO]
SHAH JAHAN ALI VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-46] [REFERRED TO]
BISHNA ALIAS BHISWADEB MAHATO VS. STATE OF W B [LAWS(SC)-2005-10-43] [REFERRED TO]
TRILOKI NATH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2005-10-65] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2012-11-128] [REFERRED TO]
NARAIN YADAV SON OF LATE RAM YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2013-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
THOMAS VARKEY VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2006-7-116] [REFERRED TO]
TRINATH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(CHH)-2014-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
BABU DIN VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2004-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA DEVI VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P. VS. ROMA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-51] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL DEV @ KAMAL KUMAR SON OF SHRI DEVI DASS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-65] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-107] [REFERRED TO]
AMZAD KHAN VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
BIR SINGH ALIAS BIR NATH SON OF DILE RAM VS. STATE OF HP [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL YADAO VS. STATE OF M P (NOW C G ) [LAWS(CHH)-2014-10-41] [REFERRED]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. DEV RATTAN [LAWS(HPH)-2014-8-156] [REFERRED]
MANOJ KUMAR SON OF ROOP SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-60] [REFERRED]
STATE OF H.P. VS. PAWAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-147] [REFERRED TO]
JAMSHED ALI AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2013-5-104] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJLAL & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2016-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH SUBBA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2017-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDAR SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-3-148] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H P VS. VIJENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE RAM NATH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-302] [REFERRED TO]
OM @ OM PRAKASH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH HARUN VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-363] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDER SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2018-7-73] [REFERRED TO]
KALU RAM MEENA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-5-291] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-7-372] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J. -
(1.)These appeals are by the informant and the State of Rajasthan questioning the correctness and legality of judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur directing acquittal of the respondent-accused persons.
(2.)The factual antecedents which the prosecution unfolded during trial are as follows :- There was long-standing litigation between Mohan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and his brother and other relatives on one hand and the accused persons on the other. On 10-6-1984, the fateful day in the morning hours deceased-Mohan Singh and his brother Bheru Singh (PW-2) and other relatives were ploughing the disputed land. Accused-respondents Poonam Singh, Hari Singh, Devaram, Gamna and 12 others acquitted by trial Court told them not to do so. They asserted that the field belonged to them and they will not allow the complainant side to plough the field. For a long time assertions and counter-assertions went on. Thereafter accused Poonam Singh hit on the head of Mohan Singh with a lavali (kind of stick) and accused-Devaram hit on his shoulder by a Bewadi (form of stick) due to which, he having become unconscious, fell down. Thereafter accused persons started assaulting and inflicting injuries. The incident was seen by Godawari (PW 4), Arjun Singh (PW-16), Geeta (PW-13), Babu Singh (PW-21), Bheru Singh (PW-2) and others. They were also injured being assaulted by the accused persons. After this first information report was lodged by Bheru Singh at about 8.30 p.m. and investigation was undertaken. Mohan Singh was admitted in the Pali Hospital for treatment and subsequently he breathed his last on 11-6-84 around 11.00 a.m.
(3.)In order to substantiate its version the prosecution examined 34 witnesses. The accused persons pleaded innocence and examined 4 witnesses. On consideration of evidence on record, the trial Court came to hold that the land was in possession of the complainant side, though revenue records were in favour of the accused-appellants with their companions. Having held so, it was observed that all the accused were to be acquitted of the charges under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC). It was held that though right of private defence was available, it was exceeded. Even though the accused persons had sustained injuries, yet the maximum they could have done was to exercise the right of private defence by inflicting simple injuries. Ultimately, it was held that present respondents were guilty of offences punishable under Sections 304, Part-II and 323, IPC for causing death of Mohan Singh and inflicting injuries on Godawari (PW-4). The conviction and sentence were challenged by the four respondents-accused. The State did not challenge the acquittal or the alteration of conviction. Similar was the position vis-a-vis the informant.
(2.)The factual antecedents which the prosecution unfolded during trial are as follows :- There was long-standing litigation between Mohan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and his brother and other relatives on one hand and the accused persons on the other. On 10-6-1984, the fateful day in the morning hours deceased-Mohan Singh and his brother Bheru Singh (PW-2) and other relatives were ploughing the disputed land. Accused-respondents Poonam Singh, Hari Singh, Devaram, Gamna and 12 others acquitted by trial Court told them not to do so. They asserted that the field belonged to them and they will not allow the complainant side to plough the field. For a long time assertions and counter-assertions went on. Thereafter accused Poonam Singh hit on the head of Mohan Singh with a lavali (kind of stick) and accused-Devaram hit on his shoulder by a Bewadi (form of stick) due to which, he having become unconscious, fell down. Thereafter accused persons started assaulting and inflicting injuries. The incident was seen by Godawari (PW 4), Arjun Singh (PW-16), Geeta (PW-13), Babu Singh (PW-21), Bheru Singh (PW-2) and others. They were also injured being assaulted by the accused persons. After this first information report was lodged by Bheru Singh at about 8.30 p.m. and investigation was undertaken. Mohan Singh was admitted in the Pali Hospital for treatment and subsequently he breathed his last on 11-6-84 around 11.00 a.m.
(3.)In order to substantiate its version the prosecution examined 34 witnesses. The accused persons pleaded innocence and examined 4 witnesses. On consideration of evidence on record, the trial Court came to hold that the land was in possession of the complainant side, though revenue records were in favour of the accused-appellants with their companions. Having held so, it was observed that all the accused were to be acquitted of the charges under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC). It was held that though right of private defence was available, it was exceeded. Even though the accused persons had sustained injuries, yet the maximum they could have done was to exercise the right of private defence by inflicting simple injuries. Ultimately, it was held that present respondents were guilty of offences punishable under Sections 304, Part-II and 323, IPC for causing death of Mohan Singh and inflicting injuries on Godawari (PW-4). The conviction and sentence were challenged by the four respondents-accused. The State did not challenge the acquittal or the alteration of conviction. Similar was the position vis-a-vis the informant.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.