Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a conviction recorded by the Additional Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana under Sections 148, 307, 307/149, 324, 324/149, 323 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The six appellants challenged the conviction and sentence before the Supreme Court under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984. The prosecution case was that on April 13, 1984 at about 8 P.M., in village Mangli Tanda, the appellants attacked Bhajan Singh and his son Chain Singh while they were sitting outside their house. Kabul Singh fired a double-barrelled gun causing injuries to Chain Singh and Bhajan Singh, while other appellants armed with lathis and a takua assaulted persons who came to help. The motive was an earlier altercation over a plot purchase receipt from Gram Panchayat where Amar Singh was a member. The injured were treated at Civil Hospital, Ludhiana and a Primary Health Centre. The FIR was registered on the statement of Bhajan Singh. The investigation recovered blood-stained earth, two empty cartridges, and seized the licensed gun of Kabul Singh. Forensic reports confirmed that the empty cartridges were fired from Kabul Singh's gun and human blood was present on the earth. The prosecution examined three eyewitnesses, five doctors, the investigating officer, and a draftsman. The appellants denied the prosecution version and claimed right of private defence, stating that Bhajan Singh and others attacked Amar Singh and Chand Singh with lathis, and Kabul Singh fired in self-defence. Roshan Singh pleaded alibi but no defence witnesses were examined. The Supreme Court found that an incident of assault took place in front of Bhajan Singh's house and Kabul Singh fired from his gun. It held that the complainant party was entitled to right of private defence as the appellants were the aggressors. The nature of injuries on some appellants was consistent with brickbats thrown by the complainant party, not lathi blows. The recovery of empty cartridges near Kabul Singh's house was explained by cross-examination evidence that the houses were opposite and the firing distance was 7/8 karams, consistent with the doctor's opinion of firing from more than six feet. The contention regarding non-seizure of brickbats was rejected because the defence also admitted brickbats were thrown and the investigating officer visited the site long after the incident. The court altered Bhulla Singh's conviction from Section 148 to Section 147 IPC as he was unarmed, reducing his sentence from one year to six months. Roshan Singh's alibi was rejected for want of evidence. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence upheld subject to the modification. The appellants on bail were directed to surrender to their bail bonds.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Right of Private Defence - Defence claim of right of private defence rejected - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellants claimed they acted in self-defence after being attacked with lathis; however, the court found the complainant party were entitled to right of private defence as the appellants were the aggressors. The nature of injuries on some appellants supported prosecution case of brickbats being thrown, not lathi blows. Held that the appellants had no right of private defence. (Paras 6-8) B) Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly - Conviction under Section 148 altered to Section 147 for unarmed member - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 147, 148 - All appellants except Bhulla Singh were armed with deadly weapons; Bhulla Singh was unarmed. The court held that an unarmed member cannot be convicted under Section 148 IPC for rioting with deadly weapons, but is liable under Section 147 IPC for rioting; sentence reduced from one year to six months. Held that conviction under Section 148 cannot be sustained for an unarmed accused. (Para 11) C) Evidence - Alibi - Defence of alibi must be proved by accused - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (not explicitly cited) - The appellant Roshan Singh pleaded alibi but produced no evidence in support thereof. The court held that a mere plea of alibi without evidence is insufficient and placed him on the same footing as other appellants. Held that alibi must be proved by the accused. (Para 11) D) Criminal Trial - Appeal under Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act - Section 14 of Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 - The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence except for a modification reducing the conviction of one unarmed appellant from Section 148 to Section 147 IPC. Held that no interference was called for as the sentences erred on the side of leniency. (Paras 1,12) E) Criminal Procedure - Section 313 CrPC Statement and Investigation - Minor contradictions do not discredit eyewitness - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 313, 161 - The Court considered minor contradictions between the eyewitness's deposition and statement under Section 161 CrPC but found them insufficient to discredit her testimony. The recovery of empty cartridges near the opposite house was explained by the distance of firing and did not falsify the prosecution case. Held that credible eyewitness testimony is sufficient to uphold conviction. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the incident occurred in the manner alleged by the prosecution or the defence; whether the appellants had right of private defence; whether the recovery of empty cartridges near the house of Kabul Singh undermined the prosecution case; whether Bhulla Singh could be convicted under Section 148 IPC; whether Roshan Singh established alibi.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence were upheld subject to modification: the conviction of Bhulla Singh under Section 148 IPC was altered to Section 147 IPC and his sentence reduced from one year to six months. The appellants on bail were directed to surrender to their bail bonds to serve out their sentences.
Law Points
- Right of private defence not available to aggressors
- unarmed member cannot be convicted under Section 148 IPC
- alibi must be proved
- conviction under Section 307/149 upheld
- minor contradictions do not discredit eyewitness
- recovery of empty cartridges not fatal when distance consistent with firing from near opposite house
