Along with the appellants, six others were also tried for various offences in companynection with the same incident.
Satpal Singh PW 1 and another attacked Bakshish Singh with gandasi and lathi respectively.
However, he was acquitted of other charges.
In cross examination, he clarified that there must have been excessive bleeding from injury No.
Kirpan and gandasi at that time.
They went armed to the house of the informant Harbans Singh, hurled abuses and challenged them and thereupon the members of the companyplainant party, some of whom were definitely armed, came out.
After he fell down, they inflicted some more injuries on his waist and legs.
As regards the attack on the deceased, the version of injured eye witnesses viz.,
On information furnished by the SHO PW 10 , PW 11 the D.S.P. reached the place of occurrence at about 6 a.m. on 13.1.1988 and took up investigation.
4 tried to aim sickle which he was carrying, on his PW 1s head and when he stretched his right hand the injury landed on the thumb which got cut off.
He relied on the X ray reports of Banta Singh and Preetam Singh.
Both parties anticipated the troubles and were prepared for a fight.
Then, the accused dragged Pyara Singh upto the house of Banta Singh 2nd appellant which is almost behind the house of the informant.
Another accused by name Ram Singh inflicted an injury on the arm of the informant Harbans Singh.
The deceased was lifted by the appellants 1 to 3 and another and taken to the house of Banta Singh and thereafter, the remaining accused dragged the deceased into the house of Banta Singh.
Pyara Singh was most probably unarmed when he was attacked.
There was a companynter companyplaint filed by the accused party.
1 was grievous in nature.
The Doctor stated that injuries 1 2 were inflicted by sharp edged weapon.
Incised wound of 2 x 1/8 on the back of chest, left side, just near the medial border of left scapula.
On postmortem examination there were multiple fractures of right parietal bone with fracture of right frontal bone and cutting of the right mastoid process.
If the members of the companyplainant party were really armed and came prepared to assault the accused, they would number have allowed Pyara Singh to be killed in the manner in which he was done to death.
450 of 1994 has been filed by Harbans Singh the informant in the case, aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court in number applying Section 149 I.P.C. and for acquitting some of the accused.
Nihal Singh appellant No.
The plea of self defence having been rejected in relation to the accused, they must be responsible for the injuries caused to Pyara Singh.
When two or three other accused intervened, the informant Harbans Singh and party ran away.
2003 Supp 5 SCR 135 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA REDD1, J. These appeals are against the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Further, the case of the appellants that the members of companyplainant party came armed to the house of the accused Banta Singh and they were in fact the aggressors is number believable having regard to the injuries and casualties inflicted on the companyplainants.
All the accused in the companynter case lodged by the appellants were acquitted.
Bakshish Singh Appellant No.
When Pyara Singh was being attacked, the accused appellants were attacked by the companyplainant party in exercise of their right of private defence.
Notable amongst them is an incised wound of 2x1/4x1/2 on the left parietal region and the other one is an abrasion of 3x2 on the left wrist joint.
Though the companymon object of the assembly was number to kill Pyara Singh and both parties were determined to fight with each other, initially the accused persons were the aggressors.
Leaving Satpal Singh and Jeet Singh in the hospital, Harbans Singh went to the police station and lodged the FIR Ext.
The deceased Pyara Singh is the brother in law of Jeet Singh.
1 and injury No.
The appellants Banta Singh and Bakshish Singh who were armed with swords kirpans and the appellants Preetam Singh who was armed with gandasi attacked Pyara Singh and inflicted injuries on his head.
The Doctor PW 3 stated that all the three injuries were caused by sharp weapon and injury No.
Both of them have adjoining fields.
The injuries on Satpal Singh may be numbericed Incised wound of 4 x 1/2 x 11/2 x cutting bone through and through of right thumb reaching the junction of right index and middle finder posteriority.
The prosecution case can best be described by referring to the companytents of FIR lodged by Harbans Singh PW 2 at Kesharsighpur Police Station of Sri Ganganagar District at 12.05 a.m. on 13.1.1988.
They were acquitted of other charges.
At that juncture, Amreek Singh and two other relatives who were at the house, challenged the accused persons.
It was number their case in the FIR Ext.
PW3 companyducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased on the day following the incident.
P48 A at about 4 a.m. on 13.1.1988 according to which the companyplainant party including Harbans Singh, Jeet Singh, Pyara Singh deceased and Satpal singh stood in front of the house of the accused and started abusing them and when they were asked to keep away, Pyara Singh the deceased inflicted injury with sword on the head of Preetam Singh appellant No.
Contusion 3 x 1 on the right maxillary process.
1 would have been caused by a sharp weapon and the rest of injuries by blunt weapon.
1 , four persons from the companyplainant party including the deceased took part in the fight and the appellants were armed at the time when the companyplainant party allegedly came to the house of the appellant Banta Singh and challenged them.
Injuries were also inflicted on Jeet Singh with lathis and gandasis.
The Medical Officer further deposed that injury No.
seized the incriminating material found at the spot, prepared the inquest report, sent the dead body for postmortem and arrested the accused persons.
Let us number numberice the findings of High Court which are summarized below Having regard to the motive that led to the incident viz.,
PW 3, the Medical Officer deposed that injury No.
At that time, three or four persons armed with deadly weapons entered the house of Harbans Singh and started abusing Harbans Singh and his brother for causing depletion of water in their tube well.
Preetam Singh appellant No.
Hence, the prosecution case that the companymon object of the unlawful assembly was to kill Pyara Singh and Satpal Singh cannot be sustained.
The points arising in the appeal filed by the accused and this appeal are practically the same.
In substance, the appellants took the stand of self defence.
The son of the deceased Satpal Singh PW 1 was attacked by Nihal Singh 4th appellant and four other accused with lathis and gandasis.
The accused other than appellants 1 to 3 can only be held responsible for their individual acts as it was a case of mutual fight.
1 inflicted on the right thumb was serious in nature, according to the Doctor PW3 .
Four injuries were found on the body of the other appellant Preetam Singh.
Thus, according to the report given by Preetam Singh appellant No.
1 tried to defend himself with sword and in that process, he and Pyara Singh scuffled with each other.
Three of the accused who are appellants 1 to 3 herein also received injuries.
P1 at about mid night.
The appellant Preetam Singh lodged the FIR Ext.
It appears that the tube well dug up by Nihal Singh close to the tube well of the companyplainant caused the depletion of water in the tube well of the companyplainant.
The version of the eyewitnesses reveal that initially, when Harbans Singh and Jeet Singh came out of the house, the accused started quarreling but numberinjury was caused to them till Pyara Singh and Satpal Singh appeared on the scene.
As already numbered, the appellants did number companye to the informants house to injure or kill Pyara Singh with whom admittedly they did number have enmity.
Abrasion of 3 x 1/4 on the back of chest left side 1/2 from inferior border of left scapula.
Incised wound 4 x 3/4 x bone deep in the middle of skull at a distance of 2 from Injury No.
The appellants would number have intended to kill Pyara Singh leaving aside Harbans Singh and Jeet Singh who, by then, came out of the house to face the accused.
The injury No.
The appellant Banta Singh received three incised wounds at the back of the right shoulder joint, right thigh and left parietal region.
When Pyara Singh came out on hearing the shouts and cries of the accused, they did number attack him immediately as the evidence of PW 1 shows.
On postmortem, fractures of left parietal bone and right parietal bone were found.
At about 9 p.m. on the night of 12th January, 1988, the companyplainant Harbans Singh and his brother Jeet Singh and other relations Pyara Singh deceased , Satpal Singh son of Pyara Singh and two others were sitting in the drawing room of the house of Harbans Singh Jeet Singh.
When Pyara Singh intervened and exhorted the accused number to quarrel, appellants 1 to 3 attacked him by inflicting injuries on the head with the weapons they had.
The accused are also related to each other.
1 and bone was cut.
Appellants 1 and 2 are brothers.
The story that has been developed by the prosecution witnesses that after Pyara Singh was attacked and was taken to some distance, Jeet Singh and Satpal Sing went inside the house and came armed with a gandasi and lathi, is an afterthought.
Some other accused also attacked him with lathi and sickle injuring his fingers.
PW 1, Satpal Singh the son of the deceased, gave a slightly different version of the incident.
3 received three injuries, one of them is lacerated wound of 1 x 1/4 x 1/2 on the occipital cavity, another injury was an abrasion of 3xl on the left scapula.
Membranes cut and there was injury to brain matter and underneath the same blood clotting was present.
The material pan of the version of the appellants was number accepted by the trial Court and the High Court.
At that stage, the fight ensued and the accused first attacked Pyara Singh with the weapons in their hands.
There was a mutual fight and both sides were injured.
Sections 302/149, 307/149 etc.
Criminal Appeal No.
Others were companyvicted for various offences viz.,
After the incident, the three injured went to the Government hospital.
At the same time, Harbans Singh struck a blow on his left scapular region with a lathi.
At their instance, weapons stained with blood were recovered from various places postmortem of dead body was done by P.W.3 and Exhibit P8 is the postmortem report.
The 3rd appellant Bakshish Singh is the son of Appellant No.
P2 which is just outside the house of the informant and it went on upto spot B on the lane leading to the house of Banta Singh .
The dead body of Pyara Singh was found in Banta Singhs house, the 1.0.
The following is the description and analysis of the injuries given Incised wound of 7 x 2 1/2 with bone cutting, membrane cutting and injury to the brain matter on the right side of the skull reaching upto right mastoid process.
The motive for the attack, as brought out in evidence was the ill feelings that developed between Harbans Singh and his brother Jeet Singh on the one hand and the accused Nihal Singh on the other.
In the incident that occurred, Pyara Singh lost his life and three others of the companyplainant party, namely, Satpal Singh, son of the deceased, Harbans Singh, the informant and his brother Jeet Singh were injured.
Nihal Singh Appellant No.
Both parties were armed however the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons from the very beginning as stated in the FIR P 48A and as admitted by the accused.
4 was companyvicted under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous injuries to Satpal Singh son of deceased and he was sentenced to suffer three years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.
2 was serious in nature.
PWs 1, 2 and 6 Satpal Singh, Harbans Singh and Jeet Singh has been substantially believed by the trial Court as well as the High Court.
Before adverting to the findings of the High Court, it is necessary to numberice the injuries found on the deceased and the medical evidence.
325 of 1989.
The fight started from place A in Ext.
449 of 1994 together with six others were charged and tried for forming unlawful assembly, indulging in rioting, causing the death of one Pyara Singh with deadly weapons on the nigh of 12th January, 1988 at the house of the informant Harbans Singh situate in village 3 X and for causing grievous injuries to three members of the companyplainant party the informant, his brother and the son of the deceased.
Satpal Singh, PW 1 is the son of the deceased.
ill feelings between Harbans Singh Jeet Singh and Nihal Singh on the issue of reduction of flow of water in the tube wells, the accused persons companyld number have the motive to kill Pyara Singh or his son Satpal Singh with whom they had numberenmity whatsoever.
The accused persons formed a companymon intention then and there to kill Pyara Singh and started inflicting deadly blows to Pyara Singh on the head.
They were all armed with weapons viz.,
2 where he died on account of the injuries.
The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.
The accused caught hold of Pyara Singh and took him inside the house of Banta Singh appellant No.
Pyara Singh deceased and his son PW 1 intervened at that stage.
The accused appellants No.
On appeal, the High Court found the appellants guilty of the offence of murdering Pyara Singh.
The case of the accused persons that initially Pyara Singh attacked Preetam Singh with the sword cannot be believed because the weapon was number produced by the accused persons although the accused Bakshish Singh stated that the sword of Pyara Singh was taken away by him and kept inside his house.
He stated that after his father fell down on the Chabutra platform of Harbans Singhs house, appellants 1 to 3 and one Ram Singh tried to lift and move his father towards the house of Banta Singh.
Harbans Singh, the Informant and Jeet Singh P.W.6 are the brothers.
When Banta Singh and Bakshish Singh appellants 2 and 3 tried to save themselves, Jeet Singh and another attacked Banta Singh with gandasis.
When Harbans Singh and Jeet Singh came out, the accused persons started fighting with them.
Three other accused were companyvicted for the offences either under Section 322, 323 or 324 IPC and were acquitted of other charges.
At that stage, he and his uncle Jeet Singh brought a dang lathi and a sickle from the house and attacked appellants 1 to 3, but they companyld number succeed in stopping them.
