/2023 INSC 275/ Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011 [Non-Reportable] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 665-666 OF 2011 AJMER SINGH & ORS. … AppellantsVersus STATE OF HARYANA … Respondent J U D G M E N T Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. At   the   very   outset,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants submitted that Ajmer Singh s/o. Jiwan Singh having expired during the   pendency   of   the   appeal   before   this   Court,   the   appeal   qua   him stands abated.  2. The   conviction   of   the   appellants   having   been   upheld   by the   High   Court,   the   order   dated   May   10,   2010   is   under   challenge before this Court.  Vide impugned order, the High Court disposed of Criminal Appeal No. 843­SB of 2001 filed by (1) Ajmer Singh son of Jiwan Singh (2) Man Singh son of Ajmer Singh (3) Gurdhyan Singh Page 1 of 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011 son of Ajmer Singh (4) Surinder Singh son of Shamsher Singh and (5)   Nanak   Singh   son   of   Jiwan   Singh   out   of   which   the   appeal   qua Ajmer   Singh   stands   abated.     The   Criminal   Revision   bearing   Nos. 475/2002 and 778/2003 were also disposed of by the same order. The   appellants   were   convicted   by   the   Trial   Court   under   Sections 148,   323,   325   and   307   read   with   Section   149   of   the   Indian   Penal Code   (IPC).     They   were   sentenced   to   undergo   six   months   rigorous imprisonment   under   Section   148   read   with   Section   149   as   well   as for Section 323 read with Section 149, two years under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC and seven years under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC.  3. The High Court vide order dated May 10,2010 dismissed the appeal of the appellants.  However, by a subsequent order dated May 28, 2010, sentencing part was modified by the High Court. The reason   stated   for   the   said   modification   was   that   an   interim   order dated   May   28,   2010,   was   passed   in   the   said   appeal reducing   the sentence from seven years to five years under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC but the said modification was not incorporated into the detailed judgement.  4. It   is   a   case   in   which   both   the   parties   suffered   injuries. The FIR No. 75 dated 27.3.1997 was registered on the complaint of Page 2 of 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011 Jagdish   Chand   alleging   that   at   about   8.00   a.m.   in   the   morning   of 27.3.1997, Surender Singh tried to drive his tractor trolley from the disputed passage, the bara of the house of Jagdish Chand.   Rajesh Kumar,   nephew   of   Jagdish   Chand   asked   him   not   to   do   so. Accused   Man   Singh,   Ajmer   Singh,   Nanak   Singh   and   Gurdhian Singh   were   sitting   in   the   tractor­trolley.     They   attacked   Rajesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand with lathi.   Thereafter, a lathi blow was given on the head of Lajwanti (mother of Ravi Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and   Sanjeev   Kumar).     On   alarm   being   raised,   Ravi   Kumar   and Sanjeev   Kumar   (nephews   of   Jagdish   Chand)   came   to   save   them. Gurdhian   Singh   gave   a   kassi   (spade)   blow   on   the   head   of   Rajesh Kumar.     Nanak   Singh   gave   a   lathi   blow   to   Ravi   Kumar,   whereas Surinder Singh gave a lathi blow to Sanjeev Kumar.  On hearing the alarm,   number   of   villagers   gathered.     The   injured   were   taken   to hospital and they were medically examined.  5. As   against   this,   multiple   injuries   were   suffered   by   the appellants.  They were also medically examined at PHC Panjokra.  6. According   to   the   defence,   there   was   altercation   between Harbans   Kaur   wife   of   Ajmer   Singh   and   Lajwanti.     As   a   result,   the male members of both the parties collected and there was free fight. Page 3 of 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011 7. The   dispute   between   the   parties,   as   claimed,   was   with reference   to   use   of   the   disputed   passage   by   the   appellants. As both the  parties  suffered  injuries in the  fight,  it cannot  be  held that no such incident had taken place.   8. The   argument   raised   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the appellants was that in the case in hand, the complainant party was the aggressor as on day­to­day basis they used to scold them while they   were   using   the   passage   on   the   land,   which   is   in   the   name   of Gram Panchayat.   The complainant party was treating that portion of the land to be their own.   In fact, immediately after the incident on 27.3.1997 a civil suit for permanent injunction was filed by the complainant   party,   namely,   Jagdish   Chand   and   Krishan   son   of Kundan   against   Ajmer   Singh,   Nanak   Singh   sons   of   Jiwan   Singh and   Dhyan   Singh,   Man   Singh   sons   of   Ajmer   Singh   and   Surender Singh son of Shamsher.   The prayer in the suit was to restrain the defendants therein from using bara of the plaintiffs as passage.  The suit   was   filed   on   31.3.1997,   which   was   dismissed   on   15.1.2003. No   decree   of   injunction   was   passed   in   favour   of   plaintiffs   therein pertaining to Khasra No. 117, which was claimed to be the property Page 4 of 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011 of   the   plaintiffs   as   it   was   found   to   be   owned   by   Gram   Panchayat and reserved for Rafiamm. 9. He   further   submitted   that   number   of   persons   on   the appellant   side   also   suffered   injuries   and   some   of   them   were   found to  be grievous.    However,  the  courts below  have  failed  to  take  that into   consideration.     In   fact,   it   was   a   case   of   self­defence.     The incident   took   place   outside   the   precincts   of   complainant   party, hence   the   appellants   cannot   be   said   to   be   aggressors.     Intention cannot   be   established   as   there   was   no   weapon   used.     They   were merely   having   their   agricultural   implements   with   them   and   it   was the   normal   time   to   go   to   the   fields   as   the   incident   happened   at about 8.00 a.m. The allegation is that the appellants were going in the   tractor­trolley,   when   on   the   provocation   of   the   complainant party, the incident happened. 10. On the other  hand,  the argument of learned  counsel  for the State was that it is a case in which the appellants were found to be   aggressors.     They   had   caused   grievous   injuries   to   the complainant   party.     Even   if   they   suffered   certain   injuries,   those were   in   exercise   of   their   right   to   private   defence.     The   evidence   in Page 5 of 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011 the   form   of   statements   of   injured   witnesses   cannot   be   discarded. Besides   the   injured   witnesses,   independent   witnesses   were   also produced who corroborated the version of the prosecution.  11. Heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and   perused   the material on record.  12. Date of incident,  as  such, is not in dispute.    It has  also not   come   on   record   that   the   appellants   who   were   stated   to   be aggressors and have been convicted, used any weapons as such or they   had   gone   to   the   place   of   incident   with   their   pre­determined mind.  Even the case set up by the complainant party was that they were   passing   through   the   passage   in   a   trolley.     In   fight,   lathi   and kassi   (spade)   were   allegedly   used.     These   are   the   normal agricultural   implements   which   are   used   in   the   rural   areas,   which the appellants were carrying in their trolley.   13. As   is   evident   from   the   record,   the   dispute   was   with regard   to   the   use   of   passage   by   the   appellants   which   the complainant party  was claiming to be its own.   Another fact which has come on record is that there is a decree in a civil case filed by the   complainant   party   immediately   after   the   incident,   in   which   it Page 6 of 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011 was held that the passage belongs to the Gram  Panchayat and the same is Rafiamm.   14. No doubt, there are injuries suffered by the complainant party.     However,   the   fact   remains   that   the   injuries   have   also   been suffered by the accused party.   In the judgment of the High Court, due consideration has not been given to the injuries suffered by the appellants.     Entire   stress   is   on   the   injuries   suffered   by   the complainant party or the evidence led by them.   The defence of the appellants has not been touched.   The High Court also opined that place   of   incident   was   space   between   bara   and   house   of   the complainant   party.   The   issue   was   use   of   the   passage   by   the appellants to which the complainant party was raising an objection. 15. Considering   the   material   on   record   which   has   been discussed   above   where   both   the   parties   suffered   injuries   in   free fight   and   the   passage,   which   was   the   root   cause   of   the   fight,   has been   held   to   be   the   passage   owned   by   Gram   Panchayat   and Page 7 of 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 665-666 of 2011 Rafiamm   and   not   belonging   to   the   complainant   party,   in   our opinion,   the   conviction   and   sentence   of   the   appellants   cannot   be legally   sustained.     The   appeals   are   accordingly   allowed.     The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court are set aside. The bail bonds of the appellants stand discharged.  ……..….………………J. [Abhay S. Oka] ……..….………………J. [Rajesh Bindal] New Delhi April 11, 2023 Page 8 of 8