CRIMINAL CASE: KULWANT SINGH Vs. AMARJIT SINGH AND TWO OTHERS 07/03/2000 (SC)

Facts of the case
 An incident took place on September 23, 1989 outside the court of Munsif, Sadul Shahar.
 Two groups were involved. There was firing from both the sides resulting in the death of one Sukhmander Singh and injuries to others.
 One group of which the two respondents are comprised of eleven persons (Group-1) and the other group of which one of the accused (also the complainant in FIR against Group-1) is the appellant comprised nine persons (Group-2).
 Five persons of Group-1 were accused in a case before the Munsif, which included Sukhmander Singh and two of the Group-2 were complainants in that case.
 It was stated that parties had entered into a compromise and that compromise was to be recorded by the Munsif on that day.
 The accused were present in the court premises and so also the two complainants.
 Amarjit Singh, Respondent No.1, who was having a 12 bore gun and belonged to Group-1, had also come there and so were other members of Group-1. Respondent Jagsir Singh of this group was also having a 12 bore gun.
 Appellant Kulwant Singh along with other members of Group-2 also came there.
 In the FIR lodged on the same day at about 2.15 p.m. Surinder Singh of Group-1 alleged that on the arrival of Group-2 persons they surrounded Group-1 and fired with the result Sukhmander Singh, Jagsir Singh, Paramjit Singh and Amarjit Singh received bullet injuries.
 A case under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against persons comprising in Group-2.
 Sukhmander Singh, however, died on his way to the hospital and Section 302 IPC was added.
 At the same time another FIR was lodged by Kulwant Singh, the appellant. According to him when he was entering the court premises, persons belonging to Group-1 came there with guns. Out of them one Kewal Singh was having a 315 bore gun and others had 12 bore guns. They started abusing the appellant who ran away. After an hour or so other persons of Group-2 arrived and when Jagjit Singh and Radha Krishan of Group-2 were going to the room of the Tehsildar in the court premises they were fired upon by Amarjit Singh and Jagsir Singh (respondents). Amarjit Singh fired at Radha Krishan of Group-2, which hit him on the face and he fell down. While falling down Radha Krishan also returned fire on the persons of Group-1. In his firing other members of Group-2 also suffered bullet injuries.
 On this basis FIR a case under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against persons belonging to Group-1.
 Two sessions cases one arising out of FIR lodged by Surinder Singh of Group-1 (Sessions Case No. 123/94) and the other lodged by Kulwant Singh of Group-2 were tried in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar.
 The Court convicted Amarjit Singh and Jagsir Gingh. Amarjit Singh was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and also fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Amarjit Singh was also convicted for an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of another one month.
 Jagsir Singh was convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.
 Nine other accused (Jitender Singh, Surender Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kewal Singh, Bhola Singh, Gurmail Singh, Paramjit Singh, Richpal Singh and Mani Ram), also tried along with Amarjit Singh and Jagsir Singh, were, however, acquitted.
 Against the judgment of District and Sessions Judge two appeals were filed in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur one by Amarjit Singh and Jagsir Singh against their conviction and sentence and other by the State of Rajasthan against acquittal of nine other accused.
 The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan holding that the acquittal of the accused was by a well reasoned order. In the other appeal High Court maintained the conviction of Amarjit Singh but reduced his sentence to already undergone.
 Jagsir Singh was, however, acquitted of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
 The Aggrieved complainant filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
Judgment
The hon’ble Supreme Court Stated that, “It was expected by the High Court to apply its mind to the facts of the case and to find out who was the aggressor; whether there was right of private defence and if so was it exceeded in the circumstances of the case. High Court unfortunately lost sight of the relevant considerations which weigh with the court while hearing criminal appeal against conviction and sentence. However, the respondent Amarjit Singh does not feel aggrieved. In the present case we had issued notice for enhancement of sentence. Acquittal of Jagsir Singh by the High Court cannot be interfered. The incident was a serious one occurring in the court complex. Our consideration of the case against Amarjit Singh may affect the criminal appeal filed by Group-2 and still pending in the High Court. It were the accused of Group-1, who were responsible and aggressors in the violence. It is not disputed that there was cross firing between the two groups but he submitted that it was Amarjit Singh who first fired the shot and injured Radha Krishan, while Amarjit Singh and Jagsir Singh had only simple injuries on them. The manner in which the occurrence took place clearly showed that whatever accused of Group-2 did was in right to private defence and since they were fired upon they had to resort to firing to protect themselves from the onslaught of Group-1. It is difficult for us to comment on the exact role played by Amarjit Singh as whatever we say might affect the appreciation of the evidence by the High Court in the appeal filed by Group-2 and pending before it. However, what we find is that once High Court held Amarjit Singh guilty of an offence under Section 307 IPC it should not have interfered with the sentence of imprisonment. High Court noticed that Amarjit Singh had already undergone imprisonment for three and a half years. In the circumstances of the present case though we do not wish to interfere with the sentence of imprisonment as reduced by the High Court we will, however, enhance the sentence of fine on Amarjit Singh to Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The fine shall be payable within one month and when realized shall be paid over to the legal representatives of deceased Radha Krishan as it was he who suffered bullet injuries from gun fired by Amarjit Singh. In the end we express our anguish in the way High Court disposed of the criminal appeal. It has certainly led to miscarriage of justice.”
The appeal was partially allowed.
BY: ANKIT RAJPUT