National Law Institute University

CASE ANAYLSIS ON

Appellants: Dilbag Singh

v.

Respondent: State of Himachal Pradesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On: 30.05.2012

Submitted By: Shivank Virmani Submitted to – Divya Salim

Roll No: 2012 BALLB 70 (Assistant Prof.)

Table of Contents

Index Page No.

1) Facts of the case………………………………………….……...3

2) Case at Trial Court…………….…………………………….......4

3) Issues raised before High Court..…………….………………….5

4) Observation made by the High Court …………………………..6-8

5) Critical Analysis…………………………………………………9

Facts of the case

Story of prosecution

a. On 5.3.2005 when Sh. Rachpal Singh, husband of Smt. Kanta Devi1 was returning home on a

bicycle carrying fodder (grass).

b. PW-1 heard cries of her husband saying "hai maar ditta". When PW-1 rushed to the spot from

where cries were coming, PW-1 saw Dilbag Singh2 giving blows to Sh. Rachpal Singh with a

kassi (spade) on his head. PW-1 also saw Usha Devi3 giving blows with fists.

c. When PW-1 cried for help, her daughter Kumari Sapna4 and brother-in-law Sh. Mohinder

Singh5 rushed to the spot.

d. Seeing the aforesaid persons, Accused-1 immediately ran away from the spot along with his

Accused-2 on his scooter.

e. Sh. Rachpal Singh was immediately rushed to the nearby hospital at Daulatpur.

Aftermath of the incident

Police registered a case under section under sections 307 read with section 34 IPC. Accused were

also arrested evidences from the scene was taken as sample of blood strains, cycle belonging to

accused , weapons used at the time of offence were also recovered and etc.

1 Hereinafter referred to as PW-12 Hereinafter referred to as Accused-13 Hereinafter referred to as Accused-24 Hereinafter referred to as PW-35 Hereinafter referred to as PW-2

Story of accused

a. Accused-1 is falsely implicated in the case as on the alleged occurrence in the evening

deceased Rachhpal Singh was uprooting the fencing.

b. On objection Rachhpal Singh gave me sickle blow and in the meantime Accused-2 came

over there who was also given sickle blow by Rachhpal Singh.

c. During scuffle Rachhpal Singh fell down over the Kassi and sustained injuries as it all

happened to protect my life and property.

CASE AT TRIAL COURT

1. Court below convicted accused Dilbag Singh for having committed an offence punishable

under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also pay fine of

an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of one year.

2. However trial Court did not find the charge of conspiracy to have been proved against the said

accused and accused Usha Devi who in any event was acquitted of charge of murder.

Aggrieved by the impugned judgement both the parties that is Accused-1 has filed Criminal

Appeal No. 306 of 2006. Challenging the very same judgment, State has also filed Cr. Appeal

No. 370 of 2006 against acquittal of accused Accused-2 filed a criminal appeal in High Court of

Himachal Pradesh.

 

ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

On behalf of Accused

1. Whether the punishment given to Accused-1 appropriate? or Whether Accused-1 was

justified in causing harm while using the right to private defence?

On behalf of State

2. Whether the acquittal of Accused-2 by trial court justified? 

OBSERVATION MADE BY THE HIGH COURT

With reference to the appeal made by the accused

While deciding on the right to private defence as a plea taken by the accused High Court made

the following observations.

Principle of right to private defence

It is a settled position of law that right of private defense commences as soon as

reasonable apprehension of danger to body arises.

The danger must be imminent/present and real6.

This right does not extend to inflicting of more harm than what is necessary to inflict for

the purposes of defence.

The right would be justified if the assault caused reasonable apprehension of death or

grievous hurt to the person exercising such right.

In order to find whether right of private defence is available or not, injuries received by the

accused, imminence of threat to his safety, injury caused by the accused and the circumstance

whether accused had time to take recourse to public authority are all relevant factors to be

considered7.

Also court referred to a number of cases where the principle relating to private defence is settled.

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and another8; Sikandar Singh and others v. State of Bihar9; Jai

Dev v. State of Punjab10; Dharam v. Stateof Haryana11

6 AIR 1988 SC 837 Ranjitham v. Basavaraj and others (2012) 1 SCC 4148 (2010) 2 SCC 3339 (2010) 7 SCC 47710 AIR 1963 SC 61211 (2007) 15 SCC 241

Application of evidences pertaining to the facts and

circumstances of the case

Evidences laid down in Medical Examination –

Doctor has opined that accused Dilbag Singh sustained an incised wound over the tip of

left index finger over the vental aspect measuring 21/2 inches in circular tapering at the

ends and fresh bleeding was present.

Doctor clarified that injury on the body of the said Accused-1 could be sustained by a fall

if a person were to flee after inflicting injuries to some other person.

Also it was found by the medical examination that blood on the clothes of the deceased

i.e. blood group-B matched with the sample of blood found on the weapon of offence.

Thereby court concluded that injury sustained by accused persons were neither fatal nor life

threatening nor can they be said to have been caused with a sickle, as is so alleged by the

accused. It could not be shown that prosecution acted unfairly towards the accused. Police could

not recover any sickle from the spot of occurrence of crime.

Evidence laid down by witnesses

According to him Dr. Jagdish Singh12 injuries were caused with a sharp weapon and the

remaining injuries were caused with a blunt weapon.

Pradhan, Krishan Rana13 states that he was informed by the daughter of the deceased that

her father had died on account of a quarrel which took place with Dilbag Singh.

Further the testimony of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 corroborates the evidences.

Evidences collected from the place

Police could not recover any sickle from the spot of occurrence of crime. Also it can be

gathered from the facts that Accused Dilbag Singh could have waited till the morning and

then brought the matter to the notice of the members of the Panchayat, more so, for the

12 Hereinafter referred to as PW-513 Hereinafter referred to as PW-4

fact that he himself has suggested to the witnesses that the matter pertaining to the

boundary dispute was taken up by him with the Panchayat.

On the basis of reasonable proportion of force used court said that defence taken by the

accused cannot be said to be probable also for the reason that injuries suffered by the

convict-accused were not on his vital part of the body nor was he having any

apprehension or threat to the life of his family.

Observation made with references to the appeal made by the

State

Court observed that testimonies of prosecution witnesses cannot be said to have fully established

the charge of common intention of both the accused persons to have killed the deceased.

There is nothing to show that the Kassi in question was given to accused Dilbag Singh by Usha

Devi.

The version of PW-2 is also relevant in this regard. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that

Accused-2 had stopped Rachpal Singh and then Dilbag Singh gave a Kassi blow on his nose.

So far as PW-1 is concerned, possibility of her version regarding Usha Devi because of over

jealousness on account of death of her husband cannot be ruled out. Resultantly, Usha Devi

cannot be held liable for the offence in question.

Judgment by the High Court

In the view of High Court trial Court has correctly appreciated the material placed on record by

the parties and arrived at its just conclusions. Findings of conviction and sentence of accused

Dilbag Singh as also acquittal of accused Usha Devi are based on complete and proper

appreciation of ocular and documentary evidence. Also, prosecution has been able to establish

the guilt of accused Dilbag Singh, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, consistent

and trustworthy evidence.

Critical analysis

Pros of the Judgment-

Judgment of the High Court is highly as Justice R.B Misra and Sanjay Karol has at length

discussed about the right to private defence as one of the forms of justifiable defence

where certain principles of landmark cases have been used which I found new to me as in

Darshan Singh v State of Punjab Honourable Supreme Court held that it is open for the

court to consider the plea of self defence if it arises from the facts and circumstances of

the case even if the accused has not pleaded self defence.

Cons of the Judgment-

While at the same time Honb’le High Court failed to discuss at length the reasons for

acquittal of Accused-2 where the court highly relied on the testimony of public witness

while ignoring the presence of the Accused-2 at the spot of accident.

While clubbing the appeals made by the Accused and the state it appears that court has

failed to take into consideration the name of Accused-2 as it appears on the first page of

the case.

Other findings of the court

Honb’le High Court while deciding the case comes through the principle that it is not a rule of

law that in every case testimony of interested witness requires corroboration, more so in the

instant case where we find that presence of the convict on the spot is not disputed at all.