- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Punjab v. Gurbux Singh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The case arises out of a fatal clash on the night of 29-30 August 1981 in Village Patti. The prosecution alleged that accused Gurbux Singh and six others, armed with firearms and sharp-edged weapons, attacked Gopal Singh (D-1) and Karaj Singh (D-2) in an attempt to seize disputed custodian land. During the melee Hardip Singh, brother of A-1, was shot dead, allegedly by Gopal Singh. Gopal Singh and Karaj Singh also died from multiple injuries. PW-7 lodged the FIR and an investigation followed, culminating in a charge-sheet against all seven accused under Sections 148, 302, 379, 302/149 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act.
The Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced all the accused. On appeal, the Punjab & Haryana High Court overturned the convictions, holding that the defence plea of private defence was plausible and that the prosecution had not presented the whole truth, particularly concerning gun-shot injuries suffered by accused Salwinder Singh.
The State filed Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 1983 against the acquittal, and the complainant filed SLP No. 342 of 1983. The Supreme Court heard both matters together.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in granting acquittal by accepting the accused persons’ plea of self-defence.
- Whether unexplained injuries on an accused make the prosecution version inherently doubtful, thereby entitling the accused to an acquittal or at least the benefit of doubt.
- The extent to which the Supreme Court may interfere with an order of acquittal in criminal appeals.
Arguments of the Parties
State/Appellant
- Asserted that the accused were aggressors who launched an unlawful attack resulting in two deaths on the prosecution side.
- Emphasised that the Sessions Judge had correctly rejected the defence plea of self-defence.
- Contended that the High Court erred in finding the prosecution version incomplete and in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Respondents/Accused
- Pleaded that they were drawing water in the fields when the deceased and their associates launched the first attack.
- Claimed Hardip Singh was shot first by Karaj Singh, after which a struggle ensued during which Gopal Singh was fatally injured by his own firearm.
- Argued that unexplained gun-shot injuries on Salwinder Singh corroborated their defensive posture.
- Maintained that, at the least, the material created a reasonable doubt that must be resolved in their favour.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled position that an accused invoking the right of private defence is not required to prove the plea beyond reasonable doubt; a preponderance of probability suffices. Applying this standard, the Court noted:
- The prosecution failed to explain gun-shot injuries on accused Salwinder Singh, a circumstance that cast doubt on the prosecution’s version of events.
- Eyewitnesses PW-7 and PW-8 were close relatives of the deceased, not injured in the occurrence, and their account of how Hardip Singh was killed was deemed unreliable by the High Court. The Supreme Court found no grounds to disturb that credibility assessment.
- Given the existence of injuries on the accused and the possibility that the deceased party opened fire first, the defence plea that the accused acted in self-defence appeared plausible.
- An appellate court’s interference with an acquittal is permissible only when the lower court’s view is perverse or manifestly unreasonable. The High Court’s conclusions were found to be a reasonable view on the evidence.
On these considerations, the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s acquittal did not warrant reversal.
Holding and Implications
Appeal and Special Leave Petition Dismissed; Acquittal Affirmed.
The decision leaves the respondents’ acquittal intact and underscores two principles: (1) unexplained injuries on the accused can significantly undermine the prosecution case, and (2) the Supreme Court will not lightly interfere with a well-reasoned acquittal. No new precedent was established, but the ruling reiterates existing jurisprudence on self-defence and appellate restraint.
Order
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an appeal against acquittal. There are seven respondents. The trial court convicted them under Sections 148, 302, 379 and 302/149 IPC etc. and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and accordingly sentenced them. On appeal, the High Court set aside the convictions. Hence the appeal by the State (i.e Crl. Appeal No. 430 of 1983). The complainant Mukhtiar Singh has filed the Special Leave Petition No. 342 of 1983 against the same judgment.
3. The prosecution case is as follows:
4. The accused and the two deceased persons and PWs 7 and 8 belong to Village Patti. There were disputes between the accused on the one side and the deceased and PWs on the other. According to the prosecution, the deceased Gopal Singh was in possession of the custodian land and the accused Gurbux Singh (A-1) wanted to take possession of the land forcefully and proceedings under Section 107 CrPC were also lodged. On the intervening night of 29-8-1981 and 30-8-1981, Gopal Singh — the deceased along with his son Mukhtiar Singh (PW) started for their fields at about 10.30 p.m Gopal Singh also took a .12 bore gun along with him. While they were in the field it is alleged that all the seven accused, including Hardip Singh (since dead) — brother of Gurbux Singh armed with Kirpans and Gandhasis came over there. Sukha Singh was armed with a .12 bore gun. They raised lalkaras and the attack commenced. It is alleged that Karaj Singh (D-2) came closer to Gopal Singh (D-1) and at that juncture A-1 challenged and exhorted the other accused. Hardip Singh then opened the attack and gave a Kirpan blow on Karaj Singh — deceased 2. When Hardip Singh advanced towards Gopal Singh, the latter shot Hardip Singh dead. Then, according to the prosecution, the accused attacked Gopal Singh with Kirpans and other weapons and also attacked Karaj Singh (D-2) who was lying in the ground. Thereafter the accused took away the dead body of Hardip Singh and left the place. The dead bodies of Gopal Singh and Karaj Singh, according to the prosecution were also dragged for some distance. PW 7 and PW 8 were in the neighbouring fields and they came over there and alleged to have witnessed the occurrence. PW 7 gave the report. Thereafter inquest was held and the dead bodies were sent for post-mortem. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem found on Gopal Singh the gunshot injuries and on Karaj Singh incised wounds.
5. It may be mentioned at this stage, Hardip Singh who accompanied the accused received injuries and died and also Salwinder Singh — another accused also received gunshot injuries. The doctor (PW 2) examined the dead body and found several injuries. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid. When examined under Section 313 CrPC, the accused came forward with a specific plea of self-defence and stated that when they were taking water in the fields, the two deceased and their henchmen attacked Hardip Singh and killed him and also caused injuries to Salwinder Singh and when Gopal Singh and the accused were struggling, gun went off which caused injuries to deceased 1. It was also their plea that Karaj Singh fired twice hitting Hardip Singh and Salwinder Singh. The sum and substance of their plea is that it was the prosecution party who were the aggressors. Learned Sessions Judge taking into consideration the two persons dead on the prosecution side and the accused must have attacked later, therefore, they were the aggressors and they had no right of self-defence and accordingly convicted them. The High Court on the other hand, held that the prosecution has not come out with the whole truth, particularly regarding the genesis of the occurrence and the gunshot injuries on Salwinder Singh — one of the accused, have not been explained. The version given by the two eyewitnesses — PWs 7 and 8 as to the manner in which Hardip Singh met his death is not acceptable. The High Court reached the conclusion that the plea of the accused that they acted in the right of self-defence cannot be denied, and, accordingly acquitted all the accused.
6. It is well-settled that when the accused set up a plea of self-defence, they need not prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt and within the parameters under Section 103, if by preponderance of probabilities, the plea taken by them becomes plausible then the same should be accepted or at least, a benefit of doubt arises. In the instant case, the prosecution has not at all explained the injuries on Salwinder Singh. The plea of the accused that when they were taking water the two deceased persons along with their henchmen came over there and in the first instance Karaj Singh (D-2) shot on Hardip Singh cannot be rejected outright. However, PW 7 and PW 8 are partisans and they are not even injured and their version also cannot be accepted in toto. However, in this case neither can it be said that the accused should be denied the right of self-defence nor can it be said that they exceeded the same. The view taken by the High Court cannot be held to be unreasonable as to warrant any interference in a case against acquittal. The appeal as well as the special leave petition are dismissed accordingly.
Alert