1962 (7) TMI 38 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Murder Conviction Upheld, Death Penalty Commuted

JAI DEV Versus STATE OF PUNJAB

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of appellants Jai Dev and Hari Singh under Section 302 IPC but commuted their death sentences to life ... - Issues Involved:1. Formation of unlawful assembly and rioting (Section 148 IPC).2. Murder charges under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.3. Assault charges under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC.4. Abetment of murder (Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC).5. Right of private defense.6. Possession of the disputed land.7. Examination of accused under Section 342 CrPC.8. Necessity of ballistic expert evidence.Detailed Analysis:1. Formation of Unlawful Assembly and Rioting (Section 148 IPC):The appellants Jai Dev and Hari Singh, along with four others, were charged with forming an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing rioting while armed with deadly weapons. The trial court found that the accused were members of an unlawful assembly and had committed rioting, thus convicting them under Section 148 IPC.2. Murder Charges under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC:The prosecution alleged that the appellants and their co-accused had the common object of committing murders, resulting in the deaths of six individuals. The trial court convicted five of the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. However, the High Court acquitted three accused and held Jai Dev and Hari Singh guilty under Section 302 IPC alone, not in conjunction with Section 149 IPC.3. Assault Charges under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC:The accused were also charged with causing grievous injuries to six individuals. The trial court found the charges under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the High Court's findings on the right of private defense influenced the final outcome of these charges.4. Abetment of Murder (Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC):Basti Ram was charged with abetting the commission of murder by the unlawful assembly. The trial court acquitted Basti Ram due to insufficient evidence proving his involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.5. Right of Private Defense:The High Court found that the appellants initially had the right of private defense as they were in possession of the land and faced an assault by a larger group of villagers. However, the High Court concluded that the right of private defense ceased once the threat had dissipated, especially when the villagers began to flee. Consequently, the High Court held that Jai Dev and Hari Singh were guilty of murder as they fired at individuals who were no longer posing a threat.6. Possession of the Disputed Land:The trial court found that the complainants were in possession of the disputed land, and the accused were trespassers. Contrarily, the High Court concluded that the appellants had lawful possession of the land based on documentary evidence and previous legal proceedings. This finding influenced the decision on the right of private defense.7. Examination of Accused under Section 342 CrPC:The defense argued that the examination of Hari Singh under Section 342 CrPC was defective, particularly concerning the distance from which he fired at the victim. The Court acknowledged the defect but held that it did not vitiate the trial, as the overall examination provided the accused an opportunity to explain the circumstances.8. Necessity of Ballistic Expert Evidence:The defense contended that the prosecution failed to examine a ballistic expert to confirm that the injuries were caused by the rifles used by the appellants. The Court dismissed this argument, noting that the rifles were not recovered, and thus, no ballistic examination was necessary to prove the prosecution's case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Jai Dev and Hari Singh under Section 302 IPC but reduced their sentences from death to life imprisonment, considering the extenuating circumstances and the excitement caused by the incident. The Court confirmed the acquittal of the other accused and validated the High Court's findings on the right of private defense and possession of the land.