Criminal Appeal No 195 of 1984
From the Judgment and Order dated 3011
1982 of the Punjab  Haryana High Court in Crl
Appeal No 425 DB1982
OP Soni Ms Kamlesh Datta and SK Sabharwal for the Appellant
664 UR Lalit and Uma Datta for the Respondents
Mahabir Singh for the State of Haryana
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FATHIMA BEEVI J
The respondents Puran and Tara Chand along with Ved Balwan Dhapan Jagdish and Lal Chand were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge Sonepat for the murder of one Partap Singh and causing injuries to others
The learned Judge by judgment dated 185
1972 convicted these respondents for offences under section 302 IPC and sections 323325 read with 149 IPC They were sen tenced to undergo imprisonment for life and ordered to pay a sum of Rs500 each under section 302 IPC RI for one year under section 148 IPC RI for one year under section 325 and RI for six months under section 323 IPC
The other accused were convicted for the minor of fences and released on probation under sections 360361 Cr
PC The respondents appealed against the conviction and sentence
The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 3011
1982 disposed of the appeal thus Admittedly there was no prior enmity between the parties
The quarrel arose out of a very insignificant matter like the burning of dry sugarcane leaves on the common boundary of the fields of the two parties
The ensuing altercation would probably have been forgotten had Partap Singh deceased not died
Even when there is an altercation arising out of a minor incident there is some tendency on the part of the prosecution witness to exaggerate matters
The three eye witnesses have of course fully supported the prosecution case but the investigating officer recorded statement of one Paras Ram at the time of making the inquest report which gives a somewhat different version
The learned trial judge has himself found that the object of the unlawful assembly was not to commit the murder of the deceased
It is precise ly for this reason that five accused persons have been released on probation and only two accused ie Puran and Tara Chand appellants have been convicted under section 302 IPC We do not propose to go into the details of the controversy and in the peculiar circumstances of this case convert the conviction of Puran and Tara Chand appellants into one under section 304
Part1 1
PC on the basis that in view of the statement made by 665 Paras Ram at the time when the investigating officer made the inquest report a somewhat different version was given
This Paras Ram was not produced as a witness by the prosecu tion
Since there was no prior enmity between the parties we order that sentence already undergone by Puran and Tara Chand appellants will meet the ends of justice
They are however ordered to pay a fine of Rs 12000 each
In de fault of payment of this fine the defaulter is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years
The sentences of imprisonment imposed upon Puran and Tara Chand appellants on other counts are also reduced to that already undergone by them
The total fine if realised shall be paid to the next heirs of Partap Singh deceased as compensation emphasis supplied The High Court has by this Cryptic order acquitted re spondents of the major charge under section 302 IPC and recorded their conviction under section 304 Part I reducing the sentence of life imprisonment to a term of imprisonment already undergone while enhancing the sentence of fine
The State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal or reduction of sentence
The respondents
it appears have accepted the judgment
Sham Sunder the de facto complainant however being aggrieved approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
This Court has granted special leave to appeal
The High Court exercising power under section 386 Cr PC in an appeal from a conviction may reverse the finding and sentence and acquit the accused or alter the finding maintaining the sentence or with or without altering the finding after the nature or the extent or the nature and extent of the sentence but not so as to enhance the same
The powers of the High Court in dealing with the evidence are as wide as that of the trial Court
As the final court of facts the High Court has also duty to examine the evi dence and arrive at its own conclusion on the entire materi al on record as to the guilt or otherwise of the appellants before it
It is true that the High Court is entitled to reappraise the evidence in the case
It is also true that under Article 136
the Supreme Court does not ordinarily reappraise the evidence for itself for determining whether or not the High Court has come to a correct conclusion on facts but where the High Court has completely missed 666 the real point requiring determination and has also on erroneous grounds discredited the evidence and has further failed to consider the fact that on account of long standing enmity between the parties there is a tendency to involve innocent persons and to exaggerate and lead pre judged evidence in regard to the occurrence the Supreme Court would be justified in going into the evidence for the pur pose of satisfying itself that the grave injustice has not resulted in the case
We have extracted the material portion of the judgment of the High Court to indicate that the line of approach adopted by the High Court is wholly wrong
There is no discussion of the evidence much less any reasoning
The respondents herein along with five others had been found guilty by the trial court accepting the testimony of the two eye witnesses and other material evidence on record
A brief resume of the facts is necessary
Lal Chand and Tara Chand are brothers
Ved Singh Puran Balwan and Ishwar are the sons of Tara Chand and Dhapan is his wife
Jagdish is the son of Lal Chand
Partap and Bhim Singh are brothers
Sham Sunder is the son of Bhim Singh
Roshan is the son of Partap
Tara Chand owns sugarcane field adjoining the wheat field of Partap
On 103
1981 in the morning Ved Singh burned sugarcane patties causing damage to the wheat crop
The protest raised by Roshan was not heeded
Bhim Singh arrived at the scene and altercation ensued
Partap later raised protest before Tara Chand
His grievance was not redressed
At about 600 PM Partap raised the protest before Puran who also turned down the same
Shortly thereaf ter Puran and the other members of his family including his wife brother and their children all numbering about eight reached in front of the house of Partap
They were armed and attacked Partap
The allegation is that the respondents Tara Chand and Puran had attacked Partap with jailies first they gave jailies blows from the prong side in the chest and when Partap fell down they gave jailies blows like lathi on his head back and shoulder
Partap died on his way to the hospital
It is further alleged that in the course of the incident Lal Chand and Jagdish caused injuries to Roshan Ishwar caused injuries to Dhapan wife of Partap Puran Ved Balwan caused injuries to Sham Sunder
It has come out in evidence that Ved Dhapan Lal Chand Puran and Ishwar also received injuries in the course of the incident
Sham Sunder and Roshan are the two eye witnesses be sides Smt
Dhapan the wife of deceased Partap
There had been no independent witness
Sham Sunder and Roshan said that they had caused 667 injuries to the members of the opposite party in self de fence
They do not however state in what circumstances they had to use force
The evidence does not disclose the genesis of the occurrence how it developed and culminated in fatal injuries to Partap
There had been no enmity between the two groups
The immediate provocation for the quarrel is the damage to the wheat crops
It is admitted that Partap raised his protest right from the morning till the arrival of Puran who was employee of the Medical College Rohtak
The prose cution has it appears given a twist when they say that at 600 PM Partap met Puran who turned down his request and went home and after 15 minutes all the members of his family including the womenfolk reached the house of Partap and started the assault
It is significant to note that the women and even the minor children of both families were present and received injuries recording their presence at the place
It would therefore appear that it was a continu ous transaction and when Partap persistently raises the protest and started abusing Puran other members of his household had come out
The quarrel had taken a serious turn and in the course of further development fatal injuries had been caused to Partap
The plea of the respondents was that they did not cause any injury that there was a Panchayat where a large crowd assembled and there had been brick batting and altercation
The plea of private defence was not specifically set up
However if there are material in evidence to indicate that the incident could not have hap pened in the manner spoken to by the eye witnesses and in all probability the respondents had used the force exercis ing the right of private defence then accused are entitled to the benefit thereof
Whether the respondents have in such circumstances exceeded their right and are justified in causing death has necessarily to be considered
In the absence of a full discussion of the evidence by the High Court we have been constrained to consider the materials on record
We have seen that there is the evidence of only the interested witnesses who have the tendency to exaggerate and involve even innocent persons
We have seen that most of the accused have sustained injuries and in explaining the same the prosecution witnesses have not come forward with a truthful account
We are led to draw the inference that in the melee and ensued on account of the aggressive attitude of Partap the respondents and other members of the family participated and used the force against Partap and his associates in all probabilities in the exercise of right of private defence
However the circumstances did not warrant the causing of death and the respondents must be deemed to have exceeded their right
The nature of the injuries indi 668 cate that injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death had been inflicted intentionally
In such circumstances
 the act of the respondents squarely falls under section 304 Part I EPC While we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court we record that the High Court has not given any cogent or clear reasons for its conclusion and whatever reason has been stated is erro neous
It is on the basis of the statement given in the course of investigation by a person who was not examined in the case that the High Court has drawn its conclusion
We however maintain the conviction under section 304 Part I IPC
The High Court has reduced the sentence to the term of imprisonment already undergone while enhancing the fine
It is pointed out that the respondents have undergone only imprisonment for a short period of less than six months and in a grave crime like this the sentence awarded is rather inadequate
No particular reason has been given by the High Court for awarding such sentence
The court in fixing the punishment for any particular crime should take into consid eration the nature of the offence the circumstances in which it was committed and the degree of deliberation shown by the offender
The measure of punishment should be propor tionate to the gravity of the offence
The sentence imposed by the High Court appears to be so grossly and entirely inadequate as to involve a failure of justice
We are of opinion that to meet the ends of justice the sentence has to be enhanced
In the result we maintain the conviction of the re spondents but enhance the sentence to one of rigorous im prisonment for a period of five years
The respondents should surrender to the bail to undergo the unexpired por tion of the sentence
The fine if paid shall be refunded to the respondents 1 and 2
The appeal is disposed of as above
GN Appeal disposed Of


Summary:
Rule 11 of the AP Cinema Regulation Rules 1970 flamed under the AP Cinemas Regulation Act 1955 as it stood at the relevant time required a licensee either for grant or renewal of license to file evidence of his lawful possession of the site
The appellant firm had been running a cinema since 1950 on a piece of land leased by the then zamindar
The said lease was to expire on March 31 1976
In the meantime the ownership of the land changed hands
In 1975 when the appellant sought renewal of the license the estate partner ship consisting of father son and grandson objected on the ground that it did not intend to renew the lease
However on March 24 1976 one of the co lessors the father entered into an agreement of sale with the appellant to sell his entire share which was one half for a consideration
He also executed lease of the remaining half the next day in favour of the appellant as the managing partner of the estate
and withdrew the objection filed before the licensing authority unconditionally
A question arose about the nature of appellant s posses sion
The High Court found that the co lessor could not lease out the property on his behalf as the partnership deed did not invest him with such an authority and that the agreement of sale was ineffective to make him the owner
Consequently the possession of appellant was not lawful as last was neither a lessee nor an owner
Allowing the appeal the Court 9 HELD 1
When a person having physical control acquires an interest to hold or continue by virtue of an agreement of sale it cannot be said that he had no interest and his possession was forbidden by law
In the instant case by virtue of the transaction entered between the co lessor and the appellant which was not challenged by him nor any cloud was cast over it by creating any subsequent interest the appellant may not have become owner but could certainly claim lawful possession
In law last was entitled to file suit for specific performance if there was any threat to its right or interest by the co lessor
Such right or interest could not be termed as litigious
13A C 2
A lessee may before expiry of lease acquire entire lessor s interest resulting in drowning or sinking of infe rior right into superior right
That is right of one merges into another
It has been statutorily recognised by section IIId of the Transfer of Property Act
Similarly a tenant after expiry of period of lease may be holding over and the lessor may acquiesce in his continuance expressly or im pliedly
That is from conduct of lessor the tenant s posses sion may stand converted into lawful
But where the lessor does not agree to renew the lease nor he acquiesce in his continuance a lessee cannot claim any right or interest
His possession is neither legal nor lawful
In the instant case the appellant had acquired some interest in part of the undivided property by virtue of the agreement
It may not be a lessee but its possession was not without any excuse or forbidden by law
12D G 3
The High Court erred in equating lawful with legal
What is legal is lawful
But what is lawful may be so with out being formally legal
That which is not stricto legalo may yet be lawful
It should not be forbidden by law
Al though provision in Specific Relief Act empowering a person or tenant to recover possession if he has been evicted forcibly by the landlord may be juridical and not lawful or a tenant holding over is not in lawful possession unless landlord agrees or acquiesces expressly or impliedly but that does not alter the legal position about possession of a person not legal yet not without interest
The provision in Specific Relief Act is rounded more on public policy than on jurisprudence
11G 12A C 4
The licensing authority is directed to consider renewal of license in accordance with law treating licensee to be in lawful possession
13F MC Chockalingam vs M Manichavasagam  distinguished 10