Kamal Singh vs State Of Haryana

2. Ten persons in all, Kamal Singh the appellant herein and his brothers, Randhir Singh, Attar Singh & Baljeet Singh, Anees, son of Attar Singh, Ramrati wife of Kamal Singh, Maya wife of Attar Singh and Urmila wife of Baljeet Singh along with two others were brought to trial for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307, 149 for the first eight persons and for the other two under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 200 of the IPC. Of the ten persons aforesaid, only Kamal Singh, the appellant was armed with a licensed shot gun which is the alleged murder weapon. As per the prosecution story, Wazir Singh, P.W. 7, resident of Village Khatiwas had two sons Phul CRL.A. NO. OF 2010 @ SLP(CRL.) 3244 OF 2009 REPORTABLE 2 Kumar deceased and Anil Kumar, whereas Sumer Singh, Rakesh and Chhatar Singh were the brothers of Wazir Singh. A piece of shamlat land in front of the house of Rakesh, Ramesh and Sumer Singh, was being used by the latter to tether his cattle. Kamal Singh's house was also close by. On the 9th of May, 2002, Manti, wife of Rakesh was tethering her cattle in this plot of land when Ramrati accused hit a buffalo with a stick and also warned Manti not to tie the cattle at that place. A quarrel soon ensued but the matter was ultimately settled. On the 10th of May, 2002 i.e., on the very next day, at about 6:00p.m. the appellant armed with his .12 bore licensed gun along with the other accused climbed up to the roof of his house and started abusing the complainant party. Wazir Singh, Sumer Singh, Abhimanyu son of Sumer Singh, Phul Kumar, Maya Ram and Chhatar Singh attempted to pacify him but without success. On the contrary, Randhir Singh, Baljeet Singh and Attar Singh raised a lalkara calling upon the appellant to sort out the other party once and for all. The appellant thereupon fired a shot at Phul Kumar into the left side of his chest on which he fell down and as Randhir Singh and Chhattar Singh came forward to assist Phul Kumar, the appellant again fired two shots hitting them as well. All the accused CRL.A. NO. OF 2010 @ SLP(CRL.) 3244 OF 2009 REPORTABLE 3 also hurled brick bats and caused several injuries to the witnesses and as Maya Ram, Indrawati and Phulwati came forward to rescue the injured, the appellant again fired from his gun hitting them as well. On hearing the sound of the gun shots a number of persons rushed to the spot on which all the accused came down from the roof and ran away. They also found that Phul Kumar and Maya Ram had died of their injuries. Chhattar Singh and Indrawati were, however, shifted to the PGI, Rohtak whereafter Wazir Singh PW 7, lodged a report at police station Sadar, Dadri. Chhattar Singh also died a short time later. The accused were arrested over several days and on the statement made by the appellant, the weapon of offence i.e., his licensed shot gun along with some catridges was taken into possession. On the completion of the investigation, the accused were brought to trial. The trial court relying primarily on the statements of P.W. 7-Wazir Singh and PW 16 - Indravati and PW 17 - Ravinder, injured and PW - 18 Umed Singh convicted and sentenced eight of the accused viz., Kamal Singh, Randhir Singh, Baljeet Singh, Attar Singh, Ramrati, Mayaram, Urmila and Anil for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section CRL.A. NO. OF 2010 @ SLP(CRL.) 3244 OF 2009 REPORTABLE 4 27 of the Arms Act with respect to the appellant. Urmila, Dr. Surya Prakash Singh and Ram Chander were, however, given the benefit of doubt and were acquitted of all charges levelled against them.

7. As per the appellant's defence given in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he was returning from Siwani i.e. his place of employment and was going towards his house carrying his licensed gun and as he was passing by the house of Ramesh, he had been encircled by the complainant party and at that time Phul Kumar had tried to give him a lathi blow on which he had fired one shot from his gun killing him. He further stated that he had then run to his own house and closed the door but the complainant party had attempted to break open the door on which he had rushed to the roof and fired several shots in self defence resulting in two deaths and some injuries to the witnesses as well.

12. We are, accordingly, of the opinion that Mr. Sushil Kumar's plea that the appellant had exceeded the right of private defence must be accepted. We make an order in the above terms and allow the appeal to this limited extent. We also direct that the conviction against the appellant be modified from one under Section 302 to 304 Part I and the sentence is also modified from life to ten years rigorous imprisonment; all other parts of sentence being maintained as it is.

..........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] .........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] NEW DELHI JULY 29, 2010.