1951 (12) TMI 20 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Charges under section 302 read with section 149, section 148, sections 325 and 326 read with section 149, and section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Possession and ownership dispute over the "teesa" field.
3. Credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses.
4. Right of private defence.
5. Evaluation of evidence by the Sessions Judge versus the High Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Charges under section 302 read with section 149, section 148, sections 325 and 326 read with section 149, and section 201 of the Indian Penal Code:
The appellants were initially acquitted by the Sessions Judge but were later convicted by the High Court. The High Court sentenced the appellants to transportation for life under section 302 read with section 149, five years' rigorous imprisonment under sections 325 and 326 read with section 149, and five years' rigorous imprisonment under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, with all sentences running concurrently.

2. Possession and ownership dispute over the "teesa" field:
The plot in question, known as the "teesa" field, was the subject of a dispute between the co-sharers, including Mst. Bhagwati Kuer and Ratan Singh. The Sessions Judge found that Surajpal Singh had taken possession on behalf of all co-sharers, while Ratan Singh's statements did not fully support this. The High Court, however, concluded that both parties had equal rights to the field and were attempting to take exclusive possession, making the question of private defence immaterial.

3. Credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses:
The Sessions Judge meticulously examined the credibility of each prosecution witness, finding the evidence unsatisfactory and unreliable. The High Court, however, accepted the testimony of four witnesses-Deo Sukh, Rori Singh, Ram Singh, and Ratan Singh-deeming it worthy of credence. The Supreme Court found substantial reasons to agree with the Sessions Judge's assessment, particularly regarding the suspicious nature of Deva Sukh's injuries and the delayed examination of certain witnesses.

4. Right of private defence:
The Sessions Judge concluded that the accused acted in self-defence, as Ratan Singh's men were the aggressors. The High Court dismissed the plea of private defence, stating that both parties were prepared for contingencies to enforce their rights. The Supreme Court, however, found that the Sessions Judge's view-that the gun was fired in self-defence after the appellants' party was assaulted with lathis-was reasonable.

5. Evaluation of evidence by the Sessions Judge versus the High Court:
The Sessions Judge provided a detailed analysis of the evidence, while the High Court's summary treatment did not address the substantial reasons given by the Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court noted the importance of the trial court's findings, especially given the trial court's advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should only reverse the trial court's findings for very substantial and compelling reasons, which were not present in this case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants, and acquitted them of all charges. The Court found that the Sessions Judge had taken a reasonable view of the facts, and there were no good reasons for the High Court to reverse that view. The presumption of innocence was further reinforced by the trial court's acquittal, and the State Government's appeal against only five of the 25 accused was not justified.