Kartar Singh v. the State of Punjab

In the Supreme Court of India
Name of the Case Kartar Singh vs the State of Punjab
Citation (1926) 32 AWR 16, [1962] 2SCR395
Year of the Case 26 April 1961
Appellant Kartar Singh
Respondent State of Punjab
Bench/Judges J.R. Mudholkar, K. Subba Rao, and Raghubar Dayal, JJ.
Acts Involved Unlawful Assembly-Conviction of three of thirteen alleged assailants- Acquittal of the rest- Legality of conviction- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860), ss. 149302, 307, 34.
Important Sections Section 302, 307, 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

The appeal in the case of Kartar Singh vs the State of Punjab was made against the judgment delivered by the Punjab High Court in which the appellant’s appeal was dismissed, and his conviction was confirmed under Section 302, Section 307, Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution’s case was that along with the appellant there were twelve more people who were tried on the matter of dispute concerning the possession of a plot of land. In the incident, both parties were injured. The respondent’s side, Darshan Singh and Nand Lal were injured, but Darshan died because of the injuries. Later, the appeal was dismissed by the Court, as they saw no force in it.

Introduction

In the case of Kartar Singh vs the State of Punjab, an appeal was made against the judgment delivered by the Punjab High Court in which the appellant’s appeal was dismissed, and his conviction was confirmed under Section 302, Section 307 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution’s case was that along with the appellant there were twelve more people who were tried on the matter of dispute about the possession of a plot of land. Both parties were injured. During the fight between the parties, Darshan and Nand Lal were injured on one side while on the other side Daya Ram, Hamela, and Kartar Singh also received injuries. Darshan Singh died because of his injuries.

Daya Ram gave a statement stating that while he along with Hamela and Kartar Singh and few more people were walking about their field, they saw Darshan, Nand Lal, and few others sitting on a well and they challenged them. He also said that Nand Lal remarked that he will not let him go. This initiated the fight between the two parties and when asked about the death of the deceased, that is, Darshan said he has no idea that who speared him.

 Kartar Singh in his statement said that a member of Nand Lal’s party caused a spear blow in his abdomen and after that, he ran away from the site, he also said that he caused no injury to anyone present at the fight.

Hamela gave a statement in which he said that Darshan and others assaulted him and the people that were there with him when they were going to plough the land which was disputed land. He said that whatever injuries they caused to the other party was an act of self – defense.

The court held that the accused were accompanied by nine or ten people, but due to lack of reliable evidence, it was not proved that who all were among those nine or ten people.  The court also stated that this case is a free fight case so there is no question of the right of private defense so it does not matter who initiated the fights and the arguments. It was stated that though Kartar Singh was in no way related to the land dispute, but because he still went with them armed.

Later their convictions were converted from Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 149, IPC, 1860 can now be converted into one under Section 302, Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Background

In the case of Kartar Singh vs the State of Punjab[1], an appeal was made in the Punjab High Court. The appellant was not satisfied with the decision of the Sessions Court and wanted to dismiss his convictions.

Kartar Singh, Hamela, and Daya Ram fought with Darshan Singh and Nand Lal where both the parties were injured. The fight and arguments were initiated when Kartar Singh along with his companions were moving towards a disputed land to plough it where Darshan Singh and his companions were sitting on a wall. During the fight, Darshan Singh died because of his severe injuries. Later, when this matter was taken to the Court, the learned Sessions Judge found Kartar Singh, Haela, and Daya Ram guilty and convicted them under Section 302, Section 307, Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Kartar Singh made an appeal in the Punjab High Court where his appeal was dismissed as the Judges said they saw no force in it and therefore, the dismissed it accordingly.

Facts

  1. The fight between the two parties initiated when Daya Ram, Hamela, and Kartar Singh went to plough their field which was disputed land.
  2. Darshan Singh and Nand Lal were sitting on a well and according to the statement given by Daya Ram, Nand Lal challenged him and his companions for the fight.
  3. Both parties were injured.
  4. Darshan Singh died because of the injuries.
  5. The companions (around 9-10 people) who accompanied Kartar Singh and his friends got the benefit of the doubt as there was no reliable evidence against them.
  6. The learned Sessions Judge found Kartar Singh, Hamela, and Daya Ram guilty and so they were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149.
  7. The three convicts appealed to the High Court, where the court refused to give them the right of private defense as both the parties were involved in a free fight.
  8. The Court dismissed their appeal.

Issues

  1. The appellant and twelve other people were tried with him had an account of a dispute regarding the possession of a plot of land.
  2. The appellant assaulted Darshan and Nand Lal and because of that Darshan died.
  3. Right of self-defense
  4. The convicts wanted to dismiss their conviction

Related Provisions

Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 34[2] of the Indian Penal Code defines the acts that are done by several people in the interest of common intention. It states that whenever a group people get involved in criminal activity with the same interest and common intentions then each of them is liable for the act in the same way as if the act was done by a person alone.

Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 149[3] of the Indian Penal Code defines that every member of an unlawful assembly which is proved guilty by the court of law of an offense committed in prosecution of the common objects.

Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302[4] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines the punishment for murder. It states that whenever a person commits the offense of murder then he shall be liable for the punishment of death or will be sentenced for life imprisonment and the convict will also be liable to pay fine.

Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 307[5] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines the offense of attempt to murder.

Related Cases

  • Gore Lal vs State of Uttar Pradesh

“In any event, on the finding of the Court of the first instance and the High court that both the parties had prepared themselves for a free fight and had armed themselves for that purpose, the question as to who attacks and who defends is wholly immaterial,”[6]

  • Dalip Singh vs. the State of Punjab

“Now mistaken identity has never been suggested. The accused are all men of the same village and the eyewitnesses know them by name. The murder took place in daylight and within a few feet of the two eyewitnesses.”[7]

Judgment

In this case, the learned Sessions Judge said that the only point that needs to be determined in the case is that whether all or only some of the accused were involved in the assault and later concluded that Daya Ram, Hamela and Kartar Singh had received injuries and they also accepted that they were present during the fight proves that they have participated in it. The involvement of the other ten accused was not proved and so they were given the benefit of doubt.

Therefore, the three convicts, Daya Ram, Hamela, and Kartar Singh appealed to the Punjab High Court.

In the hearing of this case, two questions were urged.

  1. When there was no evidence that there were more than five people in the fight on the appellant’s side, the learned Sessions Judge by law cannot record a conviction under the Section 302 and Section 149, IPC, 1860 that he did and acquitted the other ten people who were specifically named by the witnesses as the members of the appellant’s group.
  2. The other party was the aggressor.

The Honourable Bench of the High Court stated concerning the first point that the situation and circumstances of the particular case leave no doubt that there were a large number of people on the other side of the appellants. Also, the number of people involved must be more than five. And the number of people was more or less near the number of people who were accused in the case.

Concerning the second point, the High Court said that in this case there is no question of the right of private defense because the case is a free fight case where both the parties were involved. The point that who initiated the argument or who first began fighting is of no importance.

The court held that the accused were accompanied by nine or ten people, but due to lack of reliable evidence, it was not proved that who all were among those nine or ten people.

It was stated that though Kartar Singh was in no way related to the land dispute, but because he still went with them armed. The conviction which was earlier under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 149, IPC, 1860 can now be converted into one under Section 302, Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Appeal was dismissed.

Concepts Highlighted

  • The case was based on the Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  • Sections involved were Section 32, Section 302, Section 307, and Section 149 of IPC, 1860.
  • The incident took place on disputed land.
  • Both parties were injured. One of them died (Darshan) because of the injuries received.
  • The companions of the appellant’s party got the benefit of the doubt.
  • The convicts did not get the right to self -defense as the case was of the free fight (as said by the judge).
  • The three convicts (Kartar Singh, Hamela, and Daya Ram) made an appeal in the High Court which was later dismissed.

Conclusion

By reading the judgment in the case of Kartar Singh vs the State of Punjab it is clear that the three convicts were guilty and the court made the right decision by sentencing them punishments and by also not providing them with the right of private defense.

I believe in such cases it becomes important to not give self-defense rights to the accused because many times they wrongfully use this right to cover up their wrongdoings.

References


  • [1] MANU/SC/0128/1961
  • [2] Bare act of IPC, 1860
  • [3] Bare act of IPC, 1860
  • [4] Bare act of IPC, 1860
  • [5] Bare act of IPC, 1860
  • [6] Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1959, decided on December 15, 1960
  • [7] MANU/SC/0031/1953: [1954] 1SCR145

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *