Supreme Court acquits accused in free fight case due to disputed passage ownership: Ajmer Singh vs. State of Haryana (2023)

Date of the Judgment: April 11, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 349
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can a conviction be sustained when both parties in a dispute suffer injuries, and the root cause of the fight is a passage not owned by either party? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused. The case revolved around a violent altercation stemming from a dispute over the use of a passage, with both sides sustaining injuries. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On the morning of March 27, 1997, a dispute arose when Surender Singh attempted to drive his tractor trolley through a passage near Jagdish Chand’s house. Rajesh Kumar, Jagdish Chand’s nephew, objected to this. Accused individuals Man Singh, Ajmer Singh, Nanak Singh, and Gurdhian Singh, who were in the tractor trolley, allegedly attacked Rajesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand with lathis. Lajwanti, Rajesh Kumar’s mother, also sustained a lathi blow to the head. Ravi Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar, nephews of Jagdish Chand, intervened and were also injured. Gurdhian Singh allegedly struck Rajesh Kumar with a kassi (spade), Nanak Singh hit Ravi Kumar with a lathi, and Surinder Singh hit Sanjeev Kumar with a lathi. Following the incident, the injured were taken to the hospital for medical examination.

The appellants also sustained injuries and were medically examined. The defense claimed that the altercation began with a dispute between Harbans Kaur (wife of Ajmer Singh) and Lajwanti, which escalated into a free fight involving the male members of both families. The core dispute was regarding the use of a passage claimed by the complainant party but later found to be owned by the Gram Panchayat.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 323, 325, and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants on May 10, 2010. However, on May 28, 2010, the High Court modified the sentence, reducing the imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC from seven years to five years. This modification was not initially incorporated into the detailed judgment. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The appellants were charged under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 148: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.”
• Section 323: “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.”
• Section 325: “Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.”
• Section 307: “Attempt to murder.”
• Section 149: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.”

These sections deal with offenses related to rioting, causing hurt, grievous hurt, and attempt to murder, along with the concept of vicarious liability in unlawful assemblies. The charges were framed in the context of a violent altercation where multiple individuals were injured.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The complainant party was the aggressor, as they had been scolding the appellants for using the passage, which is actually owned by the Gram Panchayat.
• The appellants were merely using their agricultural implements, which they normally carry while going to the fields.
• The incident occurred outside the complainant’s property, suggesting the appellants were not the initial aggressors.
• The appellants also suffered injuries, some of which were grievous, which the lower courts failed to consider.
• The appellants argued that they acted in self-defense.
• The civil suit filed by the complainant party was dismissed, confirming that the disputed passage was owned by the Gram Panchayat.

State’s Arguments:

• The appellants were the aggressors and had caused grievous injuries to the complainant party.
• Any injuries suffered by the appellants were in the exercise of the complainant party’s right to private defense.
• The statements of the injured witnesses and independent witnesses corroborated the prosecution’s version.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively used the dismissal of the civil suit to argue that the complainant party’s claim of ownership of the passage was baseless, thus weakening the prosecution’s case that the appellants were the aggressors.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellants could be sustained, considering that both parties suffered injuries in a free fight, and the root cause of the fight was a passage owned by the Gram Panchayat, not the complainant party?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any previous cases or legal provisions other than the sections of the Indian Penal Code under which the appellants were charged. The court primarily relied on the facts of the case, the evidence presented, and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court considered the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, specifically Sections 148, 323, 325, 307 read with Section 149, but found that the facts of the case did not warrant the conviction of the appellants under these sections.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellants was influenced by several factors:

• The fact that both parties sustained injuries suggested a free fight rather than a one-sided aggression.
• The disputed passage was owned by the Gram Panchayat, not the complainant party, undermining the complainant’s claim of being the aggrieved party.
• The High Court did not give due consideration to the injuries suffered by the appellants.
• The appellants were not found to have used weapons with a pre-determined intention, and the implements they carried were normal agricultural tools.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual matrix of the case, emphasizing that the fight was a free one and that the disputed passage did not belong to the complainant party. The court also noted that the High Court had not given due consideration to the injuries suffered by the appellants. The court did not find any pre-determined intention to cause harm, and the implements used were normal agricultural tools. The court stated that, “Considering the material on record which has been discussed above where both the parties suffered injuries in free fight and the passage, which was the root cause of the fight, has been held to be the passage owned by Gram Panchayat and Rafiamm and not belonging to the complainant party, in our opinion, the conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot be legally sustained.” The court also noted that, “In the judgment of the High Court, due consideration has not been given to the injuries suffered by the appellants. Entire stress is on the injuries suffered by the complainant party or the evidence led by them. The defence of the appellants has not been touched.” and that, “It has also not come on record that the appellants who were stated to be aggressors and have been convicted, used any weapons as such or they had gone to the place of incident with their pre-determined mind.”

Key Takeaways

• In cases of free fights where both parties sustain injuries, the court must consider the injuries suffered by all parties and the circumstances surrounding the incident.
• The ownership of the disputed property is a crucial factor in determining who the aggressor was.
• The use of normal agricultural implements during a fight does not necessarily indicate a pre-determined intention to cause harm.
• Courts must consider the defense put forth by the accused and not just rely on the prosecution’s version of events.
• The dismissal of a civil suit related to the same dispute can be a relevant factor in a criminal case.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, and discharged the bail bonds of the appellants.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in a free fight where both parties sustain injuries, the court must consider the injuries suffered by all parties and the circumstances surrounding the incident, especially the ownership of the disputed property. This case clarifies that in such situations, the court should not solely rely on the prosecution’s version of events but should also consider the defense put forth by the accused and the evidence supporting it. There was no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case highlights the importance of considering all aspects of a case, particularly in situations involving free fights. The court’s emphasis on the ownership of the disputed passage and the injuries sustained by both parties underscores the need for a balanced approach in assessing guilt and innocence. The acquittal of the appellants serves as a reminder that convictions must be based on a thorough evaluation of all available evidence and circumstances.