Supreme Court settles culpability in free fights: Bachan Singh & Anr. vs. State of Bihar (2008)

Date of the Judgment: September 11, 2008

Citation: [Not provided in the document]

Judges: S.B. Sinha, J., Harjit Singh Bedi, J.

Can individuals involved in a ‘free fight’, where both parties willingly engage in violence, be held equally responsible for the resulting deaths? The Supreme Court addressed this question in the case of Bachan Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar, concerning a violent incident stemming from a land dispute. The court examined the culpability of individuals when both sides come prepared for a confrontation, resulting in fatalities. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.

Case Background

The case originates from an incident on December 3, 1975, in Village Moory, where Shekhar Singh was initially assaulted. Bhagwati Devi received information that her sons-in-law, Lakshman Singh and Bacha Singh, along with her son Nathuni Singh, were surrounded by the accused in Marua Singh’s Khalihan, allegedly with the intent to murder them. Bhagwati Devi, accompanied by her daughter and son, proceeded to the location and witnessed 13 accused individuals armed with various weapons. Accused Chirkut Singh allegedly initiated the violence by firing at Bacha Singh, causing him to fall. Lakshman Singh retaliated in self-defense, injuring Kishore Singh. Subsequently, Jang Bahadur Singh and Bashishta Singh allegedly shot and injured Lakshman Singh and Nathuni Singh, respectively. The accused then allegedly assaulted Lakshman Singh and Bacha Singh, resulting in their deaths. Bhagwati Devi’s alarm attracted villagers Bajranghi Singh and Chariter Singh, who witnessed the aftermath. The accused fled, taking Nand Kishore Singh with them. Bhagwati Devi reported the incident at the Chainpur Police Station, leading to charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 25(a) of the Arms Act against all thirteen accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted nine of the thirteen accused based on the statements of PW5 Bhagwati Devi, PW4 Jai Prakash, PW6 Binda Devi, PW7 Sachmucha Devi, and PW8 Nathuni Singh. All nine were found guilty under Section 302/149 IPC for the murders of Lakshman Singh and Bacha Singh. Chirkut Singh and Jang Bahadur Singh were convicted under Section 302 and 148 IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Bashistha Singh was charged under Section 307 IPC, but the charge failed due to the non-examination of the doctor who examined the injured Nathuni Singh. Badri Singh, Sobhu Singh, Kailash Singh, Kumar Singh, Bashistha Singh, and Bacha Singh were charged under Section 148 IPC, while Briksh Singh was charged under Section 147 IPC, and they were convicted accordingly. Nirmal Singh, Muni Singh, Durga Singh, and Brahma Singh were acquitted. In appeal, the High Court acquitted Bashistha Singh of all charges and dismissed the appeals of the other accused with minor changes to the nature of the offense.

Legal Framework

The legal framework relevant to this case includes:

• Section 147, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with the offense of rioting.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Addresses rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Concerns the liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offenses committed in furtherance of the common object.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 307, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Relates to the attempt to commit murder.
• Section 325, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
• Section 25(a), Arms Act: Pertains to offenses related to the possession or use of firearms.
• Section 27, Arms Act: Deals with the use of arms.
• Section 172 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure: “A criminal court may send for the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial.”
• Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Concerns the examination of the accused.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Accused):

• The genesis of the occurrence was uncertain, suggesting a mutual fight where both sides were prepared for a confrontation.
• The trial court improperly used the case diary to corroborate prosecution evidence, which is not permissible under the law.

Arguments by the Respondent (State):

• The accused were the aggressors, and the earlier incident involving Shekhar Singh negates the possibility of a free fight.
• The animosity between the parties is admitted, and minor discrepancies in the witnesses’ testimonies are expected due to the passage of time.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the incident was the outcome of a free fight between two groups who had made preparations to settle scores.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

• Habeeb Mohammad vs. State of Hyderabad 1954 SCR 475 (Supreme Court of India): Relates to the impermissibility of using case diary statements as evidence to corroborate prosecution witnesses.
• Sakal Ahir & Ors. vs. Palakdhari Ahir AIR 1931 Patna 96 (Patna High Court): Deals with the use of police statements in court.
• Queens Empress vs. Mannu 1897 ILR (19) Allahabad 390 (Allahabad High Court): Addresses the evidentiary value of police diaries.
• Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (1999) 9 SCC 525 (Supreme Court of India): Highlights that some discrepancies are bound to occur in ocular evidence recorded after a significant time.
• Raja Ram and others vs. State of M.P. (1994) 2 SCC 568 (Supreme Court of India): Concerns extending the benefit of a judgment to non-appealing co-accused.
• Arokia Thomas vs. State of T.N. (2006) 10 SCC 542 (Supreme Court of India): Addresses the acquittal of a co-accused even if they have not preferred an appeal.
• Suresh Chaudhary etc. vs. State of Bihar (2003) 4 SCC 128 (Supreme Court of India): Deals with extending the benefit of acquittal to a non-appealing accused.
• Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 9 SCC 147 (Supreme Court of India): Relates to extending the benefit of doubt to a co-accused similarly situated.
• Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P., (1999) 7 SCC 69 (Supreme Court of India): Concerns a similar view regarding extending benefits to co-accused.
• Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 (Supreme Court of India): Addresses a similar view regarding extending benefits to co-accused.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The court’s decision was influenced by the factual determination that both groups willingly engaged in a violent confrontation, leading to a shared responsibility for the resulting deaths. The court also considered the legal principles regarding the use of case diaries and the extension of benefits to non-appealing co-accused.

Logical Reasoning

The court reasoned that since both groups actively prepared for and engaged in the fight, they must share equal responsibility for the outcome. This conclusion was based on the evidence presented and the court’s interpretation of the events.

The court found that both groups must share equal responsibility for the incident. Accused Chirkut Singh and Jang Bahadur Singh were held liable under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The court dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2005 filed by Jang Bahadur Singh and maintained the conviction of Chirkut Singh. Criminal Appeal No. 1176/2004 filed by Bachan Singh and Sobhu Singh was allowed, and Kailash Singh and Kumar Singh were acquitted.

Key quotes from the judgment:

• “…both the parties appeared to be itching for a fight and had collected their relatives and supporters from far and between to augment their strength.”
• “…both groups must share equal responsibility for this incid ent.”
• “…the benefit of this judgment must also flow to these accused.”

The court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice Harjit Singh Bedi concurring.

The court’s reasoning involved a careful examination of the facts, the application of relevant legal principles, and a consideration of previous judgments. The court concluded that the incident was indeed a free fight, and both groups must share equal responsibility.

Key Takeaways

• In cases of “free fights,” where both parties willingly engage in violence, the court may find both groups equally responsible for the outcome.
• The benefit of a judgment can be extended to co-accused who have not filed an appeal, ensuring fairness and consistency in the application of justice.
• The use of case diaries by trial courts is permissible to aid in inquiry or trial but not as direct evidence to corroborate prosecution witnesses.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in a “free fight” where both parties willingly engage in violence, they share equal responsibility for the outcome. This clarifies the culpability of individuals in such scenarios.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bachan Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar underscores the principle that individuals who willingly participate in violent confrontations must bear equal responsibility for the consequences. The court’s decision reflects a balanced approach, considering both the factual circumstances and the relevant legal principles.