Self-Defence Cannot Justify Armed Assault—Force Must Be Proportionate to Threat: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab & Haryana High Court partially allowed appeals filed by Ajit Singh and others, upholding the conviction of four accused while acquitting one due to lack of reliable evidence. The Court emphasized that a conviction cannot be based on inconsistent witness testimony and must be supported by unimpeachable evidence.

Setting aside the conviction of Jagtar Singh, the Court ruled, "If an accused is implicated based on contradictory statements, and medical evidence does not support the prosecution’s version, a conviction cannot be sustained." However, the Court found sufficient evidence against Ajit Singh, Baljit Singh, Baldish Singh, and Balbir Singh, upholding their life imprisonment sentences for murder under Section 302 IPC.

"A Property Dispute Escalates into a Violent Confrontation—How a Feud Led to Murder"

The case stemmed from FIR No. 86, dated May 18, 2002, registered at Police Station Mahilpur, Punjab, at the instance of Charanjit Singh. The prosecution alleged that a long-standing property dispute between Ajit Singh and Lakhvir Singh escalated into a deadly attack, leading to the murder of Lakhvir Singh and grievous injuries to others.

According to the complainant’s statement, Ajit Singh had placed girders on the wall of Lakhvir Singh’s house without permission. When Lakhvir Singh objected and demanded payment, Ajit Singh refused, claiming the land belonged to him. This led to an altercation, and when Lakhvir Singh attempted to remove the girders, the accused allegedly attacked him and others with kirpans, datars, gandasis, and brickbats.

The trial court convicted Ajit Singh, Baljit Singh, Baldish Singh, and Balbir Singh for murder and attempt to murder, awarding life imprisonment. However, four women accused—Swaran Kaur, Resham Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur, and Rajwinder Kaur—were acquitted, prompting the complainant to file a revision petition seeking their conviction.

"Medical Evidence Must Align with Witness Testimony—A Missing Link Can Overturn a Conviction"

The High Court carefully analyzed the medical evidence and the depositions of eyewitnesses, concluding that the injuries attributed to Jagtar Singh were not substantiated by medical records. The Court noted:

“While the prosecution claimed Jagtar Singh inflicted a fatal blow on Chain Singh’s head, the post-mortem report contradicts this assertion. The evidence suggests that only one injury was present, despite multiple accused being attributed to it.”

The Court found significant contradictions in the statements of PW-1 Charanjit Singh and PW-2 Gurmit Singh, the key witnesses. While the FIR mentioned that Jagtar Singh inflicted an injury on Chain Singh’s head, the complainant later altered his statement, attributing the injury to another accused. Additionally, Chain Singh, the injured party, did not testify in court, weakening the case against Jagtar Singh.

Relying on Bharat v. State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 106, the Court observed: "When an accused is named in an FIR but no credible evidence emerges during trial, and the prosecution's version is riddled with contradictions, courts must grant the benefit of doubt."

"Self-Defence Claim Rejected—Accused Were Armed While Victims Were Defenceless"

The defence argued that the accused acted in self-defence, claiming that the complainant’s party had entered their house and initiated the attack. They contended that Ajit Singh and Jagtar Singh also sustained injuries, which the prosecution failed to explain.

Rejecting this argument, the Court ruled: “Self-defence can be claimed only when the force used is proportionate to the threat perceived. In this case, the accused were heavily armed, while the complainant’s party had no weapons. The severity of injuries suffered by the victims rules out any justification for excessive force.”

The Court also emphasized that placing girders on another person’s property does not grant the right to resort to violence when confronted. It observed:

“A civil dispute over property cannot justify an armed assault resulting in murder. The law does not permit private individuals to take justice into their own hands.”

"Recovery of Blood-Stained Weapons Strengthens Prosecution’s Case"

The Court found that the recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused, including blood-stained kirpans and gandasis, bolstered the prosecution’s case. It noted that forensic examination confirmed the presence of human blood on the weapons and at the crime scene, aligning with the injuries described in the post-mortem report.

The Court held that "the discovery of weapons used in the attack corroborates the witness accounts and strengthens the prosecution’s version beyond reasonable doubt."

"Court Refuses to Enhance Sentences or Reverse Acquittals"

The complainant’s revision petition sought enhancement of punishment for the convicted accused and reversal of acquittal for the four women accused. The Court, however, dismissed the plea, ruling that the trial court had properly appreciated the evidence.

Regarding the acquittal of Swaran Kaur, Resham Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur, and Rajwinder Kaur, the Court observed: “A mere presence at the crime scene does not establish active participation in the assault. In the absence of specific roles attributed to these accused, their acquittal cannot be disturbed.”

Further, while the complainant sought the death penalty for the convicted accused, the Court ruled:

“The imposition of life imprisonment is appropriate in this case. The attack, though brutal, was not premeditated to the extent warranting the death penalty.”

Summarizing its findings, the High Court held:

•    The conviction of Jagtar Singh was set aside due to unreliable witness testimony and lack of medical corroboration.
•    Ajit Singh, Baljit Singh, Baldish Singh, and Balbir Singh’s convictions for murder and attempt to murder were upheld, along with their life imprisonment sentences.
•    The revision petition seeking the conviction of the four acquitted women was dismissed.
•    The request for enhancement of punishment was declined, as the sentences imposed were deemed appropriate.
•    The Court directed the authorities to ensure that the convicted accused serve the remainder of their sentences.

"Justice must be based on evidence, not assumptions. While courts must not hesitate to convict the guilty, they must also be cautious in cases where the prosecution’s story is riddled with inconsistencies," the judgment concluded.

Date of Decision: 10 March 2025