SHANGARA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants Shangara and Piara figured as A-1 and A-3 before the trial Court. They along with two others were tried for offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. It is alleged that they attacked the deceased, Bansa and caused his death. The trial Court convicted all the four accused. The A-1 was convicted under Section 302, IPC and the other three accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. All the four preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court acquitted A-2 and A-4 and confirmed the convictions of A-1 and A-3 who are appellants before us.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows :

(3.) In this appeal the learned counsel submits that the High Court has erred in not giving the benefit of the right of self-defence particularly when the specific plea has been set up. It may be mentioned at this stage that the time and place of the occurrence are not in dispute. The presence of the two appellants is not in dispute. Eye-witnesses presence is not doubted. The only question is whether the plea of self-defence can be sustained. This is a case where eye-witnesses particularly P.W. 3 has clearly explained as to how A-1 received injuries. He has stated that when his brother was being attacked he went inside the house and brought a sua and inflicted the injury on A-1. This explanation given by the prosecution witnesses appears to be cogent, convincing and the same has been accepted by both the Courts below. We see no ground to disagree. Now the question is whether A-3 can be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. So far as A-1 is concerned the evidence is clear to the effect that he inflicted a fatal injury on the head of the deceased with a kulhari. The doctor P.W. 1 who examined the deceased found an incised wound on the back side of the right thigh. He did not even describe it to be dangerous. The other injuries inflicted are abrasions and simple contusions. The doctor admitted that they could be even caused by fall or brick bata. Therefore, the only overt act attributed to A-3 is that he inflicted an incised injury on the right thigh. No other overt act is attributed to him. Further it has to be borne in mind that this unfortunate incident took place because of a trivial quarrel among the relations with regard to supply of liquor and mutton during the dinner in which the accused as well as the deceased and other witnesses were participating. No doubt the eye-witnesses deposed that the accused left after half an hour when the deceased left to the village. From that alone it cannot be said that there was a common intention to cause the death of the deceased. This aspect has to be judged by the part played by them, nature of the injuries inflicted and the surrounding circumstances. Having given our anxious consideration to all the circumstances we find it difficult to convict A-3 also under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. Having regard to the nature of the occurrence, this is a case where the two appellants should be held responsible for their individual acts. In this view of the matter A-1 who caused the fatal injury on the head of deceased is liable for his conviction under Section 302, IPC. The sentence of imprisonment for life is confirmed. So far as A-3 is concerned his conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC are set aside. Instead we convict him under Section 326, IPC and sentence him to seven years' R.I. In the result the appeal is dismissed as against A-1 and is partly allowed as against A-3 to the extent indicated hereinabove.