LAWS(SC)-1996-7-137

KASHMIRA SINGH Vs. DUMAN SINGH

Decided On July 09, 1996
KASHMIRA SINGH Appellant
V/S
DUMAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Special leave granted.

(2.) The present appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 19-4-1995 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which cancelled the bail granted to the appellant by the same Court on 11-10-1994.

(3.) The facts that are relevant for our consideration can be briefly set out as follows. The appellant, Kashmira Singh (hereinafter called "the accused"), was arrested subsequent to the registration of an F.I.R. upon a complaint filed by the respondent, Duman Singh (hereinafter called "the complainant"). The accused and his family members had been involved in a long standing dispute over a certain piece of land. Being apprehensive of a quarrel, the local police had initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the F.I.R., the complainant alleges that he was led to believe that the accused and his family members had, on 28-5-1993, violated the Tehsildar's order, not to interfere with the land and had ploughed the land and sown a paddy crop. To verify whether this was true, the complainant and a few others went to the village of the accused. He alleges that after having confirmed the news, he and five others were returning in their vehicles when they came upon the accused, his three brothers and his fathers, who were armed and were standing near the village chowk. The complainant and his party stopped their vehicles and, one member of the complainant's party, who was armed with a Dang, went up to the accused's party to enquire why they had violated the Tehsildar's order. According to the complainant, the accused's brother reacted by attacking that person, whereupon an altercation ensued between both sides. The members of both parties were armed with Dangs, Sotis and rifles. The skirmish resulted in the death of some of the persons present. (The F.I.R. records the death of two members of the complainant's party while the impugned judgment states that one member of the accused's party was also killed).