In the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, an appeal was filed against the Punjab High Court’s decision, which upheld the appellant’s conviction in accordance with Sections 302, 307, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and dismissed his appeal. The prosecution’s argument was that in addition to the appellant, a total of twelve more individuals were also prosecuted for a possession dispute involving a piece of land. Both people suffered injuries. Darshan and Nand Lal were hurt during the altercation between the parties, and Daya Ram, Hamela, and Kartar Singh were hurt on the other side. Darshan Singh’s wounds caused him to pass away. Daya Ram stated that while he, Hamela, Kartar Singh, and a few others were walking around their field, they noticed Darshan, Nand Lal, and a few others sitting on a well and challenged them. He further added that Nand Lal remarked that he will not let him leave. This sparked a fight between the two parties, and when asked about the deceased’s death, Darshan stated that he had no idea who speared him. Kartar Singh stated in his statement that a member of Nand Lal’s party struck him with a spear in the abdomen and then fled the scene; he also stated that he caused no injuries to anyone present at the battle. When they were preparing to plow the disputed ground, Darshan and others attacked Hamela and the persons who were with him, according to a statement he made. He claimed that whatever harm they inflicted on the opposing party was a result of self-defense. The court determined that the accused were joined by nine or ten others, but it was not proven who those nine or ten people were due to a lack of trustworthy evidence. The court further stated that because this is a free fight case, there is no question of the right to private defense, and it makes no difference who started the fights and debates. It was said that although though Kartar Singh had no connection to the property issue, he nonetheless accompanied them armed.
BACKGROUND
An appeal was filed at the Punjab High Court in the case of Kartar Singh vs. the State of Punjab[1]. The appellant was dissatisfied with the Sessions Court’s ruling and sought to have his convictions overturned. With Darshan Singh and Nand Lal, Kartar Singh, Hamela, and Daya Ram got into a fight that left both sides hurt. The brawl and disputes started when Darshan Singh and his associates were seated on a wall and Kartar Singh and his friends were moving near a contested piece of land to plough it. Due to the terrible injuries he sustained during the struggle, Darshan Singh passed away. The learned Sessions Judge later found Kartar Singh, Haela, and Daya Ram guilty and sentenced them in accordance with Sections 302, 307, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Kartar Singh filed a petition for review with the Punjab High Court, but the judges dismissed it because they felt it lacked merit.
FACTS
The country was beset with disruptive activities and major law and order issues in the 1980s. Terrorists were observed in Punjab engaging in wanton killings and arson, and their operations had spread to several other states, including Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Numerous innocent lives had been lost, and explosions had destroyed public property. Fear was instilled in the population, and social peace and harmony were broken. The Central Government created the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act of 1984 and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1985 to address the problem at hand. The T.A.D.A., 1985 was only supposed to be in effect for two years. After the aforementioned time period had passed, the Center passed the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. Most of the provisions of the Act were comparable to its predecessor. The Act’s initial two-year period of legality was followed by extensions of four, six, and ultimately eight years. Hence, it was still in effect in 1995. The petitioners in the action disputed the following contentious sections that were established by the aforementioned Acts. Any area could be designated by the central government as a “terrorist afflicted area” and turned into a single judicial zone. Under the terms of this Act, a Special Court would hear cases involving activities in the TADA’s jurisdiction. Acts that are already crimes under general laws are prescribed and covered by Sections 3 and 4 of TADA, 1987. The timing of when each law would be applied was unclear. If the environment is not favorable for the trial in that State, Section 11 of the TADA requires the Chief Justice’s approval before cases may be transferred. By doing this, the accused was deprived of his right to a trial or hearing.
Judgements of Kartar singh vs state of Punjab
Session court
The learned judges in this case have sufficient information to draw the conclusion that Darshan Singh was killed in the unrestricted altercation between the two parties. The only important issue on the court’s agenda was who the real participants in the event were. The jury was undecided as to whether some of the defendants or all twelve defendants took part in the altercation. It was established that Kartar Singh, Hamela, and Dayaram actively took part in the altercation after recording their statements. It could not be proven that the other nine defendants were also involved in the altercation. It could not be proven that the other nine defendants were also involved in the altercation. One of the witnesses said in court that nine to ten persons were involved in the altercation, however he was unable to name them. The remaining defendants were therefore given a second chance. And three of them were found guilty in accordance with Sections 302, 307 of the IPC read with Section 149.
High court of Punjab
The accused (now appellant) appealed the sessions court’s ruling to the High Court. There were two main substantive disputes. First, the session court cannot register a conviction under Sections 302 and 149 of the IPC if there was no proof that five or more people were involved in the offence. Second, the aggressor started the altercation by making a provocative remark about a member of the appellant’s side. The opposing party’s injuries were only brought on through self-defense. The sessions court established sufficient proof from the witnesses that 9 or 10 people were involved in the altercation, the honorable bench of the High Court responded in response to the first point. They were only exonerated because there was insufficient proof of their involvement in the altercation. so granting the benefit of the doubt. There is hardly any doubt that they were there when the battle broke out, though. It is a known fact that there were ten or so people at the crime site or nearby. The conviction under Sections 302 and 307 can therefore be interpreted in conjunction with Section 149 of the IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was presented with a second problem, and in response, the court determined that a free fight does not give rise to the right to private defense. It is irrelevant who started the conflict in these disputes. [8] Only sudden attacks give rise to the right to self-defense. Kartar Singh, however, went armed with them in this instance. Hence, it may be inferred that it wasn’t an unexpected attack on a person. As a result, the right to personal defense cannot be used.
Supreme court
The appellants filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of India against the High Court’s decision. After carefully reviewing the judgments and reasonings of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and the Sessions Court, a bench of three judges rejected the appeal, stating that it lacked merit. However, the bench disagreed on the definition and meaning of the terms “common-objective” and “common-intention” in connection to Sections 149 and 34 of the IPC. As a result, the charges were changed as follows: the conviction under Sections 302 and 307, which were read in conjunction with Section 149 of the IPC (1860), was converted to be read in conjunction with Section 34 of the Indian Criminal Code, 1860. Kartar Singh, Hamela, and Dayaram were subsequently convicted and sentenced. In the US, the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld[6] decision showed that stringent procedures and techniques, like unlawful detention to combat terrorism, violate due process of law and that state security cannot be cited as an excuse.
Reasoning
The judiciary in our country has never been committed to human rights. It has always endeavored to protect the interests of the State in relation to individuals. This was recently proved in the case of PUCL v. Union of India, in which the Supreme Court confirmed the validity of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. In such cases, it is vital not to grant the accused the right to self-defense since they commonly utilize this privilege to conceal their crimes. Justice Krishna Iyer attempted an equal but was rejected somewhere in there. It is necessary to take proper actions that respect due process of law if terrorism is to be defeated. As emphasized in UN Resolutions on terrorism, individual liberty must never be at danger if democracy is to flourish. In this case, it was found that unless the claimed offence against an accused could be described as a “terrorist act” in both text and spirit, he should not be charged under the Act and should instead be tried in regular courts under conventional criminal laws rather than the Terrorism Act. For lack of a better language, the court decided that “when the three elements of intention, action, and consequence all occur together, an individual becomes a terrorist or is guilty of terrorist conduct.” The provision for a timely trial of the accused, which is a crucial element of the fundamental right to life and liberty protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, was another safeguard introduced by the court against the abuse of the Act. As a result of its violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, the court also declared Section 22 of the Act to be unconstitutional. According to Criminal Code Section 22, an accused person could be recognized based on the concept of his photograph.
The court ruled that when it came to state law enforcement authorities violating human rights, these activities were carried out in utter disregard of humanitarian law and universal human rights, as well as in utter disregard of the constitutional guarantee and human dignity.
Conclusion
It is evident from reading the verdict in the case of Kartar Singh v. the State of Punjab that the three defendants were guilty and that the court was correct to sentence them to punishment and deny them the right to a private defense. It appears that all of the appellant’s inquiries were answered. In fact, there has been a very strong refutation of every point in this case. Hence, several legal issues are clarified for future situations. All three of the accused were rightfully found guilty and punished. Consequently, the Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab decision stopped individuals from abusing the right to private defense to conceal their wrongdoing. Because a government is established by and for its citizens, it must defend the rights of all citizens, not just the majority. In our nation, the judiciary has never prioritized human rights. It has always aimed to defend the State’s interests in relation to people. Recently, the Court confirmed the legality of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in the case of PUCL v. Union of India.
Refrence
https://indianlawportal.co.in/
https://lexpeeps.in/
https://lawcorner.in/
https://lawessential.com/
Aishwarya Says:
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening