This article has been written by Varsha Thapa of 2nd year B.B.A. L.L.B. studying in Army Law College,Pune.
INTRODUCTION
In Kartar Singh v. The State of Punjab, two parties engaged in a free-for-all melee that left Darshan Singh, one of the participants, dead and significant injuries on both sides. Twelve people, including Kartar Singh, were arrested for murder, attempted murder, and unlawful assembly after Darshan Singh passed away. Kartar Singh, Hamela, and Dayaram were charged by the Hon’ble Sessions court under Sections 302, 307, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, following a thorough examination of the witnesses and evidence. The other defendants were given the benefit of the doubt because there was insufficient evidence against them.
One of the defendants (Kartar Singh), dissatisfied with the Sessions court’s ruling, filed an appeal against it with the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab. The appeal was rejected by the High Court because the judges felt it lacked merit. As a result, the charges that the sessions court had established remained in place.
Later, the appellant made a move to the Indian Supreme Court. However, the appeal against the High court’s ruling was also rejected here, though the charges were changed. Previously, the charges laid out under Sections 302, 307, and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were combined into one under Sections 302, 307, and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
FACTS
In the Court of the illustrious Indian Supreme Court
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab is the name of the case.
Citation: (1926) 32 AWR 16, (1962) 2 SCR 395 Case date: April 26, 1961
Bench: J.R. Mudholkar, Raghubar Dayal, and K. Subba Rao, JJ.
Respondent: Kartar Singh
Respondent: Punjab State
J.N. Kaushal, a senior advocate, and Naunit Lal, an advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant.
The respondent was represented by attorneys B.K. Khanna, R.H. Dhebar, and D. Gupta.
- Darshan Singh and Nand Lal were sitting on a well one fine morning when they noticed Kartar Singh, Hamela, Dayaram, and a few other individuals approaching them. It’s rumoured that Kartar Singh and a few others were planning to till a plot of land that was up for debate. Nand Lal and Darshan Singh, who were seated atop the next well, stopped them. Dayaram claimed that Nand Lal had challenged them and said he wouldn’t allow Dayaram (the victim) escape.
- The participants in both parties were riled up by this, which started a brawl. Both parties physically hurt each other multiple times. Darshan Singh died as a result of the injuries since they were so severe.
- The charges against Kartar Singh, Hamela, and Dayaram included murder, attempted murder, and unlawful assembly. According to Sections 302, 307, and 149 of the IPC, 1860, the Sessions court rendered its decision on their conviction. Kartar Singh, the appellant, then appealed the sessions court’s decision to the High Court of Punjab and ultimately to the Supreme Court of India.
- However, after each other, they both rejected the appeal. The Supreme Court, however, decided that a conviction under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, 1860, might be changed to one under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34.
Sections involved in the case
- Section 302 of IPC,1860
Punishment for murder- Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
- Section 307 of IPC, 1860
Attempt to murder- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life] or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
- Section 149 of IPC, 1860
Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of common object- If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
- Section 34 of IPC, 1860
Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Judgements in the case
- Hon’ble Sessions 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. One of the witnesses said in court that nine to 10 people were involved in the altercation, but 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 (1860) read with Section 149.
- Hon’ble 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 (1860) 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 High Court’s honourable bench responded to the first argument by stating that the witnesses’ testimony provided by the Sessions Court was sufficient proof that nine or ten people were involved in the altercation. Only the absence of evidence supporting their active involvement in the melee allowed for their acquittal. resulting in the benefit of the doubt. However, it is undeniable that they were present where the fight took place. The presence of about ten people at the crime scene or in the area is a well-known phenomenon. It is possible to read the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 with Section 149 of the IPC (1860).
The court determined that the right to private defence does not apply in a free fight in answer to the second argument that was brought before the Hon’ble High Court. It doesn’t matter who started the fight in these types of conflicts.The right to self-defense only applies in cases of unexpected attacks. Kartar Singh went equipped with them in this instance, though. Therefore, it could be inferred that it wasn’t a surprise attack on the person(s) in question. Therefore, it is not possible to exercise the right to personal defence.
Consequently, the HC rejected the appeal made in response to the Sessions Court’s decision.
- Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
The High Court’s decision was challenged by the appellants before the Supreme Court of India. The bench of three judges denied the appeal after carefully reviewing the rulings and justifications by the Sessions Court and the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab, stating that they did not see any merit in the appeal. However, in relation to Sections 149 and 34 of the IPC (1860), the bench debated the definition and significance of “common-objective” and “common-intention.” As a result, the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (1860), which was read along with Section 149, was changed to be read along with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Kartar Singh, Hamela, and Dayaram were then found guilty and given the appropriate punishments.
Conclusion
The Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab case brought to light the key distinction between an act’s “common-objective” and “common-intention.” The court also defined the application and boundaries of the right to self-defense. The court declared in a forthright manner that while a lack of proof of your active involvement in an act may grant you the “benefit of the doubt,” the court will not be able to ignore your presence if there are enough witnesses to support it. The ruling was supported by numerous citations to statutes and case law. 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. Clarifying different legal issues in preparation for the upcoming instances. All three of the accused were rightfully found guilty and punished. Thus, the Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab decision stopped individuals from abusing the right to private defence to conceal their wrongdoing.
References