Brief Facts
- The Appellants were convicted under Section 148, 323, 325 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC by the Sessions Court, which was confirmed by the High Court. They approached the Supreme Court on the ground that the incident was a scuffle wherein members of both the appellant and complainant party were injured. The dispute was with regard to the use of passage by the Appellant which the Complainant party was claiming to be its own.
Issues
- Whether only the appellants could be convicted under Section 307 of IPC when both the appellant and the complainant suffered injuries in a scuffle?
Held
- The Apex Court acquitted the Appellants.
- Date of incident, as such, is not in dispute. It has also not come on record that the appellants, who were stated to be aggressors and have been convicted, used any weapons as such or they had gone to the place of incident with their predetermined mind. Even the case set up by the complainant party was that they were passing through the passage in a trolley. In fight, lathi and kassi (spade) were allegedly used. These are the normal agricultural implements which are used in the rural areas, which the appellants were carrying in their trolley.
- No doubt, there are injuries suffered by the complainant party. However, the fact remains that the injuries have also been suffered by the accused party. In the judgment of the High Court, due consideration has not been given to the injuries suffered by the appellants. Entire stress is on the injuries suffered by the complainant party or the evidence led by them. The defence of the appellants has not been touched.
- Considering the material on record which has been discussed above where both the parties suffered injuries in free fight and the passage, which was the root cause of the fight, has been held to be the passage owned by Gram Panchayat and Rafiamm and not belonging to the complainant party, in our opinion, the conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot be legally sustained.
Relevant Para No.
- 12, 14, 15