Supreme Court Upheld The Conviction in Land Dispute Murder Case and Free Fight

Supreme Court while hearing the appeal in matter stemming from land dispute between close relatives that tragically which led ended in murder, upheld the conviction of the appellant/accused and dismissed the reliance on free fight.

The incident occurred on May 19, 1988 where two cross-First Information Reports (FIR) were registered. The appellants, including Om Pal, Narendra, Ranvir, and Dharamvir, were accused of attacking the complainant side after damaging a boundary ridge (mendh) between the farmlands. The assault, involving lathis, axes, spades, and phawaras (spades), led to the deaths of two individuals, Dile Ram and Braham Singh, and injuries to Bangal Singh (PW-2), an injured eyewitness.

The Trial Court convicted seven accused, including the appellants, under Section 302 read with Section 149 (murder with unlawful assembly) and Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in 2010, which dismissed the appeals and the criminal revision filed by the appellants.

The appeal was made before Supreme Court in which the appellant argued that the matter was not one of premeditated murder but a consequence of a "free fight" where both sides sustained injuries. The appellant further contended that their case ought to fall under the Fourth Exception to Section 300 IPC, warranting conviction solely under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). They also challenged the delay in the lodging of the second FIR and the non-recovery of the weapons.

Important Observations and Findings : The Apex Court reiterated that both the courts, High Court and Trial Court, correctly determined that the appellants were the aggressors who initiated the occurrence, and fruther noted that the motive—prior enmity due to the land boundary dispute—was clearly established, lending strength to the prosecution's case.

On credibility of Injured Eyewitness the Apex Court placed significant reliance on the testimony of PW-2 (Bangal Singh), whose presence at the scene is considered an "inbuilt guarantee" of truth and whose deposition is accorded a special status in law. Since the defense had essentially admitted his presence and failed to elicit major contradictions, his testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, was held reliable.

While rejecting the plea of Section 300 Exception 4, the Apex Court firmly rejected the argument that the incident was a mere free fight, noting that the nature and extent of injuries demonstrated intentional infliction. The use of sharp edges of spades and phawadas to deliver fatal blows specifically to the heads of the deceased indicated that the assailants acted with the clear motive and object of murder, hence negating the application of the Fourth Exception to Section 300 IPC.

The delay of three-days in lodging the cross-FIR by the complainant's son (PW-1) was taken as "satisfactorily explained" by the Apex Court as there were the necessity of taking the severely injured victims to the hospital. Furthermore, the non-recovery of the specific weapons used was deemed non-fatal to the prosecution’s case given the compelling and consistent medical and ocular evidence available on record.

The Apex Court concluded that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of a common intention and committed the murder, affirming their conviction, and on these concurrent findings, the Apex Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the appeals as being devoid of merit.

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL AND JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA.