Rioting Case: Passage Is Owned By Gram Panchayat Rather Than Complainant- SC Sets Aside Conviction Of 5 Men
|The Supreme Court in a rioting and murder case has set aside the conviction of five men on the ground that the passage was owned by Gram Panchayat rather than the complainant. The dispute arose due to the use of passage by the appellants to which the complainant party raised an objection.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal held, “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.”
The Bench noted that there are injuries suffered by the complainant party but the fact remains that the injuries have also been suffered by the accused party.
Advocates Jaspreet Gogia, Vipin Gogia, and Karanvir Gogia appeared for the appellants while Advocates Rajesh Singh, Sat Prakash Kumar, and Monika Gusain appeared for the respondent.
In this case, the conviction of the appellants was upheld by the High Court who were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 148, 323, 325, and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 read with Section 149 as well as for Section 323 read with Section 149, two years under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC, and seven years under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC.
It was a case in which both parties suffered injuries as a tractor trolley from a disputed passage went through the same. The dispute led to attacks wherein the appellants suffered multiple injuries and the injured ones were taken to the hospital.
The Court after in view of the facts of the case asserted, “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 pre¬determined 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.”
The Court further noted that there are normal agricultural implements used in rural areas which the appellants carried in their trolley.
“As is evident from the record, the dispute was with regard to the use of passage by the appellants which the complainant party was claiming to be its own. Another fact which has come on record is that there is a decree in a civil case filed by the complainant party immediately after the incident, in which it was held that the passage belongs to the Gram Panchayat and the same is Rafiamm”, said the Court.
The Court observed that in the judgment of the High Court, due consideration was not given to the injuries suffered by the appellants and that the entire stress was on the injuries suffered by the complainant party or the evidence led by them.
“The defence of the appellants has not been touched”, said the Court.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeals and set aside the conviction of the appellants.
Cause Title- Ajmer Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana