CASE NAME	Jassa Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 2 SCC 481
CITATION	AIR 2002 SC 520, 2002 AIR SCW 80, (2002) 1 EASTCRIC 420, 2002 (1) JT (SUPP) 593, 2002 (2) SRJ 220, 2002 (1) SCALE 26, 2002 SCC (CRI) 363, 2002 (1) SLT 66, (2002) 1 ALL CRI LR 5, (2002) 1 CRIME 236
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice D.P. Mohapatra and Justice K.G. Balakrishnan
APPELLANT	Jassa Singh and Others
RESPONDENT	State of Haryana
DECIDED ON	8th January, 2002

INTRODUCTION

The case concerns a violent altercation over a property dispute that resulted in the murders of Tehal Singh and Surmukh Singh. The leasehold of re-auctioned land was the source of the issue, which sparked court cases and increased hostilities between the parties. The victims were fatally injured on the day of the incident when the accused, armed with guns and gandasis, attacked them. The accused was charged with murder by the prosecution, which claimed that the attack was planned and executed with a shared purpose. However, the defense asserted self-defense and provocation. Eyewitness accounts, forensic evidence, and the deaths’ chronology served as the case’s foundation.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which addresses the penalty for murder, is one of the laws at issue in this case. Under this clause, the accused was charged with murder for purposefully causing the victims’ deaths. To prove that the accused acted in concert, Section 149 of the IPC—which deals with unlawful gatherings and the culpability of all participants when a crime is committed in pursuit of a common object—was cited. The case also involved the application of Section 148 of the IPC, which deals with rioting with lethal weapons, and Section 34 of the IPC, which holds people accountable for actions carried out with a common aim. These legal clauses were crucial in establishing the accused’s guilt.

FACTS OF THE CASE

For more than ten years, Surmukh Singh, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jalmana, was involved in a land dispute over 25 acres that were leased to Sarang Singh (Accused 8) and Jassa Singh (Accused 1). About two months before to the tragedy, the land was put up for auction again, and the winning bidders were Subeg Singh, Narinder Singh, and Kehar Singh. The brother of the late Surmukh Singh was Kehar Singh. Jassa Singh sued to contest the re-auction, arguing that the lease allocation was incorrect. The civil court said that Jassa Singh could only be evicted in compliance with the law. Jassa Singh claimed there were anomalies in the re-auction procedure, but Surmukh Singh started the eviction process before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Gram Panchayat went ahead with the eviction measures in spite of these disagreements.

Around 5:00 PM on July 2, 1992, Surmukh Singh, Gurmukh Singh, and other individuals visited the leasehold property. The appellants, armed with firearms and gandasis, confronted Surmukh Singh and Narinder Singh as they were resting close to the field boundary. Surmukh Singh should be killed, Jassa Singh and others urged. Jassa Singh and others shot at Surmukh Singh several times despite his plea for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. After Surmukh Singh collapsed on the ground, the appellants continued to attack him with gandasis. Under fire, Gurmukh Singh and others sought refuge behind the crest of the field.

A second occurrence happened in the nearby dera of Labh Singh shortly after the first. Gurdev Singh (PW-15), Darbara Singh (PW-14), and Tehal Singh were searching for workers. Tehal Singh was shot and killed by Bakha Singh and Sukha Singh as the appellants came armed. The appellants abandoned both crime scenes. After Gurmukh Singh informed the police about the incident, Asst. Sub-Inspector Jarnail Singh and Station House Officer Rohtash Singh (PW-25) took charge of the inquiry. Evidence from both crime locations was found throughout the inquiry, including the deceased’s possessions, empty cartridges, and blood-stained dirt. Post-mortem exams confirmed the causes of death.

To prove the events, the prosecution called 27 witnesses. Darbara Singh and Gurdev Singh confirmed the second occurrence, while Gurmukh Singh (PW-9) and Gurvinder Singh (PW-10) testified as eyewitnesses to the first. The defendants were found guilty and sentenced for their roles in the murders of Surmukh Singh and Tehal Singh by the Sessions Court and the High Court, which deemed the testimony trustworthy.

ISSUES RAISED

• Given their connection to the deceased, were the eyewitness accounts trustworthy and credible?
• Did the defendants’ acts under Section 149 IPC have a single goal, or were they disorganized and individualistic?
• Was it legal for the accused to say they acted in self-defense or response to provocation?
• Was the chain of evidence complete, and were there any discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence?
• Did the prosecution prove each accused person’s personal responsibility sufficiently?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

• According to the appellants ‘ counsel, all of the eyewitnesses analyzed in this case were very interested, and the lower courts accepted their testimony without giving it enough consideration. 
• He further argued that since Surmukh Singh and others had arrived at the property, which was still owned by Jassa Singh, and had begun plow work, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the right of private defense. 
• According to the Learned counsel, the appellants were entitled to use their right to private defense because this was a wanton act of criminal trespass, and as a result, they have not committed any crimes. 
• Additionally, he argued that the Sessions Court had gravely harmed the appellants’ cause by trying the charges pertaining to two incidences as a single case. 
• Because Surmukh Singh and others had entered Jassa Singh’s property and caused trouble by damaging the standing crops, the appellants were entitled to employ their right of private defense.
• Their actions would only qualify as culpable homicide under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, not murder.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

• The prosecution’s witnesses, Gurmukh Singh (PW-9), Gurvinder Singh (PW-10), Darbara Singh (PW-14), and Gurdev Singh (PW-15), all gave consistent, reliable, and fact-based testimony, according to the reply. Their slight inconsistencies were normal and had no bearing on the content of their depositions. They were trustworthy eyewitnesses because of their close closeness to the incidents.
• According to Section 149 of the IPC, the prosecution claimed that the defendants had a clear common purpose for their actions. The group’s armed status, their calls to kill, and their well-planned assault showed that they had a common goal: to kill Surmukh Singh and Tehal Singh.
• It was argued that neither the deceased nor their accomplices attempted to attack or antagonize the accused. Rather, the victims tried to settle the conflict amicably and legally. The respondent rejected provocation and self-defense as legitimate defenses, arguing that the appellants’ acts were premeditated and driven by malice.
• The finding of guns, gandasis, spent cartridges, blood-stained dirt, and post-mortem reports all supported the accused’s involvement and validated the eyewitness testimony. The appellants’ responsibility was confirmed when the deceased’s injuries matched the weapons they used.

JUDGMENT

Private defense is a valuable privilege that is mostly preventive rather than punitive. The general rules regulating the right to private defense are outlined in Sections 96 through 104. Only in cases of robbery, nighttime housebreaking, or mischief by fire committed against any building, tent, or vessel that is utilized as a place of residence for people or as a location for the custody of property would the right to private property defense extend to the point of inflicting death. Furthermore, it states that in order for theft, mischief, or house trespass to be considered crimes, they must have been conducted in a way that could reasonably raise the possibility of death or serious injury as a result. Criminal trespass is not listed as one of the offenses under Section 103 IPC, even though private defense is possible for mischief or criminal trespass against one’s own or another’s property. Therefore, if the act of trespassing involves open land, the right to private property defense will not extend to the point where the perpetrator dies. Only a house-trespass that is performed in a way that could reasonably raise the possibility of death or serious injury is included as an offense under Section 103.

After carefully examining the two appeals, the Court noted that the appellants, Kabul Singh, Jeet Singh, Sarang Singh, Swaran Singh, and Satnam Singh, are entitled to the benefit of the doubt because it is doubtful that they were present at the scene of the incident. As a result, their conviction and punishment are overturned, they are exonerated of all the accusations against them, and their appeal is granted.

CONCLUSION

This story serves as an example of how a property dispute can escalate into violent, deliberate acts that claim two lives. According to Section 149 IPC, the evidence showed that the accused acted with a common purpose, establishing collective accountability for their deeds. Despite being given by the deceased’s family, eyewitness accounts were reliable and backed up by forensic and medical evidence, such as post-mortem reports and weapon retrieval. Since the victims were trying to settle the conflict amicably and legally, the court rejected any allegations of provocation or self-defense. Rather, the accused’s intentional employment of guns and gandasis, along with their well-coordinated presence at the scene, suggested a planned strategy to use violence to impose authority over the disputed territory.

The court determined that the extensive investigation and prompt evidence collecting were adequate to support the convictions. This case emphasizes how the legal system can ensure accountability for activities that disturb public order and discourage organized and violent acts that result from conflicts. The court reiterated the rule that no grievance warrants using force to enforce the law by upholding the convictions. It acts as a reminder of how crucial it is to resolve disputes legally in order to prevent disastrous outcomes.