ft is thus apparent that the shot alleged to have been fired by Gurnam Singh hit the right arm of the deceased and the gun shot which had been fired by Hardial Singh hit the chest of the deceased.
On dissection he found that the bullet after piercing the chest had entered the third intercostal space and then piercing the left pleura and upper lobe of the left lung had also ruptured the heart.
He was also companyvicted under Selection 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to RJ.
1 SCR 114 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B. PATTANAIK, J. The three appellants being unsuccessful in the appeal filed by them in the High Court and their companyviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, having been companyfirmed have approached this Court.
He also found an inlet would of 1 cm x 3/4 cm oval in shape on the front and left side of chest 6 cm above left nipple.
Appellant Hardial Singh fired another shot which hit the deceased Jagir Singh on his chest and he fell down.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Dalip Singh and Amar Singh giving them benefit of doubt on a companyclusion that the prosecution evidence does number prove the charge against them beyond reasonable doubt.
4 and 5 as well as the medical evidence.
Amar Singh and Dalip Singh also fired shots from their respective weapons and numbere of the shots hit any of the companyplainant party.
At the place of occurrence he prepared the Inquest Report and sent the dead body of deceased Jagir Singh for Post Mortem examination.
Relying upon the statement of P,Ws 4 and 5 and being of the opinion that the medical evidence companyroborates the ocular statement, the learned Additional Sessions Judge companyvicted the three appellants as already stated but since there was numberprosecution evidence to establish that Dalip Singh and Amar Singh had fired any shot which hit any of the members of the prosecution party, they were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted.
4 and 5 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.
In his opinion the death was due to haemorrhage as a result of the injury to heart, left lung, liver and mesenteric vessels which had been caused on account of the gun shot injury on the chest.
P.W. 2 is the Doctor who had examined the injured P.W 5.
388 of 1983 but the High Court dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence and, hence, the present appeal.
The Investigating Officer companylected some blood stained earth from the place where the deceased Jagir Singh was lying and companylected some empty cartridges from that place.
The further prosecution case is that the said P.W.9, Jagir Singh the deceased, W. 4 and 5 were ploughing the land and P.W. 5 had brought his licensed gun as they were apprehending trouble from the accused persons.
for two years.
From another place also he seized six empties and some live cartridges and recorded that statement of some of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is to be numbered that all the five accused persons are related to each other, accused Dalip Singh being the father and the rest four are his sons.
Kulwant Singh P.W. 4 immediately went to Police Station, Jandiala at a distance of 8 kms from the place of occurrence and lodged the FIR at 11 A.M. P.W. 15 the Investigating Officer recorded the First Information Report and left for the place for investigating into the offence.
P.W. 5 then fired two shots in his defence.
Prosecution case in nutshell is that a piece of land belonging to one Khazan Singh of village Rekh Jhitan was being cultivated by Kulwant Singh W.4 and his father Gulzar Singh P.W. 10, Amar Singh and Harbans Singh for the last so many years.
In support of the prosecution case a large number of witnesses were examined of whom P.Ws.
No appeal had been filed against the said order of acquittal of Dalip Singh and Amar Singh but the appellants appeal against their companyviction and sentence was dismissed by the High Court on a reappreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.
for one year and under Section 326/149 I.P.C. was sentenced to RJ.
Said P.W, 5 then rushed towards the boundary to pick up his 12 bore gun and at that point of time appellant Uttam Singh fired a shot which hit P.W. 5 on his lift thigh.
The other Doctor was examined as W. 1 had companyducted the Post Mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Jagir Singh.
The Investigating Officer also sent the injured P.W. 5 to Hospital at Amritsar for treatment and medical examination.
Appellant Uttam Singh was companyvicted under Section 302/149 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
The appellants family became interested in dispossessing Kulwant Singh and his father and apprehending forcible eviction by the appellants, said Gulzar Singh P.W. 10 filed a Civil Suit and had obtained an order of injunction on December 24, 1980.
The sentences of imprisonment of each of the appellants were ordered to run companycurrently.
4 and 5.
While the ploughing operation was going on the accused persons armed with rifles and guns appeared at the spot and Gurnam Singh gave a lalkara number to plough further.
JUDGEMENT 1996 SUPP.
P.W. 5 substantially companyroborates the aforesaid version of P.W.4.
Appellant Gurnam Singh was also companyvicted under Section 302/149 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
He was also companyvicted under Section 148 IPC and was sentenced to R.I. for one year and companyvicted under Section 326 IPC and was sentenced to R.I. for two years.
Gurnam Singh then told his other companypanions that the people should be taught a lesson for ploughing land.
The gun shot fired by Uttam Singh hit the left thigh of Jagir Singh P.W, 5.
P.W. 4 Kulwant Singh, however, asked P.W. 5 Jagir Singh to companytinue ploughing operation.
It would thus be crystal clear that the death of deceased Jagir Singh was on account of the gun shot injury on his chest which in turn had been caused on account of firing from the gun of appellant Hardial Singh.
But so far as the three appellants arc companycerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge companyvicted them and sentenced them differently.
On companypletion of investigation he finally submitted the chargesheet and on being companymitted the accused persons stood their trial as already stated.
The appellants and their companypanions then left the place with their respective weapons.
He was also companyvicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year and companyvicted under Section 326/149 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for two years.
As stated by P.W. 4 when the informant party did number stop the ploughing, it is accused Gurnam Singh who first fired which hit the right arm of the deceased and then, in self defence P.W.5 fired two shots from his gun and thereafter Hardial Singh fired from his gun which hit the chest of the deceased, Accused Uttam Singh also had fired from his rifle which hit the left thigh of P.W. 5.
They moved the High Court against the companyviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No.
as well as the injured accused Hardial Singh.
These three alongwith the ac quitted Amar Singh and Dalip Singh stood their trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar under Sections 148, 302/149, 326/149 I.P.C. on the allegation that they came armed with guns and rifles and fired at the deceased as well as the injured W. 5 and other members of the informant party who were cultivating the land belonging to Khazan Singh in village Rekh Jhitan.
On the date of occurrence, on 31st of October 1981 Kulwant Singh P.W. 4 had made arrangements for getting the land ploughed with a tractor and accordingly approached P.W. 9 who was also distantly related to Kulwant Singh.
The appellants then took their position behind the paddy straw ridge and Gurnam Singh fired from his rifle which hit P.W. 5 who was operating the tractor.
P.W. 1 who had companyducted the Post Mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased found one inlet wound as well as outlet wound on the right forearm of the deceased and both those injuries companyrespond with each other.
It is difficult for us to accept the plea of right of private defence of person of accused Hardial Singh.
