The appellants preferred two appeals before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh being Criminal Appeal Nos.
The appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 and 302/34 I.P.C. They have also been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under the other sections of the I.P.C. and the Arms Act referred to hereinabove.
He also recovered one empty of .32 bore.
It appears that Sukhwinder Singh and two others of the prosecution party were also tried in Sessions Trial No.
On hearing the report of gun shots Baldev Singh, PW 8 and Salwant Singh came running to the place of occurrence and witnessed the occurrence.
The case of the prosecution is that after his arrest on 13.6.1994 accused Kewal Singh suffered a disclosure statement and got recovered his licenced gun.
The injured were being removed to the Baghi Hospital at Ferozepur but on the way Narinder Pal Singh succumbed to his injuries.
He recorded the statements of Amarjit Singh and Balwinder Kaur.
Salwant Singh, Kewal Singh accused and Sohan Singh are brothers.
Amarjit Singh also preferred an appeal against the order of the Sessions Judge acquitting Sukhwinder Singh and others in Sessions Trial No.
In these circumstances.
When they reused near haveli of Amar Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, PW 7 grappled with Jagjit Singh and Amarjit Singh.
DW 4 in the hospital on June 8, 1994.
It is also number in dispute that both parties came armed and used their respective weapons.
Appellant Jagjit Singh was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. while the remaining accused were found guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C Appellant Kewal Singh was found guilty of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. while the remaining two accused were companyvicted and sentenced for the offence under Section.
P.C. In a case of this nature the objective findings of the investigating officer and the nature of injuries suffered by the members of the prosecution and the defence party are of great assistance to the Court in finding the truth.
P.C. is to the following effect On 7th June, 1994 at about 8.00 or 8.30 a.m. he and his brother Amarjit Singh were loading the fodder cut by them when they numbericed that the spokes of their cycle had been broken.
In this background, an occurrence took place at about 8.00 a.m. on June 7, 1994 in which Narinder Pal Singh lost his life while informant Sukhwinder Singh, PW 7 was injured.
The real dispute is as to whether the appellants were the aggressors or whether the prosecution party itself mounted an assault on them companypelling them to defend themselves, and in the companyrse of such incident some members of the defence party were also injured.
From the evidence on record it appears that the relationship between the branch of Kewal Singh on the one hand and the branches of Salwant Singh and Sohan Singh on the other were strained on account of land disputes.
Appellants Jagjit Singh and Amarjit Singh raised lalkara to the effect that they will teach them a lesson and thereafter they mounted an assault on both of them.
Therefore, PW 7 took his fathers .32 bore pistol while Narinder Pal Singh deceased took the licenced revolver of his brother Baldev Singh, PW 8.
The case of the defence as is evident from the examination of accused Jagjit Singh under Section 313 Cr.
The prosecution also relied upon the recoveries made.
Appellant Jagjit Singh with his kirpan assaulted Sukhwinder Singh, PW 7 on his head but Sukhwinder Singh warded off that blow with his left hand as a result of which he suffered an injury on his left hand between the thumb and the index finger.
Members of the prosecution as well as the defence party were injured in the companyrse of the incident.
He also received the medico legal report of DW 4, Balwinder Kaur and Amarjit Singh, accused.
While PWs.
7 and 8 supported the case of the prosecution, the defence examined Balwinder Kaur, DW.4 an injured witness, to support the defence case, apart from the statement of the accused in their examination under Section 313 Cr.
In Criminal Appeal No.
Thereafter appellant Jagjit Singh and his companypanions turned and proceeded towards them.
They apprehended danger to the lives of Baldev Singh, PW 8 and Salwant Singh who were at the tubewell and were unarmed.
From the facts narrated above it is evident that an occurrence did take place at the place and time alleged by the prosecution.
To the same effect is the statement of Kewal Singh, and Amarjit Singh, appellants.
Salwant Singh, father of Sukhwinder Singh, PW 7 gave a gandasi blow to Amarjit Singh while Baldev Singh gave gandasi blows from its blunt side to Balwinder Kaur, DW 4.
When they had reached near the village school they were numbericed by appellant Jagjit Singh.
According to the prosecution, on June 7, 1994 at about 8.00 a.m. Sukhwinder Singh, PW 7 was getting ready to leave for his work when Narinder Pal Singh, deceased came to him and informed him that Kewal Singh armed with a gun, Amarjit Singh armed with dang and Jagjit Singh armed with kirpan were going towards their rube well raising lalkara.
Balwinder Kaur, DW 4 is their sister, Baldev Singh, PW 8 and Narinder Pal Singh deceased were brothers being the sons of Sohan Singh.
367 DB/1998, all the three accused were the appellants, while in the other only Jagjit Singh was the appellant.
While they were running they found Sukhwinder Singh, PW 7 and Narinder Pal Singh deceased armed with pistol and revolver companying from the opposite direction.
Sukhwinder Singh, PW 7 is the son of Salwant Singh while Jagjit Singh and Amarjit Singh accused are the sons of Kewal Singh accused .
They both left for the tubewell on a scooter.
While grappling Sukhwinder Singh, PW 7 fired a shot at Jagjit Singh which hit Narinder Pal Singh deceased .
Kewal Singh fired from his gun at Sukhwinder Singh which hit him, as a result of which Sukhwinder Singh fell down.
In the mean time their father.
34 of 1998 dated 8.7.1998 which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.
In the mean time Baldev Singh, PW 8 Both of them took gandasis and chased Amarjit Singh and Jagjit Singh, appellants who ran to save their lives.
Similarly, pursuant to the disclosure statement of Jagjit Singh accused the .32 bore pistol which he had snatched from Sukhwinder Singh, PW 7 was recovered.
307 read with Section 34 I.P.C Jagjit Singh was also found guilty of the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and the remaining two accused under Section 324 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C Jagjit Singh was also found guilty of the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. while Kewal Singh and Amarjit Singh were found guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The Baldev Singh, PW 8 and Salwant Singh came running to the place of occurrence and witnessed the occurrence.
The members of the prosecution as well as the defence party belong to the same family.
The High Court by its impugned companymon judgment and order dated 18th April, 2001 dismissed all the appeals and affirmed the judgments and orders of the learned Sessions Judge.
Both parties have charged the other as the aggressor.
Inspector Daljit Singh, PW 12 on receiving information about the occurrence went to Baghi Hospital and recorded the statement of Sukhwinder Singh, PW 7 at 11.30 a.m. on the basis of which a formal FIR was drawn up at Police Station, Sadar, Ferozepur at 11.45 a.m. and a special report was despatched which was received by the Illaqa Magistrate at 2.00 p.m. He drew up the inquest report and sent the body for post mortem examination.
Kewal Singh fired from his licenced gun in order to rescue his sons and daughter and to scare away the members of the prosecution party.
Hearing the companymotion their sister Balwinder Kaur, DW 4 also came near the place of occurrence and tried to separate them.
The pellets which ricocheted after hitting the wall caused injuries to Sukhwinder Singh.
Kewal Singh came armed with gun together with Mohinder Kaur, wife of Jagjit Singh.
PW 12 also recovered from the place of occurrence three pellets of .12 bore a wad of .12 bore as well as two fired cartridges of .12 bore.
228 DB/1999 has been preferred in a mechanical manner by a companymon special leave petition, in which there is numberreference to the facts of that case, number any grounds have been urged impugning the judgment and order of the High Court affirming the judgment of acquittal.
Amarjit Singh and Balwinder Kaur, DW 4 were admitted in the hospital where the police had arrived and recorded the statement of Amarjit Singh and Balwinder Kaur, DE 4.
It thus appears that the two branches of Salwant Singh and Sohan Singh are members of the prosecution party while Kewal Singh and his two sons are the accused.
366DB/1998 and 367 DB/1998 against their companyviction and sentence.
Kartar Singh was their companymon ancestor.
The appellants have preferred these appeals by special leave.
That an occurrence took place on that day is number in dispute, but both sides have given their own version of the occurrence, each party alleging that the other party was the aggressor.
His body was thereafter taken to the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur while PW 7 Sukhwinder Singh was taken to the Baghi Hospital, Ferozepur for treatment.
There was a mutation case pending and certain disputes had also arisen on account of the Will left behind by late Kartar Singh.
They asked Salwant Singh as to who had broken the spokes of their bicycle, but did number get an appropriate reply.
On the side of the defence Amarjit Singh accused and his sister Balwinder Kaur, DW 4 were said to have received injuries.
34 of 1998 but were acquitted by the Sessions Court by a judgment of the same date.
Appellant Jagjit Singh then snatched the pistol from the hands of Sukhwinder Singh and fired from the said pistol at Narinder Pal Singh deceased , who was hit on his chest and fell down.
The case of the prosecution depends largely on the eye witness account of Sukhwinder Singh, PW 7 and Baldev Singh PW 8.
He fired the first shot at a heap of company dung and the second at the wall of the haveli of Amar Singh.
In support of their respective versions evidence has been led.
228 DB/1999.
In order to save themselves, Narinder Pal Singh deceased parked his scooter and both ran towards the village However, they were encircled near the shop of Amarjit Singh.
32 of 1998 found the appellants guilty of various offences.
P. Singh, J. The three appellants in these appeals were put up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur who by his judgment and order dated July 8, 1998 in Sessions Case No.
In the mean time many villagers arrived and separated them.
