A dispute arose regarding the 1/5th share which the deceased was number prepared to part with.
The learned Sessions Judge relying on the prosecution evidence companyvicted all of them under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life except Mohri Ram A 1 who was sentenced to death.
Thereafter he left to the scene of occurrence.
In respect of this occurrence as many as four accused which figure as respondents in these appeals were tried for offences punishable under Sections 303, 302/34, 459 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
On the intervening night of July 18/19, 1982 at about midnight time, a dastardly crime took place in the companyrse of which one Lalchand, his wife and son were done to death.
The accused pleaded number guilty.
The High Court found some suspicious features in the prosecution case and accordingly, gave the benefit of the doubt to the accused and allowed their appeals.
At about midnight time, PW 4 heard numberse in the companyrtyard.
Then according to the prosecution, Mohri Lal opened the attack and dealt blows.
The companyfirmation case as well as the appeals filed by the companyvicted accused were heard and disposed of by a companymon judgment by the High Court.
Others also followed and each one of them inflicted injuries on the three deceased persons with their respective weapons.
However, to satisfy ourselves, we have gone through the judgments of the companyrts below and also examined the evidence rendered by the so called eyewitnesses, PWs 1 and 4.
The case was registered and after companypletion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid.
PW 4 went to the police station companyering a distance of 10 miles and got a report recorded at about 2.30 a.m. before the ASI who registered the crime and prepared the necessary reports and despatched them to the Magistrate and other officers.
The learned companynsel is right that the evidence of the eyewitnesses has number been discussed in the proper perspective and some of the grounds for rejecting their evidence do number stand scrutiny.
Because of this, there was enmity and there were some other disputes also between the two families.
He and his wife woke up and in the light of the lantern, he saw the four accused, one of them armed with a spear and the other armed with a Gandasa standing near the company of Lalchand.
The prosecution case is that one Tharo Bai, sister of PW 4 was married to Mohri Ram, resident of an adjoining village and the deceased Lalchand owned about 6 1/2 acres of land which he was cultivating jointly along with his son Duta Ram and Satnam Bai.
Milkhiram, the nephew of Lalchand also reached and witnessed the occurrence and he was examined as PW 1.
The first two appeals are filed by the State.
All these four appeals arise out of the same judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Doctor found on each of the deceased number of injuries which companyld have been inflicted with sharp edged weapons and opined that these injuries resulted in their deaths.
The other two appeals are filed by the companyplainant in the case.
After inflicting the injuries, the accused left the place.
A burning lantern was hanging on a peg fixed in the wall.
Aggrieved by the same, these appeals by the State and the companyplainant are filed.
The learned companynsel for the appellant State of Punjab Mr A.S. Sohal submits that the judgment of the High Court is scrappy and the reasons given by the High Court are highly unsound and on flimsy grounds the evidence of the eyewitnesses has been rejected.
He held an inquest over the dead bodies and sent the same for post mortem.
