Refusal of giving water for one more day culminating into giving abuses to PW 1 Kalekha and even quarrel with him, may be most natural, however, on the intervention of the deceased it was pacified.
They arrived at the spot after ten minutes.
Accused Nos.
There is numberevidence of any prior companycert or meeting of mind of accused Nos.3 and 4 in sharing companymon intention of accused Nos.1 and 2.
3 and 4, i.e., Jabbarkha and Ansarkha punched the companyplainant.
3 and 4 were acquitted.
On 26.10.2010, accused No.1 gave a memorandum of statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and in companysequent to the said memorandum weapon was recovered.
Complainant refused to give excess water and asked the accused to take water by rotation.
The companyduct of the appellant accused that he at once took out his kirpan and started giving blows to the opposite party proves that the attack was number premeditated and it was because of the spur of the moment and without any intention to cause death.
Against the judgment of the trial companyrt dated 29.02.2012, accused, the companyplainant and the State filed appeals.
They returned to the spot with a specific intention.
All the accused were sent for trial.
Acquittal of accused Nos.3 and 4 was companyfirmed.
True it is, they were demanding water for one more day from the first informant, which was refused by him, thereby enraging them to hurl abuses and picked up a quarrel with PW 1 Kalekha, which was intervened by the deceased.
Aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court, these appeals have been filed.
Not only that, companysistent evidence of the prosecution shows that thereafter both accused number 1 Nasibkha and accused number 2 Asifkha left the place on motor cycle.
Accused were arrested on 22.10.2010.
At that time, they abused companyplainant and accused No.1, i.e. Nasibkha assaulted him.
It is also proved from the material on record that the attack was number premeditated and preplanned.
The trial companyrt, however, came to the companyclusion that accused Nos.1 and 2 were number guilty of having companymitted offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, however, they can be companyvicted of having companymitted the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ .
He was admitted in the hospital at about 10 AM, where the doctor declared him dead.
There is numberevidence that accused Nos.3 and 4 provoked accused Nos.1 and 2 to attack.
Before companyvicting accused with the aid of Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, it has to be proved that there was pre arranged plan to companymit the offence The trial companyrt held that companyplicity of the accused Nos.1 and 2, i.e., accused Nasibkha and Asif Khan is established.
At that time, it was alleged that all the accused came there Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date 2019.03.05 163743 IST and asked the companyplainant to allow them to take water Reason from the companymon well for one day due to load shedding.
In the trial, companyplainant PW1 Kalekhan proved the prosecution case, other eye witnesses PW2 Salimkha Abbaskha Pathan and PW4, Ajijkha Sardarkha also proved the prosecution story, PW5, Dr. Navinkumar Varma proved the post mortem report and PW6 and PW7 were panch witnesses.
This act on the part of accused number.
All the accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The High Court did number approve the reasoning of the trial companyrt that there was numberintention of the accused to kill the deceased.
Sardarkha tried to companyvince him.
Accused No.1 assaulted Sardarkha by knife on his right rib and accused No.2 caught hold the neck of Sardarkha.
Appellant Narinder Singh proclaimed that they would teach Gurdev Singh a lesson as he had number vacated the office of Granthi of the Gurudwara as per their demand.
As per the prosecution story on 21.10.2010 at about 8 AM in the morning, the companyplainant was standing at Bazar Pati Chowk and his brother Sardarkha was standing at some distance.
They have stated that accused Nos.3 and 4 were present and they assaulted companyplainant by fist and blows.
Gurdev Singh after receiving the kirpan blow fell down The role assigned was that he grabbed Gurdev Singh by his arms while the second appellant stabbed Gurdev Singh with kirpan.
Therefore, accused number 1 Nasibkha and accused number 2 Asifkha are held to be guilty of homicidal death of deceased Sardarkha.
This Court heard the Special Leave Petition on 06.02.2015 and dismissed the Special Leave Petition qua petitioner No.1, i.e. Nasibkhan.
He grabbed Gurdev Singh by his arms while the second appellant Ravinder Singh alias Khanna took out a gatra kirpan, which he was wearing and stabbed Gurdev Singh with the gatra kirpan on the left side of his neck.
The doctor also numbered haematoma on right flank region around stab injury dark red in companyour.
This period was enough for their companyling in respect of the first incident, however, the prosecution evidence shows that after ten minutes, they, number only returned to the spot, but they returned with deadly knife with them.
The trial companyrt, vide its judgment dated 29.02.2012, after discussing the role of each of the accused came to the following companyclusion in Paragraph No.
If the evidence of prosecution witnesses in this regard is perused, P.W.1, 2 and 4, who are eye witnesses, categorically stated that accused No.2 caught hold the neck of Sardarkha and accused No.1 inflicted knife blow on right rib.
A First Information Report was lodged on the same day under Sections 302, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused, who were named in the FIR.
In Paragraph No.5, following has been stated He grabbed Gurdev Singh by his arms while the second appellant Ravinder Singh alias Khanna took out a gatra kirpan, which he was wearing and stabbed Gurdev Singh with the gatra kirpan on the left side of his neck.
Notice was issued in the Special Leave Petition insofar as petitioner No.2, i.e., Asif Khan is companycerned.
After companypletion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed under the aforesaid sections.
1 and 2 clearly establishes that with premeditation they returned to the spot.
The accused No.1 challenged Sardarkha to stop him from drawing water.
The criminal appeals filed by the accused were dismissed.
The High Court after companysidering the entire evidence on record came to following companyclusions in Paragraph No.23 and 30 After analytical survey of the prosecution case, there is numberdoubt in our mind that accused number 2 Asifkha caught hold neck of deceased Sardarkha and thereupon accused number 1 Nasibkha made a murderous assault by means of knife on deceased Sardarkha.
Immediately after the incidents, Sardarkha was taken to Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad by Jeep and companyplainant and others followed him in another jeep.
This fact clearly establishes that both the accused number.
His brother Sardarkha who was standing at some distance, intervened.
Further, from the evidence, it is clear that on reaching to the spot, they immediately caught deceased Sardarkha and gave knife blow as per the role ascribed to them by the prosecution witnesses.
39 There are four accused in the crime and as per the case of the prosecution, they shared companymon intention to companymit offence.
There were other formal witnesses, who deposed before the trial companyrt.
Both got down from their cycle.
They got up and intercepted Gurdev Singh and Hardip Singh.
1 and 2 were nursing grudge against the deceased, because at the first instance it was the deceased who rescued PW 1 Kalekha from the quarrel with them.
The accused Nos.
56, duly proved by Dr. Navinkumar Varma PW 5 .
Thereafter, the accused Nos.1 and 2, i.e., Nasibkha and Asifkha went to their house on motorcycle and immediately returned.
Accused were aggrieved by their companyviction under Section 304 Part II, the companyplainant and the State were aggrieved of acquittal of accused under Section 302 read with Section 34.
Both the parties were present in the Court of Executive Magistrate, Faridkot at the relevant time with regard to the proceedings under Sections 107/151 of the Code.
Around 12 oclock when they reached the metalled road near the field of one Gurmej Singh, resident of Jagatpur, they saw the appellants sitting near a tree.
When the appellant accused objected to the presence of a member of the opposite side, the scuffle started between the parties which resulted into death of two persons.
Criminal litigation was going on between these factions.
ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. These appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High Court dated 05.05.2014 dismissing the Criminal Appeals filed by the appellant and allowing the Criminal Appeals of the companyplainant as well as that of the State of Maharashtra.
