In cross examination also the witness has stuck to his statement that all the accused had assaulted the deceased, some of whom being ahead and others being behind them.
P.W. 2 Ghanshyam the son of the deceased candidly admitted thus I do number know how did Hari Chand receive the injuries.
The appellants were also companyvicted under Sections 147 and 323/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to six months and one month rigorous imprisonment respectively.
I admitted that Jabbar Singh and Ghanshyam had entered the field and both of them had lathis.
On March 22, 1966 Kartar Singh executed a registered sale deed of the lands companyprising Chak No.
I, the witness stated thus The accused persons made an attack on them as well.
74 companyprising 11 bighas which had been allotted to C. W. 2 Kartar Singh during the companysolidation of holdings proceedings.
P.W. 18 Jabbar Singh and C. W. 1 Khazan Singh.
The mere fact that Kartar Singh may have permitted Sher Singh or Jabbar Singh to realise the rent or to cultivate the land in his absence does number show that he had discontinued actual possession.
The finding of the learned Sessions Judge that numberspecific parts were assigned to the two appellants was based on an error of record, because, according to the evidence of the eye witnesses produced by the prosecution, it was clearly alleged that both these appellants, along with Kripa, had undoubtedly taken part in the assault on the deceased.
Three witnesses to which reference has been made by the Sessions Judge are P.W. 2 Ghanshyam, P.W. 9 Jai Singh and C. W. 1 Khazan.
It was further companytended by the defence that some of the accused were undoubtedly present at the spot and that Chari crop had number been uprooted, and the appellants having taken a sale deed from Kartar Singh and having been given possession of the land in dispute were ploughing the vacant portion of the land as it was the ploughing season.
The prosecution case is that the party of the accused entered the field with their ploughs and bullocks and started ploughing down the crops.
The unfortunate occurrence which resulted in the death of Sher Singh is the result of chronic land dispute between the parties for which the companyplainants party is entirely to blame.
The defence was that the accused Sumer Chand had been put in possession of the land in dispute and he was ploughing the land with his bullocks and had actually grown Chari crop.
Criminal Appeal No.
The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants Hari Chand and others and affirmed their companyvictions and sentences and allowed the appeal of the State by companyvicting Baljit and Sunehra as indicated above but maintained the acquittal of Kripa.
273 and 274 of 1971 arise out of the same trial and a companymon judgment given by the trial Court and the High Court.
He stated thus I was at my Chak on the day of occurrence.
Some of the other accused companytended that they were number present at the spot at all.
Sher Singh raised an alarm.
These two witnesses left on a cycle and lodged the First Information Report at police station Titavi at 9 A.M. The Investigating Officer P.W. 19 visited the spot soon thereafter, prepared an inquest report and after the usual investigation submitted charge sheet against all the accused on the basis of which the present trial started against the accused resulting in their companyviction.
They plied ?
Similarly P.W. 9 Jai Singh another eye witness stated thus Kripa, Sumer Chand, Hariya, Prakash, Sita Ram, Ranjit, Murli, Sarjit, Baljit and Sunehra accused assaulted Sher Singh with lathis.
The prosecution case, however, is that as the vendee was number able to take possession of the lands which were being cultivated by Sher Singh and Jabbar Singh, the appellants came variously armed on July 2, 1966 in order to dispossess Sher Singh and Jabbar Singh and to uproot the Chari crop which had been grown by them.
Kartar Singh who was the eldest son appears to be a person of a religious bent of mind and had become a Sadhu and was mostly absent from the village in companynection with the Pathshallas and other institutions established by him.
P.W. 9 Jai Singh, P.W. 16 Ram Singh.
The statement of C.W. 1 Khazan is also to the same effect.
The appellants who were companyvicted by the Sessions Judge went up in appeal to the High Court and the State filed an appeal to the High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge acquitting Kripa, Baljit and Sunehra.
The Sessions Judge, however, while companyvicting the other appellants acquitted Kripa, Baljit and Sunehra mainly on the ground that the prosecution evidence did number show that these three appellants had companymitted any overt act against the deceased.
The prosecution party wanted to forcibly dispossess the appellants which resulted in a mutual altercation in the companyrse of which the deceased received the injuries.
1 that as a result of the companysolidation proceedings separate Chaks were carved out and the fields were separated at the spot.
The evidence, however, shows that despite the absence of Kartar Singh he kept himself informed regarding cultivation of the land which, according to Kartar Singh, was done by battaidars and sometimes even by his brother Sher Singh.
I had also gone there.
P W. 18 Jabar Singh at page 59 of the Paper Book No.
lathis.
So far as the assault on his father was companycerned, the witness has companysistently deposed that all the accused participated in the assault.
Hari Chand, Murli, Prakash, Sitaram, Baljit, Sunehra, Sarjeet and Kripa accused assaulted Sher Singh with, lathis Thus it would appear that the three witnesses referred to by the learned Sessions Judge had clearly and categorically stated that Baljit, Sunehra and Kripa, just like the other appellants, did participate in the assault on the deceased.
251 of 1971 and Criminal Appeals Nos.
On hearing the alarm P.W. 2 Ghanshyam the son of the deceased and Jabbar Singh his brother rushed to the spot armed with lathis, but they were also beaten away.
Out of them Hari Chand, Sumer Chand, and one or two persons advanced towards us, and lathis were plied by both the sides.
Murtaza Fazl Ali, J. Criminal Appeal No.
251 of 1971 filed by Baljit and Sunehra appellants is an appeal under Section 2A of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970 against the judgment of the High Court dated October 21, 1970 which on reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge companyvicted the appellants under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.
The dispute arose with respect to Chak No.
Similarly P.W. 18 Jabbar Singh another brother of the deceased who is said to have been in cultivating possession of the land admits at page 58 of the Paper Book No.
Criminal Appeals Nos.
Before the occurrence, the relations between Kartar Singh and his brothers Sher Singh and Jabbar Singh appear to have been quite companydial.
In fact Dharam Singh the original owner of the entire properties divided his properties into three Khatas one in favour of Kartar Singh C. W. 2, the other in favour of Sher Singh the deceased and the third was kept by him for himself.
I admitted thus I and Ghanshyam advanced with lathis to save my brother.
Kha 13 made by Sumer Chand himself to the A. D. M. J This is directed against Sher Singh Jabar Singh and Ghanshyam and mentions that these persons were threatening him and declaring that he and his family members would be killed if they dared approach the land purchased by him.
W 1 Khazan at p. 70 of the Paper Book No.
The High Court rightly pointed out that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge were wrong and based on serious error of record.
I and my uncle had plied lathis as I have stated above I cannot tell as to who out of them, were engaged in lathi fight with us and who were assaulting my father.
Thus the following facts are established 1 that the land in dispute belonged to Kartar Singh who transferred the same to the appellant Sumer Chand and delivered possession of the land to him 2 that after taking physical possession of the land, the appellants started cultivating the land and grew Chari crops 3 that Sher Singh and Jabar Singh had unequivocally expressed their anger and resentment at the appellants taking possession of the land and had gone to the extent of threatening them 4 that the assault was number one sided but was a mutual Marpeet in which lathi blows were wielded by two of the prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Ghanshyam and P W. 18 Jabar Singh, and one of the accused Hari Chand was admittedly injured and 5 that the appellants who were Kahars were socially and educationally backward class of people companystitute a minority in the village.
273 and 274 of 1971 are appeals by special leave against the same judgment affirming the companyvictions of the appellants Sumer Chand, Hari Chand, Ranieet, Murli, Sarjeet, Prakash and Seeta Ram under Section 302/149, I.P.C. sentencing them to imprisonment for life and under Sections 147 and 323/149, I.P.C. to six months and one month rigorous imprisonment respectively.
The witness further admitted as follows I or my brother did number raise any objection at the time the land was transferred in the name of Kartar Singh.
74 in favour of Sumer Chand Kahar and delivered possession to the vendee in his presence.
When Sher Singh came to know about it he reached the spot and protested to the accused against their highhanded act which resulted in an altercation in the companyrse of which the deceased was assaulted by the appellants and sustained as many as 72 injuries.
Ghanshyam was hit by it on his hands while stopping the same.
P.W. 2 Ghanshyam clearly stated thus When we reached the spot, we saw that Sarjit, Ranjit, Baljit, Murli, Sumer Chand, Hari Chand, Prakash, Sita Ram, Kripa and Sunehra were assaulting my father in the chari field with lathis.
At another place, namely at page 34 of the Paper Book No.
