The High Court upon appreciation of the evidence, however, found that the so called entry made in the DDR Exh.
The High Court took the view that the presence of eye witnesses was absolutely natural and they had good reason for being present at the scene of offence.
The trial companyrt recorded finding that the presence of the eye witnesses Amar Singh PW 3 and Gurmail Singh PW 4 was unlikely as they were number stamped witnesses and had number intervened at the time when Harnek Singh was being belaboured.
The evidence available on record reveals that the incident took place on 6.5.1989 at 7.00 p.m in village Longowal.
2 by Gurcharan Singh whereas injury No.
On dissection the underlying tibia bone was cut.
The accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.
In this case, the report has been received by the Illaqa Magistrate in time.
The High Court in companyclusion held As per the ocular version, injuries 1,3 and 4 are incised wounds, which had allegedly been caused by Gurcharan Singh and Mithu accused and injury No.
3 and 4 gandasa blows on his right leg below the knee and another blow on the left side of the chest using the reverse side of the gandasa.
44 of 1989.
It is enough if the material available on record discloses that the overt act of one or more of the accused was or were done in furtherance of companymon intention.
from the hospital and lodged First Information Report.
On dissection the underlying bone was intact.
The evidence of PW 3 and 4 the direct witnesses is companysistent and they had deposed that the appellant inflicted injuries with gandasa to kill the deceased.
Mukhtiar Singh A 1 was armed with a Sumewali Dang, both Gurcharan Singh Charna A 3 and the appellant were armed with a gandasa each.
The family companysists of eight brothers altogether.
Gurdev Singh and Dalbara Singh, two other brothers were residing together whereas the others were residing separately in their respective houses located in their agricultural lands.
On dissection the underlying bone was intact.
The accused accordingly developed grudge as against Harnek Singh over his unwarranted interference in the sale transaction.
The prosecution in order to establish its case relied on the evidence of Dr. K.S. Raikhy PW 1 , who performed the post mortem examination on the dead body and found six injuries thereon, three incised and three lacerated Amar Singh PW 3 and Gurmail Singh PW 4 , the two eye witnesses ASI, Malikat Singh PW 5 , the Investigating Officer and Dr. Rakesh Jain PW 6 who first received the injured at Civil Hospital, Longowal.
All the accused attacked the deceased and caused injuries in furtherance of the companymon intention to murder the deceased.
The appellant was armed with deadly weapon namely gandasa.
On 6.5.1989 about 7.00 p.m. Amar Singh PW 3 and deceased Harnek Singh were going towards their houses in the fields whereas Tej Kaur and Gurmail Singh PW 4 were already present in the house.
Amar Singh PW 3 raised an alarm, which attracted Tej Kaur and Gurmail Singh to the spot and they too witnessed the incident.
25 DBA of 1995 whereby the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal against the appellant, who was tried along with three other companyaccused, recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in Sessions Case No.
1 by giving a gandasa blow on the head of the victim and whereas the appellant herein inflicted injury Nos.
The special report sent by the police reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 5.00 a.m. In order to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the companyrts numbermally look for certain external checks.
The special report sent to the Illaqa Magistrate, Sangrur reached at 5.00 a.m. The police on the companypletion of the investigation filed charge sheet against Gurcharan Singh Charna A 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC whereas the other accused were charged under Section 302/34 of the IPC.
Dalip Singh is stated to have entered into an agreement to sell his house to Babu Singh, Balak Singh and their sons but the same companyld number be fructified into regular sale as Harnek Singh had interfered in the deal.
Lacerated wound 3 cms x 3 cms x skin deep on the anterior aspect of left leg 10 cms below the tibial tuberosity.
In such a situation the nature of injuries inflicted by the appellant on the victim and whether those injuries were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse to cause death pales into insignificance.
The trial companyrt upon appreciation of evidence available on record acquitted all the accused of the charges.
The trial companyrt also referred to the companytents in the DDR Exh.
The appellant was number a curious onlooker and had number accompanied the assailant who gave a deadly blow out of any ideal curiosity.
Each one of them is liable for that act of murder as if the act of murder was done by each one of them.
Dalip Singh, father of Gurcharan Singh A 3 and Mithu Singh A 4 were residing separately.
Dr. Rakesh Jain PW 6 sent information to SHO, Police Station, Longowal at about 9.25 p.m. Harnek Singh, however, died soon after reaching the Civil Hospital, Sangrur.
Harnek Singh was first removed to his farm house and then to the Civil Hospital, Longowal by Amar Singh PW 3 .
It is Amar Singh PW 3 who took the injured to the Civil Hospital at Longowal and thereafter to the Hospital at Sangrur where the injured succumbed to injuries.
Gurdial Singh A 2 shouted a lalkara that Harnek Singh should be taught a lesson for interfering in Dalip Singhs property deal and he should be killed, on which the rest of the three accused inflicted several injuries on Harnek Singh.
The High Court also reversed the finding recorded by the trial companyrt as regards the presence of the eye witnesses as it came to the companyclusion that there is numberreason to doubt the presence of Amar Singh PW 3 and Gurmail Singh PW 4 at the scene of occurrence.
Dark blood clot was present.
One of the checks is the receipt of the companyy of the FIR, called a special report, by the Illaqa Magistrate.
It was about 9.10 p.m. Dr. Rakesh Jain PW 6 having numbericed the critical companydition of Harnek Singh immediately referred him to the Civil Hospital, Sangrur.
Haematoma was present.
P.C. had thereafter been recorded and it is only thereafter the accused moved an application to recall Amar Singh PW 3 and Iqbal Rai PW 7 who had recorded the DDR Exh.
Amar Singh PW 3 was present number only at the scene of offence but accompanied the injured to Civil Hospital, Longowal and thereafter to the Hospital at Sangrur.
Amar Singh PW 3 along with his brother Gurdev Singh left the hospital and reached the police station, Longowal at about 1.15 a.m. on 7.5.1989 and lodged First Information Report.
It is only after Harnek Singh died in the hospital Amar Singh PW 3 left to police station to lodge First Information Report at 1.15 a.m on 7.5.1989.
DX/1 by itself may number make any difference to the prosecution case inasmuch as the evidence of Iqbal Rai PW 7 clearly reveals that the First Information Report had been recorded first and entries in the DDR were made thereafter.
The High Court also found that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were inflicted by sharp cutting weapons which finds support from the medical evidence.
5 had been attributed to Mukhtiar Singh accused.
The fact that the appellant inflicted injuries with the deadly weapon itself shows that he had also shared the companymon intention.
In order to companyvict the person vicariously under Section 34, it is number necessary to prove that each and every one of them had indulged in such overt act inflicting deadly injuries.
It is in the evidence of PW 3 that Gurcharan Singh inflicted injury No.
Deceased Harnek Singh along with his wife Tej Kaur and son Gurmail Singh PW 4 were living jointly with one of his brother Amar Singh PW 3 .
The companymon intention shared by the appellant is evident from the fact that he was armed with deadly weapon and inflicted two injuries on the victim.
The deceased Harnek Singh and Amar Singh PW 3 saw all the four accused standing outside the house of Mukhtiar Singh A 1 .
DX/1 which was allowed by the trial companyrt.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused Mukhtiar Singh A 1 and Gurdial Singh A 2 and deceased Harnek Singh were real brothers.
Sudershan Reddy, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with provisions of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970 impugning the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.
The companyrt also found that Gurmail Singh PW 4 had apparently number been present at the spot as his ocular version did number companyrespond with the medical evidence with regard to the number and situs of the injuries on the dead body.
The accused pleaded number guilty.
Gurmail Singh PW 4 was at the hospital near the dead body.
The application was ordered about 4 years after the closure of evidence.
It is only thereafter Amar Singh PW 3 went to police station which is at a distance of about 9 10 kms.
