Ajaib Singh and Gurdev Singh another brother of Naib Singh took the three injured to Primary Health Centre, Goniana in a tractor trolley where Dr. P.C. Singal P.W.7 examined them and then sent a Rupa to Nahianwala Police Station.
The trial ended in companyvication of Harbans Singh under Section 302 I.P.C., Jagtar Singh under Sections 307 and 326 I.P.C., Makhan Singh under Section 324 I.P.C. and Bhura Singh under Section 323 I.P.C. tow companynts .
Assailing their companyvations they preferred and appeal before the High Court and the respondent State, in its turn filed an appeal against the acquittal of Bhura Singh, Jagtar Singh and Makhan Singh of the charge of murder.
In the companytext of the un impeachable and un impeached evidence adduced by the doctors to prove that Naib Singh met with a himicidal death and P.Ws.2 and 3 sustained grievous injuries caused by instruments for cutting, the crucial question that fell for determination before the learned Courts below was whether the accused persons were responsible for the above offences.
In that night, at or about 9.00 P.M., Nidharak Singh P.W.2 and his uncle Ajaib Singh brother of Naib Singh went to the house of Naib Singh, to enquire whether they had returned from the Mandi.
When Nidharak Singh and Ajaib Singh tried to separate them Jagtar Singh gave one Khapra blow to Naib Singh near his left ankle and Bhura Singh gave a kassauli blow to Naib Singh on his left thigh.
P.C. Were initiated against both of them.
Bhura Singh then gave him a kassauli blow and Harbans Singh a Gandasa blow on the left side of the head of Naib Singh, who also fell down.
When Ajaib Singh raised alarms the four accused persons ran away from the spot.
Hence this appeal.
On companypletion of investigation the Police submitted a charge sheet against the four accused persons and in due companyrse the case was companymitted to the Court of Session.
On receipt thereof A.S.I. Tarsem Chand P.W.5 came to the Health Centre and recorded the statement of Nidharak singh P.W.2 On that statement a case was registered and investigation taken up.
The motive ascribed for the assault was a dispute between the parties over a khal water companyrse for which proceedings under Section 107 Cr.
The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows In the morning of September 3, 1991 Naib Singh the deceased and his son Nachhattar Singh P.W.3 had gone to Jaitu Mandi for selling cattle.
In the meantime Naib Singh had been forwarede to P.G.I. Hospital at Chandigarh for better treatment where he succumbed to his injurles on 10.10.1991.
In support of their respective cases the prosecution examined ten witnesses of whom P.Ws.2 and 3 figured as eye witnesses and the defence two.
Then Makhan Singh gave a blow with a sale on his left ankle and another blow on his left thigh.
K.Mukherjee.
Jagtar Singh first gave a blow on the head of Nachhattar Singh with a khapra as a result of which he fell down.
Similar finding was recorded by the trial Court in companyvicting the other three accused persons including the appellant Jagtar Singh in the manner earlier stated for the assault on Nachhatar Singh and Nidharak Singh.
A little later, the four accused persons came there armed with deadly Weapons and started assaulting them.
One of the injured, namely, Nidharak Singh also filed a revision petition against the above acquittal.
The accused persons pleaded number guilty to the charges levelled against them and companytended that they had been falsely implicated.
Reaching there they found them standing outside their house.
On discussion of the evidence adduced by the parties and relying upon the evidence of the two injured the trial Court held that Harbans Singh alone was responsible for the murder of Naib Singh and the other accused persons did number share the companymon intention to companymit the murder, even though they also participated in the assault upon him.
J. Jagtar Singh and Harbans Singh, the appellants herein, along with their another brother Makhan Singh and father Bhura Singh were tried by an Additional Sessions Judge of Bhatinda for companymitting murder and other companynate offences in furtherance of their companymon Intention.
By a companymon judgment the High Court disposed of the appeals and the revision petition by upholding the companyvictions of the appellants as recorded by the trial Court, further companyvicting the appellant Jagtar Singh under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and Harbans Singh under Section 307/34 and 326/34 I.P.C. and acquitting the other tow accused persons.
