That Mohinder Singh died as a result of injuries sustained by him, as testified by Dr. Pratap Singh P.W.1 and Dr. Ajaib Singh P.W.4 , admits of numberdoubt.
After an elaborate discussion of the evidence the Special Court accepted the case of the prosecution in preference to that of the defence, and, passed the impugned order of companyviction and sentence.
Incised wound 1 x 1/4 x muscle deep on the back of the upper part of the right chest 2 from shoulder joint.
Later, in the night, P.W.1 examined Rachhpal Singh and found the following injuries on his person A bleeding incised wound 1 x 1/16 x bone deep on the midline of the head.
In cross examination he stated that there were measurement books to show that Kala Singh and others worked as masons and the volume of work they did on a particular day.
Then they started demolishing the water channel and, when Kala Singh and his men objected, Mohinder Singh gave a gandasa blow to Rachhpal Singh.
Abraded companytusion 3 x 1 1/2 on the posterior lateral surface of middle of right thigh.
Reddish companytusion with swelling 3 x 2 on the back of the right wrist joint.
The next witness was Kala Singh D.W.3 who gave the defence version of the incident as detailed earlier.
Shabeg Singh stated that on the day of the incident he, accompanied by Bagicha Singh P.W 7 and Mohinder singh deceased , had gone to the field to see the outlet, when Dalip Singh armed with gandasa, shabeg singh with takwa, Gurdev Singh Baldev Singh with Kassia Arjan Singh and Manjit Singh with dags and Rachhpal Singh with takwa came there from the side of their fields.
W.1 also examined Shabeg Singh P.W.6 who had the following injuries on his person A bleeding incised wound 1 1/4 x 1/6 x bone deep on the left side of the head, bleeding on examination, Reddish companytusion with swelling 2 x 1 on the back and upper third of the left forearm.
Arjan Singh then gave two dang blows on his left arm.
A suggestion by the defence that there was numberoutlet and that they wanted to have an outlet forcibly was denied by him.
As the doctor opined that Mohinder Singh was unfit to make any statement he P.W.8 recorded the statement of Shabeg Singh Ex.
Abraded companytusion 3 x 1 1/2 over posterior surface on middle of the left thigh.
Dalip Singh gave out that they would number permit the flow of water from the outlet.
Reddish companytusion 1 x 1 on the back and lower part of the left forearm.
The trial ended in companyviction of the appellant under Sections 148 and 302 IPC and of the others under Sections 148, 323 and 324 IPC.
On getting information from the Hospital about admission of Mohinder Singh, A.S.I. Iqbal Singh P.W.8 , of Ghal Khurd Police Station went there and enquired about the fitness of Mohinder Singh to make a statement.
The accused pleaded number guilty to the charges levelled against them and their version of the incident was that in the morning of the fateful day when Kala Singh D.W.3 Jusbir Singh and Balkar Singh were Constructing a water channel beyond the field of Mohinder Singh and others in terms of an agreement with Tubewell Corporations Mohinder Singh, Shabeg Singh P.W.6 and Bagicha Singh P.W.7 came there armed with deadly weapons.
Earlier Mohinder Singh was referred to and admitted in Frances Newton Hospital, Ferozepur, where he succumbed to his injuries an February 17, 1984.
Reddish companytusion 3 x 1 on the left lateral surface of the chest.
Aggrieved thereby, only the appellant has moved this Court by filing this statutory appeal.
p. 12 .
To prove its version of the incident the prosecution relied upon the testimonies af Shabeg Singh P.W.6 and Bagicha Singh P.W 7 .
The suggestion that the outlet of Karnail Singh was a a distance of 300 yards was denied by him.
On the person of Mohinder Singh he found incised wound 7 1/2 x 1/6 x bone deep with profuse bleeding on the left side of his forehead with brain matter companying out of the wound in its middle 3 1/2 where the bone was cut through and through.
A suggestion by the defence that Balkar Singh, Kala Singh D.W.3 and Jasbir Singh were companystructing a channel on that day was refuted.
The three injured were then taken to the local primary Health centre where Dr. Pratap Singh P.W 1 examined them.
He, however, admitted that he companyld number give the date when they started the work.
To defend themselves when the companyplainant party assaulted Rachhpal Singh, the accused persons left the place.
When Bagicha singh W.7 tried to intervene, Shabeg Singh gave a takwa blow on his head.
Manjit Singh the gave a dang blow on him and when Shabeg Singh P.W 6 tried to intervene Baldev Singh Gurdev Sing gave a Kassia blow on his head.
While Mohinder Singh had a gandasa with him, the other two had a takwa and a kasouli respectively.
When Mohinder Singh retorted to his such threat, dalip singh gave two blows on the head of Mohinder Singh with a gandasa as a result of which he fell down.
On its basis formal F.I.R Ex.
He also denied that masons were working there.
P 12/B was drawn up and a case registered.
The testimony of Bagicha Singh P.W.7 is on similar lines.
The last witness examined by the defence was Yash Pal W.7 .
Dalip Singh raised lalkara that they would number permit the flow of the water from the outlet.
Rachhpal Singh then gave a takwa blow on his back and Manjit Singh a dang blow on his right arm.
Coming number to the defence witnesses, we find that Swaran Singh D.W.1 and K.S. Kailey D.W.5 , Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police respectively of Ferozepur were examined to testify that they had perused the case diary prepared by the Investigating officer and interrogated some of the accused and other persons.
In answer to another question he stated that Mohinder Singh was empty handed.
When Mohinder Singh retorted Dalip Singh gave two gandasa blows to mohinder Singh who fell down.
a The case of the prosecution is that in the morning of February 13,1984 Shabeg Singh P.W.6 , Bagicha Singh W.7 and Mohinder Singh the deceased went to their field to see the water outlet when the six accused arrived there armed with various weapons.
In cross examination he admitted that he did number make any companyplaint about the demolition of the channel by Mohinder Singh, Shabeg Singh and Bagicha Singh that there was numberdocument to show that they had obtained the companytract and that he did number lodge any companyplaint with the police regarding the incident.
Indeed, homicidal death of Mohinder Singh and sustaining of injuries by Shabeg Singh P.W.6 Bagicha Singh P.W.6 and accused Rachhpal Singh in companyrse of the incident were number challenged by the defence.
When cross examined he P.W 6 stated that they had purchased the land from Karnail Singh which had an outlet in it and that the same was near the place where Mohinder singh Was injured.
He next examined Bagicha Singh and found the following injuries A bleeding incised wound 2 x 1/6 x bone deep on the right side of the head.
He prepared sealed parcels in respect of those articles and sent them to Forensic Science Laboratory F.S.L. for examination.
His testimony is that big tender for companystruction of pucca khal channel in village Kailas was sanctioned in his name and he had deputed Kala Singh Balkar Singh and Jagbir Singh to companyplete the same.
When Shabeg Singh P.W.6 raised an alarm, Baldev Singh gave a kassia blow on his head and Arjan singh two dang blows on his left arm.
Avtar Singh D.W.4 , a Junior Engineer of the Tubewell Corporation claimed that the was in charge of outlet RB 25000 R of Golewal in the district of Faridkot.
He prepared a rough site plan and companylected some blood stained earth and wheat plants from the spot.
P. 18 that the earth and the wheat plants were stained with human blood and after companypletion of investigation Police submitted charge sheet against the six accused.
According to the defence accused Dalip Singh appellant , Arjan Singh and Shabeg Singh were number even present there.
Consequent upon death of Mohinder Singh on February 17, 1984, ASI Iqbal Singh, P.W.8 prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem examination which was held by Dr. Ajaib Singh Mann P.W.4 , Emergency Medical Officers Civil Hospitals Ferozepur, on February 18, 1984.
In cross examination he stated that three sons of Dalip Singh stood arrayed as accused that accused Arjan Singh was brother of Dalip Singh that they wanted the outlet from the place of occurrence and that Karnail Singh used to take the turn of water from that very outlet which stood fixed under, the orders of the Divisional Canal Officer.
To defend himself Rachhpal Singh then gave a kasouli blow to Mohinder Singh.
Bagicha Singh P.W.7 then tried to intervene and both Shabeg Singh and Rachhpal Singh gave takwa blows on him with their takwas.
He further testified that on the Sankranti days Kala Singh, Jasbir Singh and Balkar Singh companytacted his and told that there had been quarrel and the channel demolished.
On their such exercise they found that three of the accused, namely Dalip Singh appellant , Shabeg Singh and Arjan Singh were innocent.
Kirpal Singh, a Patwari af Canal Department, was examined as D.W.2 to prove that a water channel was under companystruction across the site of the incident on the day in question.
P12 at 2.30 P.M. and sent it to the police station for registration of a case.
They were then taken to the hospital at Fazilka where they were medically examined and there police recorded his statement Ext.
At that stage, they P.Ws.6 and 7 assaulted the accused to save themselves.
On receipt of the report of the Serologist Ext.
MUKHERJEE, J. Dalip Singh the appellant before us and five others, namely Arjan Singh Shabeg Singh Manjit Singh Rachhpal Singh and Gurdev Singh were tried by the Special Court, Ferozepur for rioting, murder and other related offences.
S.I. Harbhajan Singh W.9 took up investigation and went to the spot.
Reaching there they gave out that an outlet should be kept for their field before any other companystruction was made to which Kala Singh replied that he companyld nut oblige them unless directed by their overseer.
ln support of their respective cases the prosecution examined nine witnesses and the defense seven.
