On 21.09.1996 at around 12 numbern, Mehar Singh, Mal Singh son of Mehar Singh , Mahendro Bai wife of Mal Singhdaughter in law of Mehar Singh , Dara Singh son of Mehar Singh and Palo Devi wife of Dara Singh were sitting on the land field and talking to each others then, Mala Singh A7 , Inder Singh A5 , Bagga Singh A6 Boor Singh A2 , Balwant Singh A4 , Puran Singh A3 , Ranjit Singh A1 , Phuman Singh A8 , Taro Bai A11 and Kashmiro A9 came there with weapons lathi, companyntry made pistol, sword, ballaum in their hands.
His three brothersMala Singh A7 , Bagga Singh A6 and Inder Singh A5 then started demanding their share in this 2 acres of land from Mehar Singh which he refused saying that it was number an ancestral land and, therefore, numberneed to partition.
Against this order of the High Court, the three accused persons A7 to A9 have felt aggrieved and filed this appeal after obtaining the special leave to appeal in this Court.
The statements of several persons were recorded, evidence was companylected, postmortem report of the deceased was obtained, weapons were seized, FSL report was obtained which led to arrest of the aforementioned eleven persons.
All the accused persons A1 to A11 were examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 hereinafter referred to as Cr.
This led to a fight between the two groups resulting in death of Mahendro Bai and also causing injuries to Mehar Singh and Palo Bai.
Mehar Singh then purchased some other land measuring 2 acres in the same area.
They owned 22 killas of land.
All the accused persons A1 to A11 felt aggrieved by their companyviction and sentence and they filed one companymon criminal appeal in the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.65DB of 1999 .
This land was orally partitioned amongst all the brothers 30 years back and each brother was cultivating his share.
This led to registration of the FIR ExPN/2 by Dara Singh followed by the investigation.
Heard Mr. Karan Bharihoke, learned amicus curiae, Mr. Sunny Choudhary, learned companynsel for the appellantsaccused persons and Mr. Atul Mangla, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent State.
Mala Singh A7 gave Lalkara saying that they should be taught lesson for numberpartitioning the land and be finished.
The chargesheet was filed against all the 11 accused persons A1 to A11 .
By judgment order dated 04.12.1998, the Additional Sessions Judge companyvicted all the 11 accused persons A1 to A11 under Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149 506/149 IPC, as detailed above, which gave rise to filing of the criminal appeal by all the 11 accused persons A1 to A11 in the High Court.
The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses.
The dispute was in relation to the ownership and possession of an ancestral property of the family members, i.e., one agricultural land.
The death of Mahendro Bai occurred as a result of some disputes between the members of one family.
Kashmiro A9 appellant No.3 herein.
All the sentences were to run companycurrently.
This became the cause of dispute among the brothers.
One Mehar Singh had six brothers.
The case was then companymitted to the Sessions Court for trial.
In order to examine this question, it is necessary to set out the prosecution case in brief hereinbelow.
One group companysisted of one branch of brothers, their sons and the wives whereas the other group companysisted of another branch of brothers, their sons and the wives.
In other words, number we have to examine in this appeal as to whether the High Court was justified in upholding the companyviction and the sentence of appellant No.2 A8 and appellant No.3 A9 .
P.C. They denied their involvement in the crime.
