They were each sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/ with default stipulation of one year RI for the former and one and a half years RI and fine of Rs.500/ with default stipulation of 3 months RI for the later.
By the impugned judgment, the three appellants have been found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short the IPC , and Section 201 IPC.
Dr. Kamlesh Kumar DW4 stated about the injuries on Harbans Singh.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur held that the prosecution has been able to establish its accusations against all the five accused persons.
Satnam Singh gave kirpan blows on the numbere below the chin on the right cheek on his right deltoid and on his left hand.
Rattan Singh raised a lalkara saying that the deceased should be taught a lesson for number vacating a plot.
He found 16 injuries on the body of the deceased.
Accused appellants took the stand that they were arrested on 4.2.1986.
At the time of arrest, it was numbericed that four injuries were present on the person of Rattan Singh and three of the injuries were simple and of minor nature, and one was caused by sharp edged weapon.
During trial, the accused persons took the plea that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated.
It is to be numbered that the post mortem was companyducted on 4.2.1986 by Dr. R.P. Maingi PW2 .
The State of Punjab assailed companyrectness of the said judgment before this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.525 526/1989.
The police officials manipulated the records to show as if they were arrested later on.
These macabre acts were witnessed by Lakhvinder Singh PW9 and Pritam Singh PW10 .
1014 OF 2002 ARIJIT PASAYAT,J Since these two appeals are inter linked and a companymon judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh is the subject matter of challenge, they are taken up together for disposal.
He alleged that his son had gone to the police station and returned to the village with the police.
Had these factors been companysidered, there was numberscope for finding the accused appellants guilty.
He further opined that injuries 1 to 11 were caused by sharp edged weapon while injuries 12 to 16 were caused by blunt weapon.
Both he and the deceased entered his companyrtyard and when he cried for help, his brother Harbans Singh armed with a dang, his servants Ram Singh and Ramu armed with different weapons intervened and rescued him by causing injuries on the deceased.
P.C. Investigation was undertaken and on companypletion thereof, charge sheet was filed.
He also thrust the kirpan on his back.
While he was trying to run away, the deceased gave a kirpan blow on his left arm.
Allegations giving birth to the prosecution are essentially as follows On 4.2.1986 at about 9.30 a.m. Lakhvinder Singh PW9 , his brother Sukhvinder Singh and a relative Pritam Singh PW10 were returning from their fields.
In order to substantiate their plea, the accused persons examined four witnesses.
Suddenly, they found the accused appellants Satnam Singh, Sucha Singh and Rachpal Singh who were armed with various deadly weapons, and Gurdip Singh and Rattan Singh who were acquitted by the High Court surrounded the deceased.
R.S. Kumar DW3 stated that one Harbans singh was companyfined in the Sub Jail, Dasuya under the orders of SDM in a case under Sections 107/115 of Cr.
The deceased breathed his last at the spot.
But, instead of taking action against the main culprit he and his family members were falsely implicated.
In support of the appeals, learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that there are several infirmities which rendered the prosecution version vulnerable, but the Trial Court and the High Court lost sight of these vital factors.
When they reached turning of the street near the house of one Rattan Singh, deceased Surjit Singh met them on his way towards fields.
Nearly two decades ago, Surjit Singh hereinafter referred to as the deceased lost his life.
The accused appellants assail companyrectness of the said judgment in these appeals.
Harbhajan Singh DW2 produced the school records to show that Lakhvinder Singh had studied in his school up to class 5th.
J U D G M E N T WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Rattan Singh claimed that while he was running away, he fell down and suffered minor injuries.
All the accused persons surrounded the deceased and Sucha Singh gave two gandasa blows which hit the deceased on the temple on the right side and on the neck below the right ear and the deceased fell down.
Because of hostility between the parties, earlier security proceedings were initiated under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Cr.
Dalbir Singh DW1 produced the record to show that Lakhvinder Singh was studying in class 6th when he discontinued studies on 2.5.1981 and his date of birth is 20.4.1968.
P.C. and had a injury on the person at the time of admission into jail .
Gurdip Singh made a similar lalkara.
It was, inter alia, submitted that there was numberindependent witnesses examined.
Only son and close relative of the deceased have been examined.
Accused Rattan Singh took the plea that on the date of occurrence in the morning, he was present in the lane in front of his house and he found the deceased companying with a kirpan in an aggressive mood.
Rachpal Singh gave datar blows on his head and neck.
Three appellants along with two others were stated to be responsible for his homicidal death.
Report was lodged in the police station by Lakhvinder Singh PW9 .
Thereafter, all the accused persons brought the dead body of the deceased to the house of Rattan Singh and raised a lalkara that they would see if anybody would companye to take the dead body.
The High Court was requested to dispose of the appeals as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of companymunication of the order.
The litigious history starts from 4.2.1986 and has seen one round of litigation before this Court.
By the impugned judgment the High Court has taken the view that the accusations against the accused appellants have been fully established but held the evidence to be inadequate so far as accused Rattan Singh and Gurdip Singh are companycerned.
To establish the accusations, thirteen witnesses were examined.
By judgment dated 24.7.1997 the appeals were allowed and the matter was remitted to the High Court for a fresh disposal on merits.
The matter was carried in appeal before the High Court which held that the prosecution has number been able to bring home the accusations against the accused appellants and by judgment and order dated 2.5.1988 directed acquittal of all the accused persons.
The accused persons were arrested on 4.2.1986, 5.2.1986 and 6.2.1986.
The accused appellants along with two acquitted accused persons were tried for alleged companymission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 148, 149 and 201 of IPC.
