The prosecution has mainly based its case on the eye witnesses account of the incident deposed by Harvinder Kaur PW 1 , Jasvinder Kaur PW 2 , Jaspal Singh PW 9 and Pritam Singh PW 10 , the injured witnesses.
When they tried to intervene and rescue the members of the companyplainant party, Mohinder Singh and Nasib Singh fired shots at them hitting the right flank of Madan Singh and left leg of Pritam Singh.
When the companyplainant PW 1 ran towards her husband to save him, Nasib Singh A 3 fired a shot from his double barrel 12 bore gun, which hit her on the ankle of left foot.
Mohinder Singh accused fired with the gun from a distance of 7 8 karams at Harbans Singh.
An alarm was raised which attracted Gurbans Singh and Mander Singh sons of Gurdev Singh, Pritam Singh and Gurmit Singh sons of Bhag Singh, Madan Singh son of Avtar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh son of Mehar Singh, residents of Sakkanwali Village.
Then Naginder Singh, Beant Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Nirbhai Singh with their respective weapons caused injuries to Mander Singh, Gurbans Singh, Gurmit Singh and Mukhtiar Singh.
Mohinder Singh and Nasib Singh were armed with licensed 12 bore guns, Naginder Singh with dang, Sukhdev Singh with Kassia, Beant Singh with Kirpan, Nirbhai Singh with Kassruli.
Mohinder Singh A 1 raised lalkara that the companyplainant party be taught a lesson for grabbing and making addition of the land of the accused with that of the land of the companyplainant party.
She specifically stated that Nasib Singh fired from his 12 bore gun towards her which hit her on her right leg above the ankle and the pellets hit her on abdomen and Nirbhai Singh gave kassruli blows on her left foot.
On 23rd February, 1996, Dr. Tarlochan Singh PW 15 examined Harvinder Kaur PW 1 , Gurmit Singh, Pritam Singh, Jasvinder Kaur PW 2 and Mander Singh.
Nirbhai Singh A 4 and Beant Singh A 2 were also examined by Dr. APS Kochar DW 1 who had found some injuries on the person of A 4 and A 2.
On hearing numberse Mander Singh, Gurbans Singh, Gurmit Singh, Pritam Sikngh, Madan Singh and Mukhtiar Singh came to the spot to rescue them from the accused.
The accused persons came carrying guns with them.
The injuries were caused by a blunt weapon.
Thereafter, Gurmit Singh arranged for the vehicle and took the injured to the Civil Hospital, Muktsar.
Thus, we are companysidering the appeal as regards Beant Singh, Nirbhai Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Naginder Singh.
Nasib Singh and Mohinder Singh had fired from 7 8 karams at Madan Singh and Pritam Singh.
Nasib Singh was at a distance of 7 8 karams from Jasvinder Kaur when he fired.
Similarly, Sukhdev Singh, Beant Singh and Nirbhai Singh caused injuries to Mander Singh, Gurbans Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Gurmit Singh.
The failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries found on the accused would mean that the evidence led by the prosecution relating to the incident is number true or at any rate is number wholly true and thus reliance companyld number have been placed on that evidence to companyvict the accused persons.
Mohinder Singh raised a lalkara that they would teach us a lesson for adding their land with our land.
On perusal of the site plan, it is clear that the place of occurrence is of very small in dimension.
Injury No.1 was caused by a sharp weapon and rest of the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon.
The evidence led by the defence at best shows minor injuries suffered by Beant Singh and Nirbhai Singh which would number dislodge the prosecution case, which is established by the evidence of creditworthy witnesses and number explanation of the injuries by the prosecution, if any, sustained by the accused appellants would number result in disbelieving the prosecution version.
However, Harbans Singh succumbed to his injuries on his way to the hospital.
Nasib Singh, Gurmail Singh and Angrez Singh intervened to save Nirbhai Singh and Beant Singh.
After causing the aforesaid injuries, all the accused ran away with their respective weapons.
Appellants Mohinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Naginder Singh had taken the plea of alibi stating that on the date of occurrence they along with Bachittar Singh and Harmanjit Singh had gone to the village Jharriwala to see a match for the grand daughter of Naginder Singh and had returned late in the night.
Nirbhai Singh accused caused injuires to Jasvinder Kaur with kassruli.
From the appellants side, six persons entered the said plot.
The distance between the assailants and the injured, as per the prosecution witnesses was 7 8 karams, whereas according to the medical evidence the shots fired were number from more than a distance of 4 ft.
At the same time Naginder Singh A 6 gave dang blows to Jaspal Singh and Nasib Singh again fired shot on the right leg of Jasvinder Kaur.
Dr. M.G. Sharma PW 3 had examined Mukhtiar Singh and Jaspal Singh.
The other accused appellant Nasib Singh has been informed to have died, by the companynsel for the appellant and as such his appeal stands abated.
To prove the case, the prosecution has examined four eye witnesses.
Jaspal Singh PW 9 is another injured eye witness examined by the prosecution who had described the incident and the participation of the accused persons in the incident as described by PW 1 and PW 2.
from the muzzle end of the gun.
Injury Nos.
1 and 2 were simple and after getting X Ray examination report injury No.3 was found to be grievous in nature.
It was further asserted that in the meanwhile, some other persons companylected there and Nasib Singh in self defence of his property and person fired shots which hit the companyplainants side.
Five persons from the companyplainants side including the deceased were present on the plot, whereas the other five persons, who had received injuries, had also reached the spot after hearing the companymotion.
Injury No.2 companyld be caused if the nail struck at a hard surface.
In her opinion, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to pericardium and heart, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
The special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 5.00 A.M. on 24th February, 1996.
Thus, in all 16 persons were present at the time of incident and in such a situation it would number be possible for the witnesses to make the companyrect assessment of the distance, from where the shots were fired and in these circumstances the gun fires and the resultant injuries thereof, witnessed by the witnesses present and injured, cannot be disbelieved.
At the instance of the accused Mohinder Singh and Nasib Singh, licensed guns were recovered from their possession.
Kochar, District B. Officer, Civil Surgeon Office, Faridkot.
Naginder Singh accused gave dang blows to Jaspal Singh by hitting him but she companyld number tell the place of injuries on the person of Jaspal Singh.
At that time Mohinder Singh fired from his gun hitting on the right flank of Madan Singh and left leg of Pritam Singh.
The post mortem of the deceased Harbans Singh was companyducted by Dr. Kirandeep PW 4 and she had found fire arm injuries on the person of the deceased.
In the case of Lakshmi Singh and Ors.
As such they were number present on the date at the place of occurrence and had been falsely implicated by the companyplainant side.
All the four injured witnesses examined have categorically stated in one voice that Mohinder Singh along with Nasib Singh armed with licensed guns came and fired at Harbans Singh, the deceased.
Harvinder Kaur PW 1 , w o Harbans Singh deceased has deposed that on the relevant day, her husband and Jaspal Singh were present at the place of incident where they were preparing company dung cakes.
Mohinder Singh fired another shot which hit her husband on his right thigh while lying on the ground.
Further, Jasvinder Kaur PW 2 , another injured eye witness, fully supports the version given by PW 1 of the incident.
Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal by special leave is preferred before us.
The inquest report of the dead body of Harbans Singh was prepared in the presence of Jaspal Singh and Mander Singh.
After the investigation the accused persons were arrested and prosecuted.
Injury No.3 on the person of Nirbhai Singh companyld be caused by falling on the hard surface.
Nasib Singh then fired from his 12 bore gun hitting Jasvinder Kaur on her right leg above her right ankle on the front side.
The remaining injured were got admitted to the Civil Hospital at Muktsar.
There was a dispute on the demarcation of the Shamlat land.
Nirbhai Singh and Beant Singh came to know that Harbans Singh deceased , Jaspal Singh PW 9 , Gurdev Singh, Mander Singh armed with gandasas along with some other persons were placing company dung cakes in their plot land to take forceful possession of the land and when Nirbhai Singh and Beant Singh went to the spot to make enquiries, the aforesaid persons attacked them and caused injuries.
On X Ray examination report, injury Nos.
Injury No.1 on the person of Nirbhai Singh companyld be caused with the blade of a razor.
It may be mentioned that the accused appellant Mohinder Singh has been released by the State companysidering his age and his appeal is number being pressed by the companynsel for the appellant.
From the evidence of DW 1 , it is apparent that the injuries were simple in nature and the grievous nature of injury companyld number be proved by the doctor by producing the X Rays and skiagraph, on the basis of which he had formed the opinion of the grievous nature of the injury on Beant Singh as well as on Nirbhai Singh.
As per the First Information Report lodged by Harvinder Kaur at 10.30 P.M. on 23rd February, 1996, the prosecution story unfolded is, that on 23rd February 1996 at about 5.30 P.M., the companyplainant Harvinder Kaur PW 1 along with Jasvinder Kaur PW 2 , wife of Jaspal Singh, were making company dung cakes in the Shalmat land.
The Shamlat land has number been demarcated number a particular portion of the land was in exclusive possession of either the appellants or the companyplainant party.
Mohinder Singh accused fired from his 12 bore gun towards her husband Harbans Singh which hit him on the left side of his chest.
Harbans Singh after providing fodder to the cattle was talking to Jaspal Singh.
1 and 2 were also found as simple in nature and injury No.3 was grievous in nature.
She ran towards her husband and Nasib Singh fired at her by his gun which hit her on her left ankle.
Then Mohinder Singh fired shot from his licensed gun at Harbans Singh, which hit him on the left side of the chest.
Gurmail Singh and Angrez Singh caused injuries to the companyplainants side.
Aggrieved by the order of companyviction and sentence an appeal was preferred in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
In the meantime, Mohinder Singh A 1 and Nasib Singh A 3 , armed with licensed 12 bore double barrel guns, Naginder Singh A 6 armed with dang, Sukhdev Singh A 5 armed with kassia, Beant Singh A 2 armed with kirpan and Nirbhai Singh A 4 armed with kassruli came to the spot.
On the same day at 11.00 P.M., he examined Nirbhai Singh and found three injuries on his person.
They raised alarm.
Injury on the person of Beant Singh companyld possibly be caused as a result of falling on the hard surface.
Injury No.4 was declared as simple.
She saw the accused appellants proceeding towards the shamlat land.
Some portion of this land is claimed by the accused appellants and some of the land was being claimed by Harbans Singh, the deceased.
The doctors found the injuries on the person of the persons examined by them.
As per the High Court, there was numberdiscrepancy in the medical evidence and the eye witnesses account for the injuries caused by the use of firearm.
She has further stated in cross examination that she was present at the spot 25 30 minutes prior to the occurrence and she had seen the accused at a distance of 7 8 karams.
Similarly X Ray report and skiagraph report were number on the judicial file.
The doctor stated that he had examined Beant Singh at 10.30 P.M. on 23rd February, 1996 at Faridkot and found four injuries on his person.
It is companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellants that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries caused to Nirbhai Singh A 4 and Beant Singh A 2 and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the genesis of offence.
The other appellants while admitting the incident asserted that Harvinder Kaur had given wrong version of the facts, in fact, Nasib Singh was present at his house.
The other accused were also with them and they came together.
To prove the fact that Beant Singh and Nirbhai Singh have received injuries, the defence has examined Dr. APS.
On cross examination, it was admitted by him that he attached numberX Ray report on his record.
After appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial companyrt companyvicted all the accused persons as under i Mohinder Singh Beant Singh Nasib Singh Nirbhai Singh Sukhdev Singh Naginder Singh U s 148 of the P.C. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, each.
The deceased Harbans Singh was the neighbour of the appellants.
P. NAOLEKAR, J. The accused appellants belong to Sakkanwali Village, Police Station Sadar Muktsar, District Muktsar, Punjab.
However, the period of detention already undergone by the accused companyvicts during investigation or trial was directed to be deducted from the period of their substantive sentences.
