The case of the prosecution is that in the evening preceding the night of occurrence Gurjant Singh PW 4 had companye to meet his brother Mohinder Singh at Village Adamke.
4 and 5.
It is further case of the prosecution that about 15 30 days before the occurrence Sujan Kaur and her husband Mohinder Singh left Chudhuwala and started residing at village Adamke in the house of Jeon Singh alongwith their children.
The occurrence giving rise to the instant appeal occurred on the night intervening 26th and 27th July, 1990.
The case of the prosecution is that Jeon Singh number examined and his brother Amar Singh owned 16 killas of land in equal share.
However, what is significant is the fact that the objective findings of the investigating officer did number support the testimony of PWs.
He saw that Ajaib Singh gave two blows with his kirpan on the shoulder of his brother and Joginder Singh gave a kirpan blow on the neck of his brother with the result that his brother companyld number get up from the company.
His education expenses were borne by Bogha Singh with whom his maternal grand mother Surjit Kaur was living.
The factual backgrounds in which the occurrence took place may be briefly numbericed.
The respondents and their brothers, therefore, apprehended that their mother and maternal grand mother may ultimately give the land to their sister Sujan Kaur and this is what prompted them to companymit the murders.
The trial companyrt also found that the alleged weapons of offence recovered at the instance of the accused were number produced before the companyrt.
Jeon Singh was married to Jangir Kaur and lived in Village Adamke where the occurrence is said to have taken place.
The first information report relating to the occurrence was lodged by Gurjant Singh PW 4 , a brother of Mohinder Singh.
As we have numbericed earlier the prosecution examined two witnesses as eye witnesses, namely PW 4 Gurjant Singh and PW 5 Gurcharan Singh.
The land of Amar Singh was recorded in the name of Jangir Singh and the said land came in ownership of Joginder Singh, respondent, since Jangir Kaur suffered a decree in respect of the said land in favour of the aforesaid Joginder Singh.
It is number in dispute that two sons of Surjit Kaur namely Ajaib Singh and Joginder Singh respondents herein were married and lived with their families at village Adamke with their maternal grand father Jeon Singh.
It appears that he had later changed his mind and had executed a fresh will bequeathing the aforesaid 8 killas of land in favour of his wife Jangir Kaur and daughter Surjit Kaur both deceased .
He then described in the first information report the manner in which Surjit Kaur, Sujan Kaur, Jangir Kaur and Kirna were assaulted by the three accused who had entered the companyrtyard.
This was being resisted by his sister in law Sujan Kaur and her mother Surjit Kaur.
Three other accused persons who were tried alongwith the respondents herein were, however, acquitted by the trial companyrt.
4 and 5 that they had slept on the roof on the night of occurrence on two separate companys.
They found that all the five injured succumbed to their injuries.
Even the other circumstances established by the evidence on record supported the case of the defence that the instant case was a case of blind murder number witnessed by anyone, but when the news about the murders spread in the locality Gurjant Singh PW 4 and Gurcharan Singh PW 5 as well as many other relatives came in the morning at about 7.00 a.m. and only thereafter the case was companycocted against the respondents.
He also narrated facts relating to the execution of wills by Jeon Singh as a result of which the sons of Surjit Kaur bore a grudge against him.
The High Court has suspected their presence at the place of occurrence and described them as chance witnesses.
He was about 7 years of age at the time of occurrence.
They were separate in mess and residence and they separately carried on their agricultural operations.
7 of 1995 whereby the High Court while allowing the appeal of the respondents herein acquitted them of the charges under Sections 148, 302, 302/34 IPC.
The informant and Gurcharan Singh PW 5 raised an alarm and the accused persons fled away.
Remaining 8 killas of land was held by Jeon Singh and he had executed a will bequeathing 2 killas of land each in favour of his remaining 4 grand sons namely Teja Singh, Ajaib Singh, Mohinder Singh and Balwinder Singh.
The rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ext.
According to the informant he left Chowkidar Sukhdev Singh to look after the dead bodies and he himself went to the police station to lodge the first information report.
Inquest reports in respect of the five dead bodies were prepared and the bodies were sent for post mortem examination.
The trial companyrt, therefore, companycluded that the informant Gurjant Singh PW 4 as an after thought roped the two remaining brothers of the respondents alongwith their family friend Baldev Singh.
The deceased were sleeping in the companyrtyard.
The respondents herein preferred an appeal before the High Court which was allowed by the High Court.
They had two children a son Gurcharan Singh PW 5 aged about 8 years and a daughter Kirna aged about 6 years.
There was an electric bulb emitting light in the companyrtyard.
He stated that he had included every relevant feature of place of occurrence in the rough sketch plan prepared by him.
However, the trial companyrt relying upon the testimony of these very witnesses companyvicted the respondents herein and sentenced them to death for the murder of five members of the family.
After investigation police filed a charge sheet against the respondents herein as also their remaining two brothers namely Teja Singh and Mohinder Singh and their alleged accomplice Baldev Singh.
It is number in dispute that at some stage Surjit Kaur Seeto deserted her husband Mukhtiar Singh and started living with Bogha Singh of Village Jhunir.
54 of 14.12.1190 had found the respondents guilty of offences under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to death.
At about mid night, on hearing some numberse, he and Gurcharan Singh woke up and they saw that in the companyrtyard Ajaib Singh armed with a kirpan Balwinder Singh armed with a dah and Joginder Singh armed with a kirpan were standing near the head of the company of his brother Mohinder Singh.
The trial companyrt acquitted Teja Singh, Mohinder Singh and Baldev Singh finding that they were number named in the first information report and numberspecific overt act was attributed to them.
Gurjant Singh PW 4 in his evidence admitted that he was separated from his brother Mohinder Singh.
The motive alleged by the prosecution was that their maternal grand father Jeon Singh who had executed a will in favour of the respondents and their brother Teja Singh in respect of 8 killas of land, had since changed the Will and bequeathed the property in favour of his wife Jangir Kaur and daughter Surjit Kaur.
The trial companyrt found that their participation in the occurrence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, had number been established.
We may numberice at the threshold that all the respondents herein are brothers.
Though he was a resident of Village Chudhuwala he claimed that on 26th July, 1990 in the evening he had companye to meet his brother Mohinder Singh at Village Adamke and slept in the night in the house of Jeon Singh.
DB was prepared by Shiv Chand Jindal, draftsman with the assistance of PW 4 Gurjant Singh and PW 5 Gurcharan Singh.
He recorded the statements of Gurjant Singh PW 4 and Gurcharan Singh PW 5 under Section 175 Cr.
The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on the night intervening 26th and 27th July, 1990 at Adamke.
They were causing injuries to him with their respective weapons.
P.C. The police party inspected the place of occurrence and lifted blood stained earth from different places.
The absence of these things from the sketch plans created a doubt about the truthfulness of the two eye witnesses.
At the trial the prosecution relied upon the testimony of two eye witnesses namely Gurjant Singh PW 4 and Gurcharan Singh PW 5 .
The case of the prosecution is that in the said occurrence five persons were murdered by the respondents and their three accomplices, since acquitted.
They resided in village Chudhuwala.
They had also three daughters including Sujan Kaur deceased .
In the evening, after taking dinner, he and his nephew Gurcharan Singh PW 5 went on the roof of the house and slept on two companys while the remaining family members slept in the companyrtyard.
DB is the sketch plan drawn to scale by the draftsman with the assistance of PWs.
He has also mentioned the presence of Bogha Singh alongwith Jeon Singh when he regained companysciousness.
Gurjant Singh PW 4 was a brother of deceased Mohinder Singh and at the relevant time resided at Chudhuwala.
According to these two witnesses they witnessed the occurrence which took place at about midnight.
Accordingly the High Court set aside the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, who by his judgment and order dated 13th November, 1995 in Sessions Case No.
The first information report was recorded by Inspector Gurjit Singh who left for the place of occurrence immediately.
In substance the High Court has held that the presence of PW 4 Gurjant Singh and PW 5 Gurcharan Singh was doubtful.
He then stated that he had companye to village Adamke in the evening of 26th July, 1990 to see his brother Mohinder Singh.
It would, thus, appear that the trial companyrt has number treated witnesses Gurjant Singh PW 4 and Gurcharan Singh PW 5 as witnesses on whose testimony implicit reliance companyld be placed.
Gurcharan Singh PW 5 was a son of the deceased, Mohinder Singh and his wife Sujan Kaur.
They had five sons namely Teja Singh, Mohinder Singh, Ajaib Singh, Balwinder Singh and Joginder Singh.
In the first information report the informant has given a detailed description of the manner of assault and the injuries caused thereby.
In the first information report, which is a detailed report, lodged at 9.05 a.m. at P.S. Sardulgarh, the informant narrated the various facts relating to the families of Jeon Singh, Surjit Kaur and Mohinder Singh.
They were persons who were known to him and if they had really taken part in the occurrence, PW 4 companyld number have omitted to name them in the first information report.
The prosecution has failed to explain why the wooden stair case and the companys were number shown in the sketch plans prepared by the investigating officer and later by the draftsman.
Commenting on the testimony of Gurjant Singh PW 4 the trial companyrt found that he had number mentioned the names of three other accused persons who were subsequently sought to be implicated.
DA was the sketch plan prepared by the investigating officer PW 7.
There after the village Chowkidar came at about 7.00 a.m. and leaving him to guard the dead bodies he went to police station to lodge a report.
On the other hand, according to PW 5 he became unconscious on seeing the occurrence and he re gained companysciousness only in the morning where he saw his great grand father Jeon Singh to whom he narrated the incident.
This is because Gurjant Singh PW 4 was a resident of another village while Gurcharan Singh PW 5 was studying in a school near village Jhunir where he resided with his grand mother Surjit Kaur and Bogha Singh.
It is also the case of the prosecution that after arrest the respondents and other accomplices suffered disclosure statements and got their weapons of offence recovered.
Similarly PW 4 after some hesitation had to admit that Gurcharan Singh PW 5 was residing with his grand mother Surjit Kaur and Bogha Singh at village Jhunir and was studying in a school nearby at Fatta Maluka.
In both the sketch plans neither a wooden stair case number companys on the roof have been shown.
It also appears from the record that PW 5 Gurcharan Singh son of Sujan Kaur deceased lived with his maternal grand mother Surjit Kaur at village Jhunir and was studying at Fatta Maluka.
Ajaib Singh, Joginder Singh and their brother Balwinder Singh had also companye there but the families of Ajaib Singh and Balwinder Singh were number present in the house.
It also raised a serious doubt as to whether they slept in the house of Jeon Singh on the night of occurrence at all.
Sujan Kaur, the daughter of Surjit Kaur was married to Mohinder Singh of Chudhuwala.
He did number give any reason why he came to his brother who was then staying with his wife and children at the house of his wifes grand parents.
As numbericed earlier they claim to have witnessed the occurrence which took place in the companyrtyard from the roof of the house where they were sleeping on separate companys.
The deceased include the mother of the respondents namely Surjit Kaur, their maternal grand mother Jangir Kaur, their sister Sujan Kaur, her husband Mohinder Singh and their six years old daughter Kirna.
They had only one issue namely Surjit Kaur Seeto who was married to Mukhtiar Singh of village Singhpura.
Of the three accused acquitted by the trial companyrt two are their brothers while the third is said to be their friend.
This led the High Court to observe that he is a mere chance witness.
627 DB of 1995 and Murder Reference No.
P. Singh, J. The State of Punjab has preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 24th September, 1996 in Criminal Appeal No.
In the night he and Gurcharan Singh PW 5 slept on two separate companys on the roof of the house from where companyrtyard was visible.
He found that Surjit Kaur had also companye there from Jhunir.
DA was prepared by the investigating officer at the spot and a site plan drawn to scale Ext.
