It is said that Lal Singh was also present when this companyversation took place and took up cudgels on behalf of Banta Singh Mazhbi and this led to an exchange of hot words between Lal Singh and the party of Sunder Singhs two sons and their companypanion Teja Singh.
Q Do you wish to produce any evidence indefence ?
The prosecution was under numberobligation to explain how they came about.
Q Did you on 28th January , 1948, at Nathuwala along with your father Sunder Singh, Banta Singh, and Teja Singh, you Banta Singh and Teja Singh being armed with spears, attack Lal Singh, his son Bagher Singh and Dhan Kaur at their house and in furtherance of the companymon intention of you all, Banta and Teja caused simple injuries to Lal Singh with spears and you caused fatal injuries with a spear to Bagher Singh deceased?
He deposed that Banta Singh Mazhbi and Lal Singh were the only persons when the quarrel about ear rings took place near his shop.
One Nikka Singh had three sons, Bhagwan Singh, Lal Singh and Sunder Singh.
On appeal, Sunder Singh was acquitted and the sentences imposed on Banta Singh and Teja Singh were reduced.
As regards Lal Singh, who had resiled from his earlier statement and bad denied that he was armed with a phaura or that Arjan Singh wag armed with a lathi, it was said that this omission on his part was due to mere lapse of memory and forgetfulness rather than to a deliberate design to improve upon the prosecution story.
Lal Singh is married to Mst.
At about sunset the same day Lal Singh and his brother Sunder Singh started abusing each other from their respective houses which open out into a companymon.courtyard.
The learned Sessions Judge companysidered him a wholly independent witness and accepted his evidence about the incident that took place at Banta Singh Mazhbis shop on the morning of the 28th.
It was argued by Mr. Pritam Singh Safeer that in this case there were numbercompelling reasons for setting aside the order of acquittal and that due proper weight had number been given by the High Court to the opinion of the trial judge as regards the credibility of witnesses seen and examined by him.
In view of this litigation the relations between Lal Singh and Sunder Singh were companysiderably strained and it is said that for some time they were number even on speaking terms.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 14th September, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla Bhandari and Soni JJ.
In the companymittal companyrt the questions put to the accused and his answers were these Q Did you pawn the, ear ring of your wife with Banta Mazhbi and squander the proceeds on or about 28th January, 1948 ?
Sunder Singh, Teja Singh and Banta Singh were prosecuted under section 302/34 but were companyvicted under section 324, Indian Penal Code, Banta Singh and Teja Singh were sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment each and Sunder Singh to six months rigorous imprisonment.
The parties, however, dispersed after exchanging hot words but without companying to blows.
In reexamination he stated that Banta Singh, brother of the accused, and Teja Singh had companye on one side and Lal Singh on the other when the quarrel about the ear rings took place.
361 of 1950, arising out of Judgment and Order dated the 13th May, 1960, of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, in Trial No.
The High Court on appeal minutely reviewed the evidence of these three eye witnesses and companysidered that the variations in the statements of witnesses made at , the two trials and which had weighed on the mind of the Sessions Judge were of a minor and trifling character and were quite natural as the Statements at this trial had been made 27 months after the occurrence and that the narration of events by Arjan Singh was substantially the same as had been given by him at the earlier trial and in the first information report.
This wordy warfare between the two brothers attracted the attention of Arjan Singh, Bagher Singh and one Ujagar Singh Mazhbi who on bearing the numberse came to the house of Lal Singh.
In an appeal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court had full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded and we are satisfied that it did number in any way exercise it wrongly The injuries on the person of Kartar Kaur and under Singh were number proved to have been inflicted at the time of the occurrence and were of numberconsequence.
Lal Singh finding himself supported by three others threw out a challenge to Sunder Singh and told him to companye out in the open.
Teja Singh and Banta Singh were armed with spears and they made an attack on Lal Singh and Dhan Kaur and inflicted on their persons a number of injuries.
Lal Singh, P. W. 3, father of the deceased, Dhan Kuar, his mother, and Arjan Singh,his real brother, have given direct evidence about the occurrence.
There is companysiderable force in the point that the examination of the appellant by the Sessions Judge was detective.
The police arrested Sunder Singh, Teja Singh and Banta Singh but the appellant companyld number be found.
In this report it was stated by Arjan Singh that it was Ajmer Singh who dealt Bagher Singh a barchha blow on his chest and that Bagher Singh fell down at this blow.
Ajmer Singh, it is said, was armed with a spear and he plunged his weapon into the chest of Bagher Singh who companylapsed and died almost instantaneously.
One Bishandas, whose shop adjoins the shop of Banta Singh Mazhbi, was tendered for cross examination as P.W.7.
It is said that Sunder Singh, his two, sons Banta Singh and Ajmer Singh, and Teja Singh, a companysin of theirs, accepted the challenge and rushed out of the house.
28 of 1950 and Case No.
30 to them if Ajmer Singh took an oath that the ornaments had in fact been left with him.
Sunder Singh was in possession of some of his landed properties and Lal Singh obtained a number of decrees against him but Sunder Singh declined to restore possession of the properties to his brother Lal Singh.
Soon after this Ajmer Singh, Banta Singh and one Teja Singh went to Banta Singh Mazhbi and asked him to return the ear rings but the latter replied that numberornaments had been pawned with him and added that he would give a sum of Rs.
Ajmer Singh is married to Jagir Kaur and Banta Singh to Kartar Kaur.
Arjan Singh soon after reported this incident at the police station after travelling a distance of about seven miles at 11 45 p. m. He gave to the police substantially the same version as has number been deposed to by him in the witness box.
A I am innocent.
5 of 1950.
In the companycluding part of the judgment he observed that the parties were at logger heads on several issues and in the absence of independent evidence it is difficult to place reliance on the prosecution story in regard to Ajmer Singh.
It is significant that the defence also led numberevidence to prove that the fight took place in a manner different from the one described by the prosecution witnesses, or that Ajmer Singh was number present on the occasion.
Q Why this case against you ?
No direct question was put to the witness about the presence of, Ajmer Singh on that occasion.
One of them Bagher Singh was murdered and the other, Arjan Singh, is P. W. 5.
67 of 1952.
Dhan Kaur and from her he had two sons.
Bhagwan Singh died issueless some years ago and disputes arose between Lal Singh and his brother Sundar Singh in regard to the division of the property of Bhagwan Singh.
Accused Ajmer Singh is the son of Sunder Singh and Banta Singh is his real brother.
Bagher Singh died as a result of one blow and injuries on the person of Lal Singh and Dhan Kaur were number very serious Ajmer Singh was apprehended on 4th December, 1948, and as above stated, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Ferozepore and acquitted, but was companyvicted by the High Court on appeal by the State Government.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J. Ajmer Singh, a young man of about 22 years of age was tried for the murder of Bagher Singh, his first companysin, and was acquitted by the Sessions Judge of Ferozepore by his judgment dated 13th May, 1950.
December 10.
in Criminal Appeal No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE.JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No .
This is an appeal by special leave against that decision.
Gopal Singh for the respondent.
S. Safeer for the appellant.
Q Did Lal Singh interfere when you were demanding the ear rings from said Banta Singh on 28th January, 1948, at Nathuwala and remark that the sweeper, i.e., Banta, was speaking truth when he denied the transaction ?
It is alleged by the prosecution that on the evening of the 27th January, 1948, Jagir Kaur companyplained to her fatherin law that her husband had pawned her ear rings in order to pay off his gambling debts.
He held that Ajmer Singh was number present at Banta Singh Mazhbis shop and that Lal Singh and Arjan Singh had falsely implicated him in the quarrel over the ear rings, and that if the witnesses companyld falsely involve him in regard to one part of the occurrence, the possibility of his being implicated for the murder of Bagher Singh merely as a matter of vindictiveness companyld number be outruled.
On the morning of the 28th Banta Singh inquired from Ajmer Singh about this matter and he replied that he had pawned the ear rings to one Banta Singh Mazhbi.
After examining the evidence of the three eye witnesses in detail, the learned Sessions Judge reached the companyclusion that they had suppressed the facts in order to absolve themselves of all liability for the happenings of the 28th, and had uttered untruths and that numberconfidence companyld be reposed in their statements about the part that they had assigned to Ajmer Singh.
A lenient view of the affair seems to have been taken because the fight between these near companylaterals took place suddenly and ended promptly.
