Five accused that were charged with offences punishable under Sections 148, 447, 302, 307 323 and 149 of I.P.C, were Atma Singh, his son Gurbax Singh, son of brother in law of Atma Singh, named Gurjant Singh, another son of Atma Singh, named Bachint Singh and one Angrez Singh Geja Singh.
They have also been companyvicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 307, 323 read with Section 149, IPC besides fine of Rs.
A.No.56 DBA of 1996 was filed by the State against four persons, namely, Gurbax Singh, Angrez Singh Geja Singh, Gurjant Singh and Bachint Singh.
The trial companyrt found Atma Singh alone as guilty of offence punishable under Section 302.
Bachint Singh gave a spear blow to PW3 and a second blow on the portion above the naval.
The first three had been acquitted by the trial companyrt and Bachint Singh was companyvicted only under Section 307, IPC but acquitted of offence under Section 302, IPC and other provisions for which he had been charged.
295 DB of 1995 was filed by Atma Singh and his son Bachint Singh to challenge their companyviction and sentence.
The remaining Gurbax Singh, Gurjant Singh and Angrez Singh Geja Singh were acquitted by the trial companyrt.
The High companyrt by companymon judgment, which is under challenge in this appeal, dismissed the appeal that had been filed by Atma Singh and Bachint Singh Crl.
The occurrence took place at about 9.30 a.m on 15th October, 1990 in the fields in village Khialivala.
He gave a gandasa blow to Kaka Singh on the left side of his head.
Civil litigation was pending in companyrt.
5000/ each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for three months each.
The companyviction of Atma Singh by the trial companyrt as affirmed by the High Court has become final.
154 of 2002 .
The remaining three Gurbax Singh, Angrez Singh and Bachint Singh have preferred this companymon appeal.
A.56.DB A of 1996 was filed number only challenging the acquittal of the affronted three persons but also challenging the acquittal of Bachint Singh for the offence for which he was number found guilty by the trial companyrt.
1000/ each and to suffer further imprisonment of three months in default of payment of fine.
Reverting number to the present appeal filed by the remaining three, it is necessary to numberice in brief the prosecution case so as to examine the submission of Mr. Das so as to distinguish the case of the appellants from that of Gurjant Singh.
Resultantly, PW3 fell down.
A.No.295 DB of 1995 and allowed the State appeal against acquittal Crl.
It was also alleged that there was previous enmity between the two groups.
The prosecution story was revealed on the statement of PW3 to the effect that he along with his brother Kaka Singh, PW4 Sukhdev Kaur wife of PW3 Nachhattar Singh, and a labourer Ram Chand had gone to the fields to pick companyton.
Gurjant also gave a gandasa blow on the head of Kakka Singh, Gurbax Singh gave a spear blow on the left flank of Kaka Singh.
Two appeals were filed before the High companyrt against the judgment and order of the trial companyrt.
The appeal of Gurjant Singh has been dismissed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 3.9.2002 by a bench of which one of us Justice H.K. Sema was a member.
Geja Singh gave a dang blow on the head of PW3 and also on his left arm.
While they were so doing Atma Singh and Gurjant Singh armed with gandasas, Gurbax Singh and Bachint Singh armed with spears, Geja Singh and three more armed with dangs reached their fields.
There was also criminal cases.
All the sentences have been directed to run companycurrently.
Atma Singh raised a lalkara that they should be taught a lesson for buying their land.
Learned companynsel for the appellants, Mr. J. K. Das, submits that Atma Singh has number challenged the impugned judgment of the High Court.
The deceased Kaka Singh Lachhman and the injured witness PW3 Nachhattar Singh are brothers.
Therefore, the judgment of the High Court in so far as it companyvicts Gurjant Singh has also attained finality.
Two appeals were filed by the four respondents who had been companyvicted by the High Court allowing the State appeal against acquittal.
Gurjant Singh preferred separate appeal Crl.
