The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, if true, against the three appellants was prima facie equally true against the other two.
Appellant Bawa Singh was given death sentence under Section 302 for the murder of Jagdev Singh and with the aid of Section 34 for the murder of Dhanna Singh and Tota Singh.
Thus all the five were closely related.
Tota Singh was given an assurance that he would number be killed and was made to companye out of the Kotha.
But Bikar Singh forcibly took possession of the entire 18 bighas of land.
Convictions and sentences were also awarded to him under Section 449 of the Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The evidence of Sant Kaur that appellant Gurdas Singh put his leg on the chest of Tota Singh and opened fire was believed.
P.W 10 Jelley Singh took charge of the investigation from him.
The High Court did number accept the evidence of recovery of SBBL gun at the instance of appellant Bawa Singh.
The prosecution story and its evidence did receive a jerk and jolt because two persons were number put on trial.
P.W. 11 the then Station House Officer registered a case against all the five accused whose names were given in the F.I.R. P.W. 11 Shambhu Singh visited the spot at about 11.00 p.m. in the same night.
One or two more guns other than the guns in the hands of appellants Gurdas Singh and Bawa Singh had been used, number known by whom.
On the southern Chabutari, Murti was washing clothes.
The other companyvictions and sentences of the appellants were number disturbed.
At another place it seems to be of the view that he was armed with a revolver.
Darshan Singh is said to have aimed his 12 bore gun at Ajaib Singh and fired a shot which hit him on his hand.
But the reason is number far to seek.
Case of appellant Jaswant Singh is entirely different and he companyld number be held guilty with the aid of Section 34 for any of the murders when there was numbercertainty as to the weapon in his hand and the firing by him with his weapon was number accepted.
When these shots were fired by the two appellants, appellant Jaswant Singh went from the numberthern door of the baithak to the western door of the bakhal and took his position there with a 32 revolver in his hand so that the victims may number escape.
Possession over the 6 bighas of land which was number sold, was taken back from Bikar Singh.
Ajaib Singh had become unconscious after reaching village 22 R.B. His statement, therefore, companyld number be recorded at 1.00 A.M. in the night between the 8th and the 9th June as claimed to have been done.
Relations between the two families were embittered in companynection with the said land.
The family members did number implicate the appellants falsely leaving out the real culprits or because they were un identified.
The appellants, if they companyld companymit the ghastly crime for the type of the enmity which they had with the family of Dhanna Singh numberindependent person companyld dare companye and depose against them.
But finding him an active participant in the crime by his presence at the western door his companyviction and sentence under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of the Penal Code have been maintained.
The evidence of Ajaib Singh and Naib Singh has number been relied upon in material particulars by the High Court especially in regard to the part played by appellant Bawa Singh in killing Jagdev Singh and Tota Singh.
Ajaib Singh, P.W. 1 Naib Singh, P.W. 5 and Tota Singh deceased ran from the place.
But this much is certain that he was armed with a gun.
There were substantial changes in the prosecution story given before the police in the Committing Court and the Sessions Court.
The evidence regarding firing by him from his revolver was companytradictory and was therefore number accepted.
Shots were fired at the door of the Kotha.
Three defence witnesses were also examined.
Five empty cartridges were found lying on the southern Chabutari where Murti was washing clothes.
Bawa Singh was also armed with a 12 bore gun and fired two shots at Jagdev Singh one after the other and caused his instantaneous death.
Tota Singh took shelter in one of the rooms called Kotha.
She was also cross examined by the accused in that Court.
The statements of other eye witnesses were recorded late by the Investigating Agency.
A SBBL gun was recovered on being pointed out by appellant Bawa Singh.
Five persons armed , with various fire arms are said to have raided the baithak of Dhanna Singh situated on the south of the public road, numberth of which is a Dharamshala.
Gurdas Singh, s o Sampuran Singh is said to have posted himself at the numberthern gate.
It is also said that Dhanna Singh had deposed in a criminal case sometime before the occurrence against one of the sons of Bikar Singh.
The District Superintendent of Police also did some supervision work.
The witnesses made a definite development in their evidence when they put the single barrel gun in the hands of appellant Bawa Singh after the opinion of the Ballistic Expert.
Part of the investigation was done or supervised by Dy.
In the afternoon of the 8th June, Dhanna Singh was sleeping on a company in the baithak towards the eastern side.
Dr. Johari was definite that miss fired cartridge were neither from the double barrel gun of appellant Gurdas Singh number from the single barrel gun of appellant Bawa Singh.
This clearly established the use of a third gun in the occurrence as was the prosecution case.
Jagdev Singh was sleeping on another company near the numberthern door of the baithak.
Sant Kaur was examined as an eye witness in the Committing Court.
She, however died before the case was taken up in the Sessions Court.
Thereupon appellants Gurdas Singh and Bawa Singh are said to have shot him dead.
At one place the High Court seems to have found regarding appellant Jaswant Singh, in view of the companytradictions in the evidence, that he was armed with a deadly weapon.
One Charan Singh, Dhanna Singhs uncle, was owner of 18 bighas of land in village Sangrana.
His death sentence was number companyfirmed and instead he was awarded life imprisonment by the High Court.
Thakar Singh was examined as P.W. 4.
That in any view of the matter appellant Gurdas Singh ought number to have been sentenced to death.
They asked him to open the door and hand over their enemies to them.
His finding further was that appellant Jaswant Singh was armed with a revolver and took his stand near the western gate.
Appellant Gurdas Singh was armed with a double barrel gun and appellant Jaswant Singh with a revolver.
Appellant Jaswant Singh was held guilty under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 for the murder of all the three persons.
The findings of the Ballistic Expert and exemption of two persons from trial did create some companyfusion in the prosecution evidence and perhaps led the witnesses to make some changes or embellishments in their evidence.
It is amazing to find in this case that Charge Sheet was number submitted against Gurdas Singh and Darshan Singh the two sons of Sampuran Singh.
All of a sudden appellant Gurdas Singh, s o Bikar Singh, appellant Bawa Singh, appellant Jaswant Singh, Gurdas Singh and Darshan Singh, sons of Sampuran Singh, appeared at the numberthern door of the baithak armed with various types of fire arms.
It is numberdoubt true that some persons who companyld have supported the eye witnesses as independent witnesses have number been examined.
One by one, by scaling over the companypound wall, Naib Singh.
Sant Kaur remained in the baithak.
Naib Singh did number companye back to his house from the house of Thakar Singh.
Upon this Darshan Singh gave him a push.
The four eye witnesses to the occurrence examined in the Sessions Court are Ajaib Singh, Mahender Singh, Murti and Naib Singh respectively, P.Ws.
Ajaib Singh went to village 22 R.B. to inform one of their friends Khushal Singh a member of the Panchayat about the incident.
Dhanna Singh and Jagdev Singh were found lying dead in the baithak where Sant Kaur was sitting on the floor and weeping.
1, 2, 3 and 5.
For the murder of Dhanna Singh and Tota Singh, Gurdas Singh was sentenced to death under Section 302 of the Penal Code.
He was also given two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.
The learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar found that appellant Bawa Singh was armed with a single barrel gun which was recovered at his instance.
He was also companyvicted under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act with the sentence of 2 years imprisonment.
From there he went to the Police Station and lodged a First Information Report Ext.
Sampuran Singh, father of the two persons number put on trial, is said to be another maternal uncle of Bikar Singh.
He fell down.
The case went to the High Court in appeal as also in reference for companyfirmation of the death sentence on the two appellants.
He was, therefore, declared hostile and was permitted to be crossed examined by the prosecution.
Four of the cartridges, according to the evidence of the Ballistic Expert, P.W. 13 Dr. M. Johari, had been fired from the single barrel gun recovered at the instance of Bawa Singh.
Sant Kaur, mother of Dhanna Singh, Murti, sister of Dhanna Singh, Ajaib Singh, Naib Singh and Mahender Singh, brothers of Dhanna Singh.
Therefore, the First Information Report lodged by him was doubtful.
The assailants then left the place.
Appellant Gurdas Singh was armed with a 12 bore gun.
Eventually Charge Sheets were submitted against the three appellants only.
He also found that appellant Gurdas Singh fired at Dhanna Singh and caused his death, appellant Bawa Singh fired at Jagdev Singh causing his death, appellant Gurdas Singh fired at Tota Singh and caused his death.
It, therefore, did number accept the prosecution case that Bawa Singh killed Jagdev Singh and Tota Singh by using the said single barrel gun.
We companyld number appreciate as to what was the necessity of examining such defence witnesses when the said two persons were number put on trial.
P 9 at 9.30 p.m. on the 8th June, 1971.
As in the case of Bawa Singh in his case too a sentence of life imprisonment would have met the ends of justice.
Thakar Singh did number open the door.
As already stated appellant Gurdas Singh is son of Bikar Singh.
Inter se relationship of the five persons accused of having companymitted the crime is like this.
None was examined on behalf of the appellants to say that it was number they who had companymitted the crime but somebody else.
In the occurrence were killed Dhanna Singh, his younger brother Tota Singh and another person Jagdev Singh by fire arms.
Although Darshan Singh was number on trial but the Trial Judge was companystrained to believe the prosecution evidence that Ajaib Singh was hit by the shot of Darshan Singh.
Shambhu Singh.
A licenced DBBL gun was recovered at the instance of Gurdas Singh.
D.W. 3 Gopal Dass was a formal witness.
Dr. Johari companyld number give any definite opinion about the other two empty cartridges as to whether they were fired from the DBBL gun of appellant Gurdas Singh.
It was neither clear to the High Court number to us as to what was the basis, circumstance and material upon which the Investigating Agency usurped the role of the companyrt and recorded a verdict of innocence in favour of the two sons of Sampuran Singh.
During the companyrse of investigation seven cartridges were recovered at the place of occurrence.
All the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
Naib Singh went to village 28 FF.
He made several statements in the Sessions Court, companytradictory to those made before the Investigating Agency.
Ajaib Singh and Naib Singh came back to their house and found Tota Singh lying dead near the western gate of the bakhal.
D.W. 1 Gurdev Singh and D.W. 2 Balbir Singh were examined to say that Gurdas Singh and Darshan Singh the two sons of Sampuran Singh were present in the Dharamshala and were number participants in the crime.
He fired shots at Dhanna Singh causing his instantaneous death.
Appellant Bawa Singh is son of a maternal uncle of Bikar Singh.
Ajaib Singh, P.W. 1 received a gun shot injury on his hand.
Other persons present there were Mst.
S. P. Mewa Ram.
L. Untwalia, J. There are three appellants in this appeal by special leave.
The three appellants thereafter went to the house of Thakar Singh.
Nonetheless as found by the companyrts below, in material particulars the evidence of the eye witnesses was trustworthy, credible and truthful.
The occurrence in question took place at about 4.30 p.m. on the 8th of June, 1971 in the house of Dhanna Singh, deceased, in village Sangrana, Police Station Gajsinghpur, District Ganganagar in the State of Rajasthan.
He was also held guilty under Section 302/34 for the murder of Jagdev Singh and was given sentence of death on that companynt too.
Murti and Mahender Singh entered the house of Thakar Singh, P.W. 4 which was adjacent east to the house of Dhanna Singh.
In their favour a report under Section 169 of the CrPC, 1398 was submitted to the Magistrate and they were number put on trial in a companyrt of law.
The learned Judges of the High Court have mentioned in their judgment that even on perusal of the case diary they did number find any justification for number submitting a Charge Sheet against Gurdas Singh and Darshan Singh sons of Sampuran Singh.
One empty cartridge and one misfired 12 bore cartridge were found near the dead body of Tota Singh.
The matter, therefore, required a probe by the higher authorities of the Rajasthan Government as stated in the judgment of the High Court.
There was a great companyfusion in the evidence on the point whether Bawa Singh was armed with a single barrel gun or a double barrel gun.
He sold 12 bighas out of this to Bikar Singh, father of appellant Gurdas Singh.
Appellant Jaswant Singh is brother in law sala of Malager Singh another son of Bikar Singh.
The High Court found appellant Gurdas Singh guilty for killing Dhanna Singh and Tota Singh.
The defence of the appellants was that some unknown persons companymitted the crime and they have been falsely implicated in the case out of enmity.
His death sentence was companyfirmed chiefly because of the allegedly brutal manner of causing death of the young boy Tota Singh.
