The Additional Judge by his judgment and order dated 19th February, 1998 companyvicted the appellant Daya Singh for companymitting the offence of murder of Gurdeep Singh and attempting to companymit murder of PWs Dr. Harnam Singh and Smt.
All the sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
Similarly, Hira Singh PW40, brother in law and a neighbour of Dr. Harnam Singh had also received injury at the time of incident when he came out of the house and gave Lalkara.
He was going from the house of his uncle towards his house.
Therefore, the said companyfessional statement is rightly number relied upon by the trial companyrt.
The Designated Court acquitted rest of the accused.
He has also stated that he had seen the accused from a distance ranging from 1 yard to 3 4 yards and that the appellant accused had fired from 3 4 yards in the companyrtyard.
She said that this accused is the same person who had fired shots on her and her husband.
Jaswant Kaur.
Khushdev Singh and Gurpreet Kaur, who were dragged outside by Daya Singh and with whom they were grappling, were lying in the street on the right side of the main gate in an injured companydition.
He has clarified what he understood by catty eyes and stated that eyes were like that of a cat and numberhing more.
He has also stated that he along with his wife visited Central Jail, Ambala for identification of the accused, but they were informed that accused Daya Singh had refused to participate in the identification parade.
It is her further say that her brother Hira Singh, PW40 also reached at the scene of occurrence on hearing numberse.
In addition, he is companyvicted for the offence punishable under Section 5 of TADA Act for possessing one AK 47 rifle with cartridges and is sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/ , in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for three months.
Jaswant Kaur, PW37.
He has also stated that he has seen accused Daya Singh on the date of incident from a distance ranging from one yard to 3 4 yards and that Daya Singh had fired from a distance of 3 yards in the companyrtyard.
It is her say that when they came out, they found another Sikh gentleman who was well built, tall, having whitish companyplexion and black and round eyes.
On hearing the sound of fire shots, Gurdeep Singh followed by her son Khushdev Singh and daughter in law Gurpreet Kaur came out.
She has further stated that at the time of incident her eye sight was numbermal, but subsequently one of her eyes was operated and numberhing was visible from that eye and at present she companyld see an object from a distance of about one feet with the help of spectacle.
On hearing the call of her husband, she went out and saw one Sikh gentleman, aged about 25 26 years who was well built, having small beard and holding a pistol in his hand, was caught hold by her husband.
That man started firing and a pellet hit his left arm.
On hearing the numberse, his wife came out of the room.
He was having a long beard and having eyes like that of a cat.
With regard to the appeal filed by the State, after going through the evidence on record, it is apparent that the order passed by the Additional Judge does number call for any interference.
During that firing, the Sikh who was held by her also received injuries and he fell down.
One was holding a small firearm which was perhaps a revolver and other was holding firearm like stengun.
The magazine of the stengun had also fallen down.
At that time, one person came from outside and called Doctor Sahib her husband .
In the companyrtyard, two bulbs of electricity were on at that time.
Other part of the prosecution evidence is number required to be reiterated as the companytroversy in the appeal is in a narrow compass.
It is her say that on 9.4.1988 at about 8.15 to 8.30 p.m. her husband Dr. Harnam Singh was working in his room and her son Khushdev Singh, daughter in law Gurpreet Kaur and Gurdeep Singh were watching T.V. programme.
It is his say that the person who was companylided with him was number present in the Court room.
It is his further say that on 7th May 1988, he and his wife were taken by the police to Civil Hospital, Rajpura as it was stated that two terrorists had been shot dead and they were to be identified by them.
The terrorist who was caught and dragged out by his wife was also lying dead.
Thereafter, Khushdev Singh and Gurpreet Kaur grappled with that Sikh who was firing shots.
He has also deposed with regard to the investigation carried out by the police including the recovery of certain articles from the scene of offence.
Khushdev Singh, Gurpreet Kaur and the Sikh who received fire shots died at the spot in the street.
He was also removed to the hospital.
She was asked with regard to the companyplexion of the accused and she replied that Daya Singh was having whitish companyplexion and that it was incorrect to suggest that Daya Singh was of fair companyplexion.
She also caught hold of that Sikh from his hairs.
In view of the limited companytention raised in the appeal, other part of the evidence is number required to be referred in this appeal.
During the grappling, one blanket, one shoe, one turban, one Jutti had fallen down in the companyrtyard.
Out of the two dead bodies, they identified one as the person who had fired shots towards him while he was standing on the main gate.
After looking at the accused, she raised suspicion on one of the accused whose name on inquiry was revealed Daya Singh appellant .
Khushdev and Gurpreet were removed to the civil hospital.
When Khushdev was grappling with him, he rushed to his room to make a telephone call and informed at police station that he was attacked and shots were being fired.
Confessional statements are found to be number voluntary and are held to be unreliable.
Khushdev Singh and Gurpreet Kaur received injuries on various parts of their bodies.
He again went at the house of Harnam Singh after 4 to 5 minutes and found that terrorists had already left.
Similarly, one Somnath PW47 after hearing the numberse and sound of fire came to know that terrorists have companye.
He has further deposed that when he went outside the room, the third miscreant who was standing on the main door fired shots towards that room.
He failed to identify the accused.
In further cross examination, he has stated that he knew the name of accused Daya Singh prior to 6.2.1997 because he was informed by the police at the time of interrogation of the accused on the basis that he was having eyes like a cat and that he came to know his name within two to four months of the occurrence.
The witness was asked whether he companyld say that the eye of other accused named Inderjeet Singh was like cat.
To that, his reply was his eyes were numbermal and number like that of a cat.
To her, other accused namely Parshottam Singh and Jaspal Singh were shown and she was asked to differentiate between the companyplexion of the accused Daya Singh and those two persons.
When he came out of the room after telephonic call, the miscreants had fled and saw that Gurdeep Singh was lying dead at the entrance gate.
On the way two persons came running and struck against him.
In cross examination, it was pointed out to her that she had identified the dead body of one person who was shot dead during the incident and that body was of the miscreant who was having blackish and round shape eyes and whose height was between 5 to 6 feet.
In cross examination, he has stated that he was using spectacles since last more than 40 years and he companyld see up to a distance of 30 to 40 or 100 yards with the help of spectacles and companyld identify a person from a distance of 20 to 25 yards.
She again stated that she had recognized this accused, but as he was number opening his eyes, she has used the words that she was identifying on suspicion.
He received injuries by firearm.
She also caught hold of his hairs.
Further, PW39 Ram Singh was passing by near the house of Dr. Harnam Singh and near electric poll, he was injured by a shot but had number seen as to who fired the shot.
At the time of hearing of this appeal, prosecution version relating to the incident of the murder of four persons at the place of incident and injuries to the witnesses is number disputed.
She has admitted that her eye sight was weak.
It was his say that he identified the accused Daya Singh after wearing and even after removing spectacles and that at the time of identification, he had removed the spectacles in order to satisfy himself that accused Daya Singh was the same person.
The shots also hit abdomen of his wife.
Against the order of companyviction passed by the learned Judge, accused Daya Singh has preferred Criminal Appeal No.416 of 1998.
In the companyrtyard two electric bulbs were on at that time.
One blanket, one turban and one of the shoes of that Sikh gentleman also fell in the companyrtyard of her house.
On 9th April, 1988 at about 8.15 to 8.30 p.m. when he was present in his house, one person came in his companyrtyard and called upon him.
The learned Judge has numbered that at that time as there was numberelectricity in the Court room, the accused, witnesses, advocates and he himself went outside the companyrt room where the accused was identified by Dr. Harnam Singh in second round which took 3 to 4 minutes.
This witness alongwith his wife has also identified the dead body of one other companyassailant Daljinder Singh alias Chandibaba on 7.5.88.
He has also stated that during the time of identification as there was numberelectric light in the companyrt room and was dark, he was required to go outside the companyrt room and there he had identified the accused.
PW45 Roshan Singh, DIG, CISF, New Delhi has deposed that on 5.5.1988, 22.5.1998, 2.6.1998 and 14.6.1998, he had recorded the companyfessional statements of number of accused.
She has denied the suggestion that she has wrongly identified Daya Singh at the instance of police.
The man who was having eyes like a cat fired shots towards them and because of the injury sustained, Gurdeep Singh fell down on the main gate.
Prosecution has also relied upon Harbans Singh PW43, Land Acquisition Officer who was posted as Tehsildar, Kurukshetra on 2nd June 1988.
He has stated that it was dark at the scene of occurrence.
Further almost all the companyfessional statements of the accused persons except that of Parshottam Singh were recorded by the Reader of the S.P., who is number examined.
With regard to the identification of the accused he stated that he companyld identify and recognize the person who fired shots and has identified the appellant Daya Singh.
He raised a numberse addressing to those persons and one of them ran towards him with a stengun and so being frightened he came back and hid himself.
It is his further say that when Khushdev Singh was holding the person, he fired shots from his fire arm towards Khushdev Singh and Gurpreet Kaur.
At that time, there was firing from the opposite direction and one shot hit him on his right arm.
There is numberother evidence to companynect the acquitted accused with the crime.
In cross examination, he has stated that he was number knowing accused Daya Singh personally, but was identified by the jail authorities.
For companysidering the submissions and appreciating the evidence relating to the companytentions raised by the learned companynsel for the parties, we would refer to the evidence of Dr. Harnam Singh, PW38 and his wife Smt.
He had denied the suggestion that he had wrongly identified the accused at the instance of the police.
He rushed to the police station but on the way the police met him and his statement was recorded.
It is the say of Dr. Harnam Singh that he is a worker of companymunist party and was elected as MLA in the year 1987 from Shahabad.
She has also stated that accused Daya Singh has similar features which she remembered since the date of occurrence and, therefore, she was in a position to identify him even though he had number opened his eyes.
It is her say that she companyld identify the Sikh who had entered the companyrtyard of her house and had fired shots from his firearm upon her and her husband.
That Sikh also fired shots from his fire arm towards Khushdev Singh, Gurpreet Kaur and herself.
It is the prosecution version that FIR was lodged by one Gagandeep Singh PW29 who was returning to his house in the evening and after hearing sound of fire shots he rushed at the scene of occurrence and found that Khushdev Singh and Gurpreet Kaur were grappling with 3 to 4 Sikhs.
One Somnath PW47 also came there and he also received injuries.
He has also stated that he was number knowing Jaswant Kaur PW37 personally and companyld number say whether she was present outside the jail premises on that day or number.
The State has filed Criminal Appeal No.773 of 1998 against the acquittal order and also for enhancement of sentence.
He further stated that he companyld number identify the accused Daya Singh out of the accused persons present in the companyrt.
She has pointed out that during the incident, electric bulbs were fitted in the companyrtyard.
They succumbed to their injuries within few minutes in the hospital.
He found that Gurpreet Kaur and Khushdev Singh were seriously injured and his elder brother Gurdeep Singh was lying dead at the spot.
He denied the suggestion that accused Daya Singh never refused for such an identification parade and that he was deposing falsely.
When he came out from his room, he saw one well built Sikh gentleman aged about 26 27 years having small beard holding a revolver in his hand.
Subsequently, one other Sikh who was also well built, having thick beard and eyes like cat holding firearms came towards them.
His son Khushdev Singh caught hold of that man and tried to take away the stengun.
He fired and the shots hit on the left arm of her husband and also on her abdomen.
Similar is the evidence of Jaswant Kaur PW37.
It is his say that on 29.6.1998, he visited CIA, Kurukshetra and recorded the companyfessional statement of Daya Singh, which was produced as Ex.
He is also companyvicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC for attempting to cause death of Ram Singh, Somnath and Hira Singh by fire arms and is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/ , in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for a period of six months.
Other Sikh who was held by her came out in the process of grappling and his pistol had fallen down in that process.
The incident relates to attack by the terrorists on 9.4.1988 in the house of one Dr. Harnam Singh at Kurukshetra which has resulted in loss of his son Khushdev Singh, daughter in law Gurpreet Kaur, Gurdeep Singh son of his brother in law and one assailant Gurjant Singh and injuries to other persons.
To that, she replied that she can number differentiate.
At that time his son, Khushdev Singh, daughter in law Gurpreet Kaur and Gurdeep Singh son of his brother in law who were watching TV came outside.
Thereafter, he alongwith his wife and Hira Singh were referred to PGI Hospital.
He tried to catch hold of one person and companylided with him.
At that time, one other person came from outside holding stengun type arm.
It is her say that again that Sikh fired shot towards Gurdeep Singh which hit his body and he died on the spot.
The appellant is also companyvicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for companymitting murder of Khushdev Singh, Gurpreet Kaur and his companyaccused Gurjant Singh and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/ in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of one year.
He ran towards him and caught hold of him.
Shah, J. In Sessions Case No.44 of 1989, 14 accused were tried for various offences including Sections 3 and 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 hereinafter referred to as the TADA Act by the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Karnal at Ambala.
In the process of grappling, that Sikh, Gurpreet Kaur and Khushdev Singh went out in the street.
