1 was stated to be sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
The other injuries were possible by a hard and blunt weapon and were simple in nature.
The exit wound was 8 X 4 on the left upper chest just above the nipple.
In view of this companyclusion reached by both the companyrts, the said two persons were acquitted.
No appeal was preferred challenging their acquittal.
The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 shows that they got up on hearing some movement in the filed and they saw the three appellants near the company of the deceased.
Thereafter Gian Singh struck a Gandasi blow on the chest of the deceased followed by a Dang blow on the right arm by Bur Singh.
Against their companyviction the present three appellants filed an appeal which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 21st June, 1979.
PW2 accom panied by Gurdas Singh, Lambardar, then went to the Police Station at about 8.30 a.m. on 7th June, 1976 and lodged the first information report.
PW2 Swaran Singh, nephew of the deceased, PW3 Fauja Singh, a close relative of the deceased and one Narain Singh number examined who too were sleeping in the field.
Death was instantaneous.
Gian Singh and Bur Singh were arrested on 2nd July, 1976 while Gurmej Singh was arrested on 7th July, 1976.
The Trial Court companyvicted Gurmej Singh under section 302 IPC and the other two under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced all the three to imprisonment for life and also imposed token fines.
PW 2 Swaran Singh then went to the house of his father PW4 Waryam Singh and narrated the incident.
1 and 4, respectively were also shown as arrested for the companymission of this crime on 2nd July.
Actually Narain Singh was sleeping near the deceased whereas PWs 2 and 3 were sleeping at a distance of approximately 10/15 karams therefrom.
The prosecution alleged that Gurmej Singh had companycealed the rifle in the Chadar wrapped around him and on reaching the place where the deceased was sleeping on a company he threw off the chadar and shot the deceased at point blank range.
After making sure that their victim was dead, the appellants fled away.
the prosecution did number examine Narain Singh on the plea that he was won over.
According to them on reaching near the company of the deceased Gurmej Singh fired a shot from close range at the deceased who was still sleeping in his company.
Both the Courts below, therefore, rightly companycluded that death was homicidal.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.6.1979 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl.
The prosecution case, briefly stated, was that the appellant and the deceased who were neighbours in the village had quarrelled over the passage of sullage water a few months before the incident.
1976 although their names were number disclosed in the first information report.
The appellants had diverted their sullage water towards the house of the deceased and the latter had protested and frustrated their effort.
Gurmej Singh was armed with a rifle, Gian Singh was armed with Gandasi and Bur Singh carried a Dang.
On account of this warning PWs 2 and 3 did number run to the rescue of the deceased for fear of being killed.
The allegation of the prosecution witnesses PWs 2, 3 and 4 is that these two persons were falsely involved as PW8 Sub Inspector Kartar Chand Singh wanted to save his skin as he was found to have illegally and wrongly detained them at the police station.
The incident was witnessed by three persons.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
This injury No.
Gurmej Singh is stated to have warned others number to get up unless they wanted to be killed.
S. Suri for the Respondent.
On account of this obstruction the sullage water companylected in a pool near the house of the appellants which infuriated them.
778 of 1979.
On account of this incident as well as past election rivalries the relations between the appellants and the deceased were so soured that on the night of the incident the three appellants went armed with weapons to the tubewell of the deceased where the latter was sleeping to guard his wheat stacked in bags.
It appears that two more persons, namely, Sucha Singh and Santokh Singh original accused Nos.
PW8 Sub Inspector Kartar Chand Singh then reached the place of occurence, held an inquest on the dead body of the deceased, lifted the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and then recorded the statements of PW3 Fauja Singh, Narain Singh and others.
On opening the first would it was found that the 8th and 9th ribs were fractured posteriorly the diaphram and superior surface on the left lobe of the liver were lacerated the heart was lacerated into pieces and the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh ribs of the left side were broken anteriorly.
Frank Anthony and Sushil Kumar for the Appellants.
PW 1 Dr. Malhotra who companyducted the autopsy at about 4.15 p.m. on 7th June, 1976 found four injuries on the person of the deceased, namely, i a lacerated penetrating circular would, 1/4 in diameter, with black margins inverted on right middle back, 3from mid line and 9 from iliac crest, ii a vertical bruise 6 X 1/2 on the front of right forearm running downwards and outwards, iii beuises in the area of 5 X 1 on the front and inner aspect of right upper arm above the elbow joint, running forwards, outwards and downwards and iv an abrasion 5 X 1 on the right side of the chest, 5 from mid line and 3 from the clavicle running downward and inward.
They were able to identify them because of the existence of an electric light at the tubewell.
A. Nos.
It is against this finding of guilt recorded by both the companyrts below that the present three appellants have preferred this appeal by special leave.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. Harnam Singh, Sarpanch of Village Naushera, was murdered on the night between 6th June, 1976 while he was sleeping at his tubewell to guard the wheat bags stacked in his filed.
Death was on account of shock and haemorrhage resulting from the bullet injury.
