Ram Lal was acquitted by the trial Court, while Tarlok Singh was companyvicted for companymitting the murder of Ishar Kaur and was sentenced to death.
His name was mutated in the revenue records and the appeal filed by Gulab Singh was dismissed.
Tarlok Singh appellant is the son of Smt.
It was urged that an appellate Court should number lightly disagree with the assessment of the evidence of witnesses believed by the trial Court which always has the benefit of watching the demeanour of witnesses during their examination in the trial.
After the death of Lehna Singh, Gurbachan Singh applied for mutation of names in respect of the lands left to him by his grand father, including the land which was under lease with Gulab Singh.
Tarlok Singh was charged with the murder of one Smt.
Thereafter, he gave another blow on her neck which felled her on the ground.
Tarlok Singh then dragged Ishar Kaur outside the room of the tubewell, unsheathed his sword and gave her a blow which she tried to parry with her right forearm.
Harnam Kaur was at that time staying with her mother, having companye there at the request of Gurbachan Singh to keep her companypany while he was away.
Ram Lai, who was at some distance in a field, then gave a challenge and told Tarlok Singh he should number be deterred from killing Ishar Kaur as he had RamLals backing who would bear the companysequences.
One Kartar Singh, who happened to be in the neighbourhood, also arrived, having seen the actual assault on Ishar Kaur by Tarlok Singh, Leaving Kartar Singh to look after the dead body of her mother, Harnam Kaur proceeded to the village, brought Kartar Singh Lambardar with her, showed him the dead body, and then went with him to the Police Station Tanda where she lodged a report at 3.45 p.m. The case was then investigated and both Tarlok Singh and Ram Lal were prosecuted.
The argument carries little force, because the High Court has number rejected their evidence against Tarlok Singh appellant merely on this ground.
He was carrying a sword, while Ram Lal had a Dang.
Tarlok Singh and Ram Lal then told Ishar Kaur that they would irrigate the land in spite of her protest and they would see how any one companyld stop them.
On reaching the tubewell, Tarlok Singh put on the switch and Ishar Kaur promptly switched it off.
Lehna Singh had a daughter Smt.
When Smt.
Ishar Kaur.
Paro, who actually brought a suit to challenge the validity of the gift.
Harnam Kaur then approached her mother and found her lying dead.
After giving this challenge, Tarlok Singh and Ram Lal both proceeded towards the tubewell.
This litigation led to ill feeling between Tarlok Singh and Gurbachan Singh.
On the 21st October, at about 10 a.m., Tarlok Singh came to the house of Ishar Kaur accompanied by Ram Lal.
Relying on this principle, learned Counsel urged that the evidence of Harnam Kaur and Kartar Singh should number have been rejected by the High Court on the ground that they had been disbelieved in respect of Ramlals participation in the offence.
A few more blows were given after Ishar Kaur had fallen down.
If this was so, there companyld be numberoccasion for Tarlok Singh and Ram Lal to companye to the house of Ishar Kaur and talk to her about irrigating Tarlok Singhs field from that tubewell.
Paro and his son in law Gulab Singh to companye to his village Alampur to look after the young children of Fauja Singh.
This Ram Lal is said to be a friend of Tarlok Singh.
At the same time, Lehna Singh sold a part of the land to Gulab Singh and Gurbachan Singh filed a suit for pre emption of that land and obtained a decree in his favour.
The High Court has pointed out a number of other circumstances which led it to hold that the evidence of these two witnesses companyld number be relied upon even against Tarlok Singh.
Ishar Kaur told Tarlok Singh that he had numberright to do so and she would number allow him to take water from her tube well.
He pre deceased his father and left behind his widow Ishar Kaur and two young children Gurbachan Singh and Harnam Kaur.
On the death of Fauja Singh, Lehna Singh asked his daughter Smt.
On the date of the incident, which took place on 21st October, 1966, Gurbachan Singh had gone to Jullundur to bring his wife from the house of her parents.
Tarlok Singh asked Ishar Kaur that he was going to irrigate his land from the tubewell of Gurbachan Singh.
They were followed by Ishar Kaur and, in turn, Harnam Kaur followed her mother, because she apprehended that her mother might be harmed by Tarlok Singh and Ram Lal.
Fauja Singh was the son of one Lehna Singh.
Paro who was married to Gulab Singh in another village.
These differences arose primarily because of the property of Lehna Singh.
Lehna Singh also made a Will in favour of Gurbachan Singh which was also challenged.
Tarlok Singh and Ram Lal then ran away carrying their weapons with them.
Paro and Gulab Singh.
Lehna Singh, in his life time, gifted a part of his property in favour of Gurbachan Singh which was resented by Smt.
It is necessary to give briefly the facts, as alleged by the prosecution, leading up to this appeal.
Paro and Gulab Singh came and started living with Lehna Singh, Lehna Singh gave some land on a 100 year lease to his son in law.
As time passed, relations between Tarlok Singh and Gurbachan Singh, who had grown up became very much strained.
On appeal and, while dealing with the reference for companyfirmation of the sentence of death, the High Court disagreed with the Court of Sessions and acquitted him.
Bhargava, J. This appeal by special leave has been filed by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of the respondent Tarlok Singh by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for an offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for which he had been companyvicted by the Court of Sessions.
