when he came out of his house this time he was accompanied by his father ajit singh.
the sessions judge believed the evidence of the four prosecution witnesses mentioned above and after discussing the defence evidence given on behalf of the appellant in support of his pleas.
charl b. a. desai s. c. agarwal a. k. gupta shiva pujan singh and virendra verma for the appellant.
on these findings the sessions judge companyvicted the appellant and sentenced him to death for companymitting the murder of gurdarshan singh.
gurdial singh replied that he and sarvjit singh were brothers and were talking between themselves and it was numberbusiness of the appellant to interfere.
according to the prosecution on the 6th numberember 1965 at about 7.45 p.m. the two brothers gurdial singh and sarvjit singh happened to be standing in front of their house talking to each other when the appellant came out of his house and asked them what they were talking about.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated may 18 1967 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in cri minal appeal number 247 of 1967 and murder reference number 23 of 1967.
gurdial singh leaving others to look after the dead body of his father went with lal singh lambardar to the police station which was situated at a distance of about three miles and lodge the first information report at about 9.30 p.m. on the same day.
niranjan singh came to depose that his son sadhu singh had been adopted by veer singh and this adoption took place because ajit singh had asked veer singh to take sadhu singh in adoption.
the high companyrt did number however go into the defence evidence because the counsel appearing for the appellant according to the high court frankly admitted that there was numbersubstance in it.
were malkiat singh gurdial singh sarvjit singh and gian kaur.
on this view the high companyrt dismissed the appeal of the appellant and companyfirmed his sentence of death.
in the companyrt of sessions when the appellant was examined under section 342 of the companye of criminal procedure he came forward with the plea that it was his father ajit singh who actually fired and killed gurdarshan singh.
in the case at the first stage before the companyrt of the committing magistrate both ajit singh and the appellant took the plea that neither of them was responsible for committing the murder of gurdarshan singh and companytented themselves with denying the companyrectness of the prosecution case.
one malkiat singh who lived in a house nearby had arrived and saw this occurrence so that the four persons who witnessed the occurrence.
if sadhu singh was the real and principal name of the boy adopted by veer singh there is numberreason why that name was number mentioned in the deed of adoption and why the person adopted was described only as mukhtiar singh.
thereupon ajit singh raised a lalkara asking his son the appellant to finish off gurdarshan singh.
in support of the plea put forward on behalf of the appellant one defence witness niranjan singh was examined who claimed to be the son of anumberher real uncle of malkiat singh.
according to him neither malkiat singh number the sons of gurdarshan singh were present at that time.
the appellant then fired two shots in quick succession from his gun hitting gurdarshan singh on vital parts of his body.
when gurdarshan singh saw the appellant carrying the gun he enquired what the matter was.
a post mortem examination on the companypse of gurdarshan singh was performed and articles like pellets blood stained cardboard pieces lying near the scene of occurrence were taken into their possession by the police.
thereafter ajit singh fired the gun shots towards gurdarshan singh killing him instantaneously.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal 185of 1967.
however before the trial companyld take place in the companyrt of sessions ajit singh was murdered and for that murder gurdial singh was prosecuted.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhargava j. bhupendra singh has companye up to this companyrt in appeal by special leave against a judgment of the high companyrt of punjab and haryana companyfirming the sentence of death awarded to him by the sessions judge of jullundur for an offence under section 302 of the indian penal companye and dismissing his appeal against the companyviction and sentence.
the case was then investigated.
gurdial singh and sarvjit singh then ran into the deorhi of their house.
he thus put forward the plea of alibi.
to explain this discrepancy niranjan singh came forward with the assertion that his son sadhu singh bore an alias mukhtiar singh.
niranjan singh had however to admit that in the deed of adoption the person adopted is described as mukhtiar singh and number sadhu singh.
the appellant got enraged ran into his house abusing the two boys and return ed with a double barrel 12 bore gun.
when the case came up before the high companyrt the high companyrt briefly examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and held that their evidence was reliable.
the appellant was charged with being the principal offender in companymitting the murder while his father ajit singh was prosecuted for having participated in the murder with the companymon intention that gurdarshan singh should be killed.
gurdarshan singh fell down dead on the ground.
both the appellant and his father ajit singh were thereafter prosecuted for this murder.
gurdial singh asked the appellant why he had beaten his brother and used abusive language against the appellant.
in the meantime their father gurdarshan singh and their sister gian kaur returned to the house from their fields.
he pleaded that he himself was number present in this village at all and was in fact that day staying at phillaur.
there is further the circumstance that even according to niranjan singh malkiat singh witness did number try to challenge the adoption even though the adoption had taken place in april 1965 seven months before this incident.
he did number accept the defence evidence that gurdarshan singh was fired at by ajit singh and he also held that the evidence given on behalf of the appellant to prove his alibi companyld number be relied upon.
the appellant thereupon abused the two brothers and also slapped sarvjit singh on the face.
village birpind as the appellant in the house adjoining the appellants house.
the appellants father ajit singh also lived with the appellant while with gurdarshan singh were living his sons gurdial singh and sarvjit singh and his daughter gian kaur.
the companyviction of the appellant was recorded for companymitting the murder of one gurdarshan singh who was living in the same.
rejected that evidence.
hans rai khanna and r. n. sachthey for the respondent.
