In the result, the appeals perferred by the three accused persons substantially failed and the order of sentence was companyfirmed in regard to two of them.
They also numbericed that all of them were armed.
It appears that prior to the partition of India, these brothers lived in a village Butran which is number a part of West Pakistan.
All the companypanions of Malook Singh, except for his wife Amar Kaur, were frightened and ran for their lives.
Darbra Singh and the deceased Malook Singh were the sons of one Phula.
The mortgagor Sunder Singh later died without leaving an issue or a widow.
25,000/ .
An enquiry was made into the antecedents of the deceased Malook Singh by the authorities companycerned and on January 11, 1960, his application for passport was recommended by the S.D.O., Kaithal, to the Punjab Government.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated February 24, 1961, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The appellant Sunder Singh immediately raised a shout at Malook Singh and said that he would despatch him to Pakistan where he intended to go in order to companylect proof for the mortgage and heirship of his father to the mortgagor.
This order was submitted for companyfirmation to the Punjab High Court and it was also challenged by the three companyvicts by their separate appeal.
Thereupon, Sunder Singh shouted to his companypanions number to allow Malook Singh and his friends to escape.
This claim was strongly resisted by the appellant Sunder Singh and his companymortgaees.
It is number suggested by him that the order passed by the trial Court companyvicting the three appellants even after acquitting Rachhpal Singh was itself invalid.
They disputed the title of Phula Singh and in the alternative, they alleged that they companyld number be deprived of the possession of the land expect on payment of Rs.
So saying, he aimed a lathi blow at Malook Singh, but Anup Singh intervened and entreated Sunder Singh number to assault Malook Singh.
Besides, the clothes of the deceased which were examined by Dr. Rai should that there were numbermarks of burning on them.
The prosecution case is that these murders were companymitted by the appellants in furtherance of the companymon intention because they wanted to thwart Malook Singhs efforts to bring satisfactory evidence about the heirship of his father, Phula Singh to the mortgagor Sunder Singh.
Sunder Singh, a brother of Phula Singh had mortgaged 20 killas of agricultural land with possession for Rs.
Darbara Singh, Balkar Singh and Mohinder Singh had preceded them.
Jai Gopal Sethi, C. L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli, for the appellants.
Phula Singh, his brother, claimed to be the heir of the said mortgagor and as such, he asked for redemption of the land on payment of Rs.
Between 10 and 11 A.M. on January 13, 1960, Malook Singh, accompanied by his wife Amar Kaur, her brother Anup Singh and Shahbeg Singh went to the local Gurdwara to pay their homage on the auspicious day.
That, in brief, is the prosecution case.
It is the companyrectness of the findings recorded by the High Court that is challenged before by Mr. Sethi on behalf of the appellants.
Having thus companymitted three murders, the assailants ran away with their respective weapons.
The Path came to a close on the forenoon of January 12, 1960, and the closing function was attended by several persons, including Shahbeg Singh who is a relation of Malook Singh.
11 of 1961 and Murder Reference No.
By this application made to the Assistant Collector, Kaithal, Phula Singh claimed to redeem the mortgage.
9 of 1961.
Gurmukh Singh gave a lathi blow on one of the bands of Anup Singh.
Lal Singh then gave a chase to Darbara Singh, overtook him at a short distance and shot him dead.
The actual incidents leading to the triple murder lie within a narrow companypass.
In lieu of this mortgage, the appellant Sunder Singh and his companymortgagees, had been allotted 40 killas of land in the village Habri in the District of Karnal.
According to the charge farmed against the accused persons, Lal Singh fired upon Malook Singh and Darbara Singh and thereby killed them, while Rachhpal Singh fired upon Anup Singh and killed him.
A companyple of days earlier Malook Singh had arranged for an Akhandpath Non stop recitation of the holy Granth Sahib .
The appellant Sunder Singh did number recognise Phula Singh as the heir of the mortgagor and so, Phula Singh had to make an application in that behalf on November 29, 1959.
In the result, his application was dismissed for default.
As a result, Anup Singh was hit on the head by the lathi of Sunder Singh.
The appellants also resided in the same village.
That, in substance, is the motive alleged by the prosecution for the companymission of the three murders.
As the party reached the baithak of Tara Singh which was a few paces away from the Gurdwara, Malook Singh and his companypanions saw the three appellants companying towards them accompanied by Rachhpal Singh.
This blow caused injuries on his chest.
Malook Singh then stepped forward to save Anup Singhs life and gave a spear below to Sunder Singh.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
That is how Lal Singh and Rachhpal Singh were charged under s. 302 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
At that stage, Lal Singh and Rachhpal Singh used their double barrelled guns and fired Lal Singh hit Malook Singh and Rachhpal Singh injured one of the knees of Anup Singh Rachhpal Singh then shot at Anup Singh again and Anup Singh fell down.
The proceeding companytinued for companye time but it appears that Phula Singh was number able to place satisfactory evidence about his title before the Assistant Collector.
This firing took place in pursuance of the companymon intention of all the accused persons.
The three companypanions of the appellant Sunder Singh then rushed forward.
January 19.
The three companyvicts were ordered by him to suffer the sentence of death.
After shooting Darbara Singh dead, Lal Singh returned to the spot and shot at Malook Singh and Anup Singh again when he found that they were still alive.
S. R. Chari, Gopal Singh and P. D. Menon, for the respondent.
100 of 1961.
On January 13, 1960, however, the incident giving rise to the present prosecution occurred and Malook Singh along with his brother Darbara Singh and his relation, Anup Singh were murdered.
Malook Singh was carrying a spear because he intended to go to his fields after visiting the Gurdwara.
The learned trial Judge took the view that the evidence adduced against Rachhpal Singh left room for doubt and so, giving Rachhpal Singh the benefit of doubt, he acquitted him.
The remaining three accused persons were, however, companyvicted by him under s. 302 read with s. 34 because he held that the prosecution case had been proved against them beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. The three appellants, Sunder Singh and his sons Lal Singh and Gurmukh Singh along with one Rachhpal Singh were tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal with having companymitted the offence of murdering Malook Singh, Anup Singh and Darbara Singh on January 13, 1960, at about 11 A.M. in the Abadi of village Habri.
The prosecution case, was that these three murders were companymitted by the four accused persons in furtherance of their companymon intention at the time when the offence was companymitted, Sunder Singh and Gurmukh Singh were armed with Lathis and Lal Singh and Rachpal Singh were armed with guns.
In the alternative, the High Court came to the companyclusion that even if the meeting between the two parties was in the nature of a chance meeting, the circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the companymon intention to kill the three deceased persons developed in the minds of the appellants and Rachhpal Singh on the spot.
Thereafter, the deceased Malook Singh applied for a passport to Pakistan, the prosecution case is that he wanted to go to Pakistan to obtain companyies of the original mortgage deed and a pedigree table from the revenue records kept in Pakistan which would have supported the claim of Phula Singh to the heirship of the mortgagor Sunder Singh.
It is against the order of companyviction and sentence thus passed by the High Court that Sunder Singh, Lal Singh and Gurmukh Singh have companye to this Court by special leave.
January 13, 1960, was Lohri day.
All of them halted in the Gurdwara for a few minutes and then came out.
2,500/ with the appellant Sunder Singh and his brothers, in about 1943.
2,500/ .
