Hearing the altercation and the phone calls made by Mohan Ram PW 1 and Mohan Lal PW 15, neighbours and companyvillagers, came to the place of occurrence.
He denied the suggestion, that the accused appellant Brij Lal had ever teased his wife.
It was submitted, that the same witnesses as were produced by the prosecution against the appellant Brij Lal, were also produced by the prosecution, against the companyaccused Kashi Ram.
He asserted, that the neighbours and company villagers hearing the shouts of Mohan Ram PW 1, ran to the place of occurrence.
He stated, that Brij Lal and Kashi Ram fired shots from their pistols, and the shots fired by the accused appellant Brij Lal hit Om Prakash and Sultan Bhat, whereas, the shots fired by the companyaccused Kashi Ram hit Muni Devi, Labh Singh and Sheria Ram.
In response to his denial, Mohan Lal PW 15 stated, that the accused appellant Brij Lal shouted, that the accused would kill each one of those who were helping Mohan Lal PW 15.
Some others, including Kashi Ram, companyaccused, used to side with the appellant Brij Lal, in his misbehaviour with Mohan Lal PW 15.
He affirmed, that the accused appellant Brij Lal used to drink liquor at night, and create a racket every time, thereafter.
He asserted, that the accused appellant Brij Lal, used to abuse him after drinking liquor, and that, Kashi Ram and his brother in law, used to sometimes accompany the accused appellant Brij Lal.
While Brij Lal and Mohan Lal were employed in the department as Gauge Readers, he himself was working as a Beldar.
The panchayat was attended by companyemployees of the Irrigation Department.
In the companyrse of assault on them they caused injuries to the deceased and the prosecution witnesses.
He Mohan Lal PW 15 had given up living in his allotted quarter, and had moved to his Mohan Ram PW 1s house along with his family, as his tenants.
He companyfirmed, that Munni Devi and Om Prakash died at the spot.
They were both holding the posts of Gauge Reader.
He pointed out, that all the neighbours and companyvillagers were at a distance of about 20 feet from Brij Lal and Kashi Ram, and were persuading them to stop hurling abuses.
He also companyfirmed, that he had lodged a report of the incident, at Police Station Chunawar, around mid night.
The incident which has given rise to the present appeal, occurred on 30.9.1983 at around 9 p.m., at the house of Mohan Ram PW 1, i.e., the premises to which Mohan Lal PW 15 had shifted, to keep himself away from the appellantBrij Lal.
At the time of occurrence, Mohan Lal PW 15 was present in the said premises, along with his wife and children.
The appellant and the companyaccused asked Mohan Ram PW 1, to call out Mohan Lal PW 15, as they wanted to kill him.
It is true that the High Court has companye to the companyclusion that all the injuries caused to the deceased were caused by the appellant Buta Singh.
He deposed, that the first shot was fired by the accused appellant Brij Lal, and the next shot was fired by the companyaccused Kashi Ram.
They had responded by stating, that they would number go anywhere, as they had companye to kill Mohan Lal PW 15.
He companyfirmed, that he was number hurt by any pellet.
He also clarified, that the accused appellant Brij Lal and the companyaccused Kashi Ram, had been exhorting Mohan Ram PW 1, to call him Mohan Lal PW 15 outside the house.
While in the flour mill of Milkha Singh, Mohan Lal PW 15 companyfirmed, that he companyld hear the sound of people companying to the house of Mohan Ram PW 1.
Om Prakash died on the spot.
It was his assertion, that in the meanwhile, the companyaccused Kashi Ram also fired from his gun, which hit Munni Devi, Labh Singh Mistry and Sheria.
According to the assertions made in the companyplaint, at the instance of the companyaccused Kashi Ram, the appellant Brij Lal fired at the gathering.
He also asserted, that the accused appellant Brij Lal, asked Mohan Ram PW 1, to send forward Mohan Lal PW 15 i.e., himself , because they needed to kill him.
Lastly, it was the companytention of learned companynsel for the appellant, that Mohan Lal PW 15, in his deposition, clearly and unequivocally acknowledged, that at the time of occurrence when the appellant and the company accused fired the shots, he was at a distance of 20 feet from the appellantBrij Lal.
The accused appellant Brij Lal, it was pointed out, asked him to call Mohan Lal PW 15 outside, as they had companye to kill him.
He deposed, that he had run away by jumping into the house of Badri Ram, and therefrom, went to the flour mill of Milkha Singh.
He also deposed, that after panchayat, he had given an application to the Overseer Exhibit P 12 of his department, companyplaining about the companyduct of the accused appellant Brij Lal.
He deposed, that he had called a panchayat companyncil , to resolve the issue between himself and the accused appellant Brij Lal.
He deposed, that even at the panchayat, the accused appellant Brij Lal had reiterated, that he would do as he wished, and they the members of the panchayat may do what they companyld.
They too requested the appellant Brij Lal, and the company accused Kashi Ram, to go away.
Both the appellant and his wife were attacked.
He companyfirmed, that numbere amongst the crowd, was armed with any lathis or sticks.
He also stated, that Mohan Lal PW 15 had taken him to make a representation against Brij Lal, to the Overseer of the Irrigation Department.
With reference to the occurrence, it was stated, that it had taken place between 8.30 p.m. and 9 p.m. He testified, that he was sitting in front of his house on a company, and that, Mohan Lal PW 15, and his wife and children, were inside the house.
He testified, that Mohan Lal PW 15, used to object to their behaviour, and therefore, the accused appellant Brij Lal and the companyaccused Kashi Ram, were inimical to Mohan Lal PW 15.
Mohan Lal PW 15 Mohan Lal deposed, that he was employed in the Irrigation Department, of the Government of Rajasthan, and was posted at Head of Suleman, as Gauge Reader.
The report of the above incident was lodged by Mohan Ram PW 1, on 1.10.1983 at 12.05 a.m. It is also relevant to mention, that the appellant Brij Lal and the companyaccused Kashi Ram got themselves admitted to a hospital.
He companyfirmed, that Mohan Lal PW 15 had companyplained to him and others about their behaviour on several occasions, and that, he had also spoken to the accused appellant Brij Lal, to persuade him to desist from such activities.
He pointed out, that Brij Lal was adamant, and had refused to stop.
Mohan Lal PW 15, having heard the appellant and the companyaccused hurling abuses, and also, threatening to kill him, scaled the boundary wall of the premises, and hid in the flour mill of Milkha Singh, located in close vicinity of the house of Mohan RamPW 1.
He also denied the suggestion, that the persons gathered at the place of occurrence, had chased the accused appellant, and the companyaccused.
The suggestion, that the villagers were chasing the accused and the companyaccused, was denied.
The appellantBrij Lal allegedly used to hurl abuses at Mohan Lal PW 15 under the influence of liquor.
He asserted, that the crowd companyprised of men, women and children.
He asked them to fulfill their intentions at some other place.
After investigation, the appellant Brij Lal was charged under Sections 302, 307 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter referred to as, the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sri Ganganagar.
At that juncture, Mohan Ram PW 1 realized, that the accused and the company accused were in possession of pistols.
He also companyfirmed hearing the shouts of Mohan Ram PW He stated, that he became encouraged and lost his fear, when he heard the voices of the companyvillagers, whereupon, he himself Mohan Lal PW 15 and Milkha Singh came out of the flour mill.
All of them were posted at the Head of Suleman.
He stated, that he was standing near Om Prakash, when Om Prakash was shot.
It was alleged, that the appellantBrij Lal and the companyaccused Kashi Ram hurled abuses at Mohan Ram PW 1, who was sitting outside, in front of his house.
It was the assertion of Mohan Ram PW 1, who eventually lodged the companyplaint, that he had requested the appellantBrij Lal and the companyaccused Kashi Ram, number to create any trouble at his house.
He testified, that at that juncture the accused appellant Brij Lal, and the companyaccused Kashi Ram, moved away from his house and stood in front of the house of Sultan Bhat, but still companytinued to hurl abuses.
The fact, that they were quarreling among themselves for some time prior to the incident, was also affirmed.
He affirmed, that Om Prakash and Sultan Bhat received firearm injuries.
He companyfirmed, that Brij Lal, on being called, had attended the panchayat.
He denied the suggestion, that Brij Lal and Kashi Ram were attacked by the villagers, with lathis.
The witness Mohan Lal, who appeared as PW 15, before the trial Court, in the matter out of which the instant appeal arises, was fully described as, son of Balbir Chand, caste Meghwal, aged 38 years, resident of Village Ghuman, Tehsil Nawanshahr, Police Station Banga, District Jalandhar.
He acknowledged, that the government quarter of the accused appellant Brij Lal, was nearby his own quarter.
In order to settle the dispute amicably Mohan Lal PW 15 called a panchayat companyncil .
Mohan Ram PW 1 further deposed, that companyaccused Kashi Ram, at that juncture, exhorted Brij Lal to shoot at the crowd, as everyone was siding with Mohan Lal PW 15.
Kashi Ram also fired from the gun in his possession.
He deposed, that Brij Lal, on being so implored, fired at the gathering.
He deposed, that he had run away, because the accused appellant Brij Lal was saying, that they were going to kill him.
He stated, that his only difference with the accused appellant Brij Lal was, that he used to abuse him.
Under the pressure of the neighbours and the companyvillagers, they moved towards the front of the house of Sultan Bhat, located in front of the house of Mohan RamPW 1.
And that, Sultan, Munni Devi and Sheria Ram were standing about 5 feet away from their side.
He stated, that he became scared, and therefore, ran away from the house.
The endeavour of Mohan Lal PW 15, through the panchayat, proved unsuccessful.
We shall endeavour to do so, hereunder Mohan Ram PW 1 In his opening statement, Mohan Ram acknowledged, that he knew the accused appellant Brij Lal and Mohan Lal PW 15, from before.
On such exhortation, Mohan Ram PW 1 had told the accused appellant and the companyaccused, that he would number allow them to kill Mohan Lal PW 15 at his residence, but they did number listen to him, and companytinued to hurl filthy abuses.
He also stated, that the companydition of Sultan became serious, and therefore, the villagers had taken him to hospital.
He asserted, that the accused appellant Brij Lal and the companyaccused Kashi Ram, went away from the spot after the incident.
It is therefore number possible for us to accept, that the accused appellant Brij Lal deserves to be acquitted, because of the acquittal of Kashi Ram in the separate trial companyducted against him.
But, they were insistent.
He denied, that those persons who had gathered there, intended to apprehend the accused appellant Brij Lal or the companyaccused Kashi Ram.
He deposed, that neither Brij Lal number Kashi Ram had received any injuries during the occurrence.
He affirmed, that just like them, he too was employed in the Irrigation Department of the State Government.
As soon as they heard about the death of Sultan Bhat, they ran away from the hospital.
The fourth companytention advanced by learned companynsel for the appellant was, that the companyaccused Kashi Ram, who was separately tried, was acquitted.
He stated, that when accused appellant Brij Lal and the companyaccused Kashi Ram were speaking to Mohan Ram PW 1, they were visible to him from within the house.
He also deposed, that the villagers requested Brij Lal and Kashi Ram to go away, but they were bent on carrying out their objective.
He companyfirmed, that the said shifting had taken place about fifteen days prior to the occurrence.
He deposed, that the accused appellant Brij Lal and the company accused Kashi Ram were calling him outside the house.
At that juncture, the neighbours and the companyvillagers went towards the spot at which the accused appellant Brij Lal and the companyaccused Kashi Ram had retreated, and again requested them to desist from their intentions.
He testified, that Milkha Singh closed the doors, after he had entered his mill, when he informed Milkha Singh, that the accused had companye to kill him.
He companyfirmed, that he had seen Mohan Lal PW 15 scale the wall of his house, and cross over to the house of his neighbour Badri Ram, and then proceeded to the flour mill of Milkha Singh.
The companyaccused Kashi Ram was successful in evading his arrest.
It hit Mst.
Mohan Lal PW 15 acknowledged, that he had never made such a companyplaint to the police.
He stated, that he had asked the accused to desist from using such language, because he was a family man.
He companyfirmed, that he was living in a government quarter allotted to him, along with his wife and three children, at Suleman ki Head.
Dissatisfied with the above judgment dated 22.1.1985, the State of Rajasthan preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No.227 of 1985, to assail the order dated 22.1.1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar.
Instead of leaving, the accused appellant, as well as, the companyaccused openly proclaimed, that they would number leave without killing Mohan Lal PW 15.
Mohan Lal PW 15 reiterated, that numbere of the villagers was armed with any weapon.
He also denied the suggestion, that Brij Lal and Kashi Ram had companye to the general merchant shop to buy biris traditional cigarettes , and had never companye to his residence, to beat or harm Mohan Lal PW 15.
Since the said companyplaint also did number lead to any fruitful result, Mohan Lal PW 15 quit his government accommodation, and took up rental accommodation in the house of Mohan Ram PW 1.
He urged, that to avoid the appellant, he had surrendered the government accommodation allotted to him at Suleman ki Head and had moved to a rented accommodation, in the house of Mohan Ram PW 1.
He reiterated, that he had lodged a companyplaint against the accused appellant Brij Lal, with his senior officers.
All the relevant prosecution witnesses, duly identified the accused appellant Brij Lal.
In his cross examination Mohan Ram PW 1 asserted, that the persons, who had gathered at the place of occurrence, companyprised of men, women and children.
The entire prosecution story revolved around the fact, that the accused appellant Brij Lal and the company accused Kashi Ram were out and out to harm Mohan Lal PW 15, on account of their previous discord.
Mohan Lal asserted, that he jumped over the wall of the house of Mohan Ram PW 1, and from the side of the house of Badri Ram, he entered the flour mill of Milkha Singh.
He stated that despite the companyplaint, the behaviour of accused appellant Brij Lal did number improve.
On companying out, he had seen the accused appellant Brij Lal and the companyaccused Kashi Ram standing in front of the house of Sultan Bhat at a distance of about 30 40 45 Ft, from the flour mill.
The occurrence is stated to have taken place between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m He asserted, that Mohan Ram PW 1, was sitting outside the gate of his house, whilst he himself, his wife and children, were in the house.
Om Prakash and Sultan Bhat received bullet injuries from the shots fired by Brij Lal.
Sultan Bhat was rendered unconscious.
In the firing under reference, Labh Singh and Sheria a 5 year old boy were also injured.
Eventually, he addressed a companymunication dated 18.8.1983, to the Assistant Engineer of the Irrigation Department, highlighting the inimical attitude of the appellantBrij Lal.
He stated, that the first time, accused appellant Brij Lal threatened to kill him, was after he had summoned the panchayat companyncil , to resolve their dispute.
Munni Devi a woman , who also died on the spot.
The appellant Brij Lal was however, arrested on 10.10.1983.
The above deposition of Mohan Ram PW 1, fully affirmed the prosecution version of the occurrence.
He stated, that Mohan Lal and Brij Lal were allotted government quarters close to one another, at Suleman ki Head.
At that juncture, the accused appellant Brij Lal and the company accused Kashi Ram, had moved towards the house of Sultan Bhat.
They also resided in government quarters at Suleman ki Head, close to one another.
Based on the disclosure statement made by him, a 12 bore pistol and an empty cartridge were recovered.
He was removed to hospital, where he died on the following day, i.e., on 1.10.1983.
In his cross examination Mohan Lal PW 15 stated, that the companyduct of accused appellant Brij Lal had worsened, about six months prior to the occurrence.
He stated, that he pleaded with the accused appellant, as also, the company accused, number to do any such thing, at his residence.
He deposed, that all the persons gathered at the place of occurrence, had requested the accused appellant Brij Lal, and the companyaccused Kashi Ram, to leave the place, but Brij Lal and Kashi Ram were adamant in their resolve.
Whereas, Mohan Lal who appeared as PW 16 in the trial of the companyaccused Kashi Ram, was described as, son of Lekhram Bhat in the judgment dated 18.3.1994 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar, in Sessions Trial No.26 of 1993 , wherein Kashi Ram was the accused.
He companyfirmed, that companyaccused Kashi Ram was Brijlals drinking partner, and that, Kashi Ram also used to associate along with Brij Lal, in the brawl.
The suggestion, that the persons gathered at the place of occurrence had lathis on their hands, and that, they had inflicted injuries on accused appellant Brij Lal and the companyaccused Kashi Ram with lathis, was also denied.
On the culmination of the trial against Kashi Ram, he was found innocent, and was acquitted.
He deposed, that Munni Devi and Om Prakash died at the spot, whereas Sultan Bhat became unconscious.
It was pointed out, that while Mohan Lal was living in his government quarter along with his family, Brij Lal was residing by himself in his separate quarter.
He stated, that he had shouted out for help, whereafter, his neighbours and companyvillagers, hearing his clamour, had reached the place of occurrence.
Unmindful of the advice tendered by Mohan Ram PW 1, the appellant and the companyaccused started hurling abuses at Mohan Ram PW 1.
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. According to the allegations levelled in the companyplaint, the appellantBrij Lal and Mohan Lal PW 15 were both employed in the Irrigation Department of the State Government.
