Narain Singh and his nephwes were then prosecuted before the Court of Session Ludhiana for the offence of murder.
The companyrts below were of the view that the prosecution evidence as it stood, was insufficient to bring home the charge against Narain Singh and his nephews.
but the evidence of the witnesses about the assault on Bachan Singh has number been accepted by the Court of Session and the High Court.
The other three companyaccused were number with me.
Narain Singh and Mehar Singh relied upon the circumstance that they also bad injuries on their person which were numbericed when they were medically examined.
Two statements of Bachan Singh which were in view of his death admissible as dying declarations one recorded by the Investigating Officer and the other by the First Class Magistrate, Ludhiana were also tendered in evidence.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated September 8, 1959, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No.354 of 1959.
Bachan Singh died on November 3, 1958.
He was armless and did number cause any injury to the deceased.
it was number open the companyrt to investigate whether Narain Singh companyld have reasonably apprehended such injury to himself as justified him in causing the death of Bach in Singh.
I was alone at the time.
I did number carry any stick but was wearing a small kirpan as usual.
By sub s. 3 , the answers given by the accused may be taken into companysideration at the enquiry or the trial.
I unsheathed it and used it in self defence causing a companyple of injuries to the deceased on the alarm raised by me, Mehar Singh my company accused who was companying from the khal nearby, came to the spot and rescued me.
Narain Singh had six companytused injuries and Mehr Singh had one incised injury and four abraded companytusions.
Therefore in the view of the Sessions Judge the oral and other evidence was insufficient to sustain the charge of .murder against the three nephews of Narain Singh.
The case for the prosecution that Narain Singh was armed with a stick and joined in the assault upon Bachan Singh was sought to be established by affirmative evidence.
Hakku, another witness, was number examined by the prosecutor, but was merely tendered for cross examination.
It is number open to the Court to dissect the statement and to pick out a part of the statement which may be incriminative, and then to examine whether the explanation furnished by the accused for his companyduct is supported by the evidence on the record.
I was then wearing small kirpan.
A Complaint was lodged about the assault with the Notice, and Bachan Singh was removed to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana.
Again, the story set up in the dying declarations furnished numberexplanation of the injuries received by Narain Singh and Mehar Singh.
Pakhar Singh and Mews Singh denied their presence at the scene of offence.
The medical evidence was also number helpful to the case for the prosecution.
Frank Anthony, K. C. Agarwala and P. C. Agarwala for the appellant.
In finding Narain Singh guilty of the offence under s.304 Part II for causing injuries to the victim Bachan Singh with a, kirpan the Court of Session and the High Court have accepted a case which was number the case of the prosecution, but have relied only upon the statement Narain Singh made in his defence.
The two dying declarations were.
If the accused admits to have done an act which would but for the explanation furnished by him be an offence, the admission cannot be used against him divorced from the explanation.
Examination under s.342 is primarily to be directed to those matters on which evidence has been led for the prosecution to ascertain from the accused his version or explanation if any, of the incident which forms the subject matter of the charge and his defence.
in the view of the Judge, unreliable, for Bachan Singh had before he made the statements ample opportunity to know how the investigation was proceeding, had companysulted Jagir Singh and had opportunity of discussing with him the case to be set up.
Mehar Singh claimed that he was present at the scene, and he had tried to intervene and separate Bachan Singh and Narain Singh.
But there was number an iota of evidence on the record to prove that Bachan Singh had attempted to strangulate him.
Bachan Singh had four incised injuries on his person, three on the cheat, and the fourth on the ,,ring finger left side.
With special leave Narain Singh had appealed to this Court.
None of these injuries companyld be caused with a salang or a kaholi the incised injuries companyld be caused by a spear and also by kirpan.
The case failed because the evidence in support of the case was unreliable.
Narain Singh admitted that he had caused injuries to Bachan Singh with a Kirpan carried by him, but he explained that lie caused the injuries when he was thrown down and Bhchan Singh was attempting to strangulate him.
The Sub Inspector of Police investigating the case recorded the statement of Bachan Singh, and a First Class Magistrate of Ludhiana recorded his declaration on the evening of November 2, 1958.
had companymitted an off nee punishable under s 304 part 11 Indian Penal Code.
One Johri whose name was number mentioned in the companyplaint was also examined by the prosecutor.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
In the view of the Courts injuries on the person of Bachan Singh were caused by Narain Singh by striking him with a kirpan, and the three nephews of Narain Singh had number participated in the assault.
Relying, however, upon the statement made by Narain Singh he held that the injuries on the person of Bachan Singh were caused by the former.
This plea had to be companysidered as a companyposite plea.,
If the accused person in his examination under 9.342 companyfesses to the companymission of the offence charged against him the companyrt may, relying, upon that companyfession, proceed to companyvict him, but if he does number companyfess and in explaining circumstance appearing in the evidence against him sets up his own version and seeks to explain his companyduct pleading that he has companymitted numberoffence, the statement of the accused can only be taken into companysideration in its entirety.
After I had fallen on the ground the deceased attempted to strangulate me.
Against the order of companyviction and sentence Narain Singh preferred an appeal to the High Court of Punjab.
The High Court agreed with the view of the Sessions Court that the evidence was insufficient to establish the case for the prosecution, the High Court also held that the Sessions Court was justified in relying upon the statement made by Narain Singh under s. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in holding that Narain Singh had exceeded the right of self defence by causing the death of Bachan Singh by stabbing him with a kirpan.
The prosecution case was that in the evening of October 31, 1958, when Narain Singh and his three nephews were irrigating their field, Bachan Singh diverted the flow of water into his own filed.
Narain Singh and his nephews made an attack upon Bachan Singh with a kaholi, caused him serious injuries.
of the Indian Penal Code, on the charge that on October 31, 1958, they had in furtherance of their companymon intention caused the death of one Bachan Singh by making a murderous assault on him.
He observed that the marks of injuries on the person of Narain Singh bore out his suggestion that Bachan Singh had obtained strong hold upon him with a view to strangulate him.
According to the prosecution, Mehar Singh at the time of the assault was armed with a spear, Pakhar Singh with a Kaholi, Mewa Singh with a salang and Narain Singh with a stick.
August 21.
The Sessions Judge held that the evidence of Jagir Singh was unreliable and That Johri companyld number have witnessed the assault.
K. Khanna and P. D. Menon, for the respondent.
Before the Court of Session, Jagir Singh a witness for the prosecution made important variations in his story as originally related by him in his companyplaint at the police station.
218 of 1959.
Narain Singh and his three nephews Mehar Singh, Mewa Singh and Pakhar Singh were tried before the Court of Session, Ludhiana for offences punishable under s. 302 read with s. 34.
Kaka, who, it was claimed by the prosecution, was an eye witness, did number support the case for the prosecution.
Narain Singh and his nephews were thereupon enraged, and there was a quarrel between them and Bachan Singh.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. After arguments were companycluded in this appeal we ordered that the appellant Narain Singh be acquitted of the offence under s. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code of which he wag companyvicted and the sentence passed on him be set aside.
The case for the prosecution was that Narain Singh, when he participated in the assault on Bachan Singh, was armed with a stick.
His statement in the Court of Session, on which he was companyvicted, was as follows The companyrect facts are that when I objected to the deceased cutting the nakka he caught hold of me and threw me on the ground.
At the trial, Narain Singh pleaded that he bad acted in exercise of the right of self defence and had caused injuries to Bachan Singh because the latter had thrown him down and had attempted to strangulate him.
