All the respondents came near the companyplaint party and the first respondent made a lalkara and attacked the deceased with a kirpan.
The brief facts of the case as disclosed from the evidence adduced by the prosecution can be summarised as follows Jagjit Singh R 1 aged about 70 years as on the date of occurrence, is the father of respondents Nos.
PW3 another Medical Officer companyducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found as many as five injuries incised .
2, 3, 5,6 and 7.
It is stated that the fathers of Charan singh and Jagjit Singh along with one another, Sulakhan Singh were companysharers.
6 and 7 namely Karam Singh and Dharam Singh and acquitted these three respondents, but found the respondents Nos.
On seeing the first respondent cutting the tree, they took strong objection.
Admittedly, the deceased and his father Charan Singh each armed with the stick attacked the accused party and caused injuries to the accused persons, namely, Baldev Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Habbhajan Singh, Karam Singh and Dharam Singh.
However, the Trial Court acquitted the accused Raghubir Singh.
5 aged about 38 years is the brother of Jagjit Singh.
In other words, the deceased and his father had attacked five of the accused persons and caused them injuries.
The fourth respondent gave a thrust blow with a sua on the left side of the neck of the deceased.
PW 1, the Medical Officer examined Charan Singh and found on his person three companytusions.
6 and 7 each armed with a Takia, Respondent No.
3 with a datar, Respondents Nos.
6 and 7 Karam Singh and Dharam Singh aged 20 and 18 years respectively were the servants of the first respondent Jagjit Singh.
The brain matter was lacerated.
The deceased succumbed to his injuries at the spot.
The first respondent declared that he would teach a lesson to Charan Singh for raising objections then and there.
Harbhajan Singh respondent No.
The deceased fell down on the ground.
The respondents Nos.
5 and 2 each armed with a kirpan went to the well.
Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the Trial Court all the respondents preferred an appeal before the High Court.
4 armed with a Sua, Respondent No.
The allegations on the basis of which these seven respondents along with one Raghubir were tried are that on 6th March 1978 about 7.30 a.m. in the area of village Maridke formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the companymon object of the said assembly caused the death of Lakhbir Singh and also caused injuries to Charan Singh who is the father of the deceased Lakhbir Singh.
Added to that there were two other injuries namely a scabbed abrasion on the left side of the chest, and the other injury is described as whole left hand was cut off from the left arm and thumb of left hand was also cut off from the hand.
The Medical Officer also found certain injuries on the respondents.
It appears that there was a dispute over the enjoyment of the banian tree.
Jagjit Singh went up the tree with a saw and started cutting one of the branches of the tree.
P T before the Sub Inspector of Police who took up the investigation, inspected the spot, held inquest over the dead body and sent the dead body for post mortem examination.
It is further stated that in the companyrse of the same transaction, they all companymitted criminal trespass in the land of Charan Singh.
2 gave another kirpan blow on the neck of the deceased.
Charan Singh along with his sons, the deceased Lakhbir.
A month before the occurrence the respondents wanted to chop some branches of the tree.
The State of Punjab feeling aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab Haryana rendered in Crl.
The Trial Court for the reasons assigned in its Judgment found all the respondents guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and 323 read with 139, I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life, besides awarding various terms of imprisonment for other offences.
Admittedly, the respondents 3 and 4 have companypleted their detention in the certified school.
When Charan Singh went forward to save his son, the sixth respondent gave a toki blow with its reverse side on his left arm followed by a similar toki blow on his head by the seventh respondent.
Singh and witness Jagjir Singh PW 3 as well as his wife Bhajan Kaur and daughter Narinder Kaur who were crushing the sugar cane near their tubewell which was at a distance of about 1 1/2 killas from the banian tree came to the scene spot.
The third respondent gave a datar blow which chopped off his left forearm.
It is stated that both the deceased and his father Charan Singh who were each armed with a parani caused simple injuries on the persons of the respondents Nos.
739/80 against respondents 1 to 7 who took their trial before the District and Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur.
When the deceased raised his left arm the acquitted accused Raghubir Singh gave a token blow on his left thumb.
2, 3 and 4, namely Baldev Singh aged about 18 years, Sukhdev Singh aged 16 years and Rachhpal Singh aged about 15 years.
Charan Singh also took up another parani.
2 and 5 namely Baldev Singh and Harbhajan Singh on being aggrieved by their companyviction have preferred a. separate appeal before this Court in Crl.
Charan Singh took objection and made an oral companyplaint to the Sarpanch of the village who after referring to the revenue records declared that Charan Singh was the owner of the banian tree.
Thereafter Charan Singh lodged the companyplaint at the police station at about 9.45 a.m. under Ex.
At the relevant time of the occurrence the deceased was driving the bullocks, operating the crusher while Charan Singh was transferring the cane juice into the boiler nearby.
There was a banian tree grown on the platform around a well in their companymon land.
Respondents Nos.
So saying, he armed with a knife came down from the tree and went towards the place where the sugarcane was being operated, accompanied by the other respondents and the acquitted accused Raghubir Singh and threw a challenge to Charan Singh, The deceased Lakhbir Singh had a small parani in his hand.
On the date of occurrence the acquitted accused Raghubir Singh, Respondents Nos.
4738/79 has preferred Criminal Appeal No.
The fifth respondent also dealt a kirpan blow on the head of the deceased while the respondent No.
1354 and Crl.
A. No.
2, 3, 4 and 5 guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34, I.P.C. and companyvicted them there under.
He gave his opinion that the injuries found on the witness were simple in nature.
