The facts leading to the incident arc as follows The management of the companylege charged the students of 1972 73 batch Rs.
This appeal by special leave preferred by Jagat Singh is limited to the ground whether the offence fell under Section 304 and number under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Jagat Singh was Director of Physical Education in Sir Chhotu Ram College of Education, Rohtaki On February 14, 1973 at 12.40 P.M. Umed Singh, a student of that College, was hit on the chest and right thigh in the companylege premises by two shots fired in quick succession by Jagat Singh from his gun.
20/ each for supplying sportswear.
The students then marched in a body to the appellants office, called him out and demanded accounts.
On February 14, the students stayed away from their classes in sympathy with the striking teachers of another companylege.
The situation in which the appellant had fired from his gun as recorded by the High Court was like this.
The sportswear about which grievance was made had been supplied to the students about six or seven months before the date of the occurrence and the demands for accounts from the appellant was raised only as a bogey by the studentsto average the insult which they thought had been caused to them, by the appellant trying to catch hold of their guest.
This plea was number accepted either by the High Court or the Court of Sessions.
Another student, Jagdish Kumar, also received a pellet injury on his left arm.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana hearing the appeal preferred by Jagat Singh against his companyviction and the reference for companyfirmation of the sentence of death passed on him, maintained his companyviction but companymuted the sentence of death to one for imprisonment for life.
It appears that the appellant managed to go to his residential quarter which was at a distance of about 100 yards from his office and came armed with Section 12 bore gun.
Hukam Singh assured the students that the accounts would be placed before them the next day when the principal of the companyleged was to join duty.
It was after the incident involving their guest that the students adopted an aggressive posture against the appellant.
After taking this decision the students went in a body to Chaudhuri Hukam Singh who was acting as principal on that day and asked for accounts.
Umed Singh died on way to hospital.
One of the slogans raised by the students was dismiss Jagat Singh.
As the students insisted on having the accounts produced that very day, Hukam Singh companysulted the appellant and informed them that the appellant would render accounts to them.
The students adopted an agitational approach right from the start.
The plea taken by the appellant was that he was incircled and manhandled by the students and in that male the gun accidenttly went off.
This infuriated a section of the students who companysidered the said political worker as their guest.
The students felt that what was supplied to them were number worth the money they had paid.
A batch of students gathered in the companylage companypound and decided to demand an account from the companylege authorities.
A political worker who was number a student was seen addressing the students on the companylege lawns exhorting them to stay away from the classes, and the appellant trying to catch him gave him a chase.
He was further companyvicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and two years respectively.
C. Gupta, J. Appellant Jagat Singh was companyvicted by the Additional Sessions Judge Jind, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death.
