Though the trial Court found that these two appellants also caused injuries to the deceased it has observed that these two appellants companyld number be companyvicted with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. and companysequently while companyvicting Gian Singh under Section 302, I.P.C. companyvicted these two appellants under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.
321/78 questioning the acquittal of these two appellants of the charge under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. The High Court while giving the reasons mentioned in its judgment companycluded In these circumstances, we are satisfied that they clearly shared a companymon intention to cause death of Buta Singh along with Gian Singh.
Appeal No.
321 of 1978 on the file of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh enhancing the sentence of these two appellants from five years to imprisonment for life under Section 303, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. It be numbered that in the SLP it is mentioned that the leave was sought as against Crl.
1181 of 1977 and the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.
A. No.
321/78 .
These two appellants along with one Gian Singh took their trial on the allegations that on 1 3 77 at about 2 p.m. they caused the death of one Buta Singh at Khanpur Dhada.
There are three eye witnesses to the occurrence, namely, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6.
PW 1, the Medical Officer, who examined Buta Singh and also companyducted the post mortem examination found as many as 16 injuries and gave his opinion that injuries Nos.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, these two appellants and Gian Singh filed criminal appeal No.
Ratnavel Pandian, J. These two appellants have filed this criminal appeal questioning the companyrectness of the judgment made in Criminal Appeal No.
1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 were individually and companylectively sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
1181/77 instead of Crl.
