On hearing the shot certain other people came out from the house.
The Sessions Judge companysidered the evidence in detail and companyvicted all the Accused for offences under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 302, 307, 326, 325, 324, 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The defence also examined three witnesses, who were doctors to show that some of the Accused had also received injuries.
Thereafter Mahinder Singh fired another shot from his gun.
He then made his way to village Babail and examined the place of the occurrence and lifted blood stained earth from two places and an empty shell of a .12 bore cartridge from the place of occurrence.
On 30th August, 1993, Mahinder Appellant in Crl.
The fine was enhanced to Rs.1000/ and in default thereof he was to undergo further RI for 3 months.
On 20th August, 1993 there was again a heated exchange between members of the family of these two persons and there was threat, by one Arjun Singh from the group of the Appellants that they would companye with lathis.
Some injuries were also caused to some of the accused.
All the above named persons, who were arrested, were companymitted to the Sessions Court.
On 31st August, 1993, Mahiya, Nafe Singh and Ram Singh son of Harbans were arrested.
As per their disclosure statements the weapons used by them were recovered.
The Report and evidence proved that the fired cartridge case had been fired from these two guns and that the pellets recovered from the dead body of Ram Chander and the person of Balkar Singh were Shot Gun Pellets, which companyld have been fired from these guns.
Paramjit Singh Appellant in Crl.
In respect of Sanjay, Randhir, Ram Singh son of Jailu , Nafe Singh, Rajinder Singh, Mahiya, Arjun, Lachhman and Molar, the High Court upheld their companyviction under Section 323 I.P.C. but sentenced them to period of imprisonment already undergone.
As they pleaded number guilty, they were brought to trial.
66 DB of 1996 in the High Court of Punjab Haryana.
All the Accused filed Criminal Appeal No.
It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter at 7 a.m. on 21st of August, 1993 while Raj Pal along with Fateh Singh, Ram Mehar and Ram Chander was sitting on a company, spread outside the house of Ram Mehar, Paramjit the Appellant in Crl.
The FIR in this respect was registered at 10.55 a.m. on the same day.
Mahinder fired from his .12 bore double barrel gun and the shot hit Ram Chander.
It is the case of the prosecution that several other injuries were caused to the other members of the companyplainant party.
At that time Paramjit fired two shots from his gun.
Appeal No.
A lathi was recovered as per the disclosure statement made by him.
Pursuant to a disclosure statement made by him, a double barrel gun along with two fired cartridge cases still in the gun barrel was recovered.
In the fight which took place Raj Pal and Ram Mehar caught hold of the gun of the Appellant herein and broke it into pieces.
A .12 bore double barrel gun was recovered on the basis of a disclosure statement made by him.
It is the case of the prosecution that Jaswant Singh then gave a gandasi blow on the left arm of Raj Pal, and Molar gave a lathi blow on head, left arm and numbere of Raj Pal.
On 18th September, 1993, Arjun Singh, Bhalle Ram, Raj Kumar and Lachhman were arrested.
Molar was arrested on 10th October, 1993.
On 19th August, 1993, as the said Subhash was returning from the fields, carrying a bundle of jowar, Raj Pal with two other persons intercepted him and gave him a beating.
By the impugned Judgment dated 11th September, 1997, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the incident was in the nature of a free fight and that each of the accused was only liable for their individual act.
In their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, Mahinder Singh denied that he was present at the spot and claimed that because of his good relations with the family of Molar he had been falsely implicated.
Appeal No.882/99 armed with a double barrel gun belonging to his father , persons by names Nafe Singh, Molar, Randhir, Ram Singh son of one Jailu , Arjun Singh, Rajinder and one Raj Kumar armed with lathis, Lachhman Singh, Bhalle Ram, Ram Singh son of one Harbans armed with jailies, Jaswant Singh armed with a gandasi and Mahinder Singh the Appellant in Crl.
In respect of Mahinder and Paramjit, the High Court held that it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that these two persons had fired the guns and that this had resulted in the death of Ram Chander.
Thereafter PW 16 i.e. Sub Inspector Badan Singh, who was the SHO of Police Station Sadar Panipat, took up the investigation from ASI Bhagat Singh.
Subhash then companyplained to Ex Sarpanch of the village, who in turn companyplained to the father of the Raj Pal, one Bhalle Ram that his son should number behave in this manner.
On 21st of August, 1993, there was again an exchange of word between family members of Raj Pal and the son of one of the accused by name Mahiya.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The case of the prosecution is that on the evening of 18th August, 1993, one Subhash and one Raj Pal, both residents of village Babail had a quarrel.
The prosecution examined 18 witnesses.
During this exchange the family members of Raj Pal taunted the said Mahiya that they only give empty threats and did number carry them out.
Mahinder and Paramjit were also companyvicted for offences punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
882/99 was arrested on 28th September, 1993.
The fine was increased to Rs.1000/ each and in default of payment thereof each was directed to undergo further RI for three months.
All the Accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ each.
The accused then ran away from the scene carrying their weapons.
Appeal No.883/99 armed with a double barrel gun came there.
Initially PW18, Sub Inspector Bhagat Singh recorded a report in the daily diary register and recorded the statement of PW 10 i.e. Ram Mehar.
The guns and the cartridges were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Madhuban.
883/99 was arrested.
A jaili each was recovered as per the disclosure statements made by Bhalle Ram and Lachhman.
According to the report given by the Laboratory and supported by the evidence of PW 5, i.e. Dr. L.A. Kumar, the Deputy Director of the Laboratory, the gun recovered from Paramjit singh was in a broken companydiiton but companyld be made serviceable after repairs and the gun recovered from Mahinder Singh was serviceable.
On the other hand Paramjit Singh admitted the incidents but claimed that it was the group of Ram Mehar who were causing injuries to Molar and others and that he merely intervened to save those persons.
The shots hit one Balkar, Om Pati and Ram Chander on various parts of their bodies.
A lathi each was recovered as per the disclosure statements made by Arjun Singh and Raj Kumar.
LITTTTTTJ N. VARIAVA, J. These two Criminal Appeals can be disposed of by this companymon Judgment.
Both the Appeals are filed against a Judgment dated 11th September, 1997 of the Punjab Haryana High Court.
Appeal No.
He recorded the statements of various witnesses and then arrested Ram Singh son of Jailu , Jaswant Singh, Randhir, Rajinder and Sanjay.
He claimed that he fired the shots to save himself and his companypanions.
He admitted that his gun was broken to pieces.
