If at all the appellant was aggrieved with the companyduct of Manjit Singh he would have attacked him s on after the quarrel hid taken place and would number have warded till 3 or 4 a.m. to companye and attack him.
3,000/ and to undergo three years R.I. in default of payment of fine.
Besides there were also abrasions.
On a companysideration of the matter we find there are several factors which cast serious doubts about the truth of the prosecution case, In the first place, though there was a quarrel between the appellant and Manjit Singh at about 9 or 10 p.m. on 8.5.75, it was only a drunken brawl and therefore it is doubtful if the appellant would have companye to attack Manjit Singh some hours later to settle scores with him.
He advised PW 2 to inform the matter to one Jagan Nath and on PW 2 informing Jagan Nath he was asked by the latter to inform one Kartar Chand, Municipal Commissioner about the occurrence and accordingly PW 2 went and informed Kartar Chand.
PW 2 Ramesh Chand and PW 3 Subhash Chander intervened and pacified them and sent them away.
Some hours later i.e. at about 3 or 4 a.m. on 9.5.76 PW 2 was awakened by the appellant and enquired as to where Manjit Singh was.
On the basis of PW 2s report a case was registered against the appellant and was duly investigated.
86 of 1989, the new market and lay down on a bench.
The stab injuries on the chest and the injuries on the head which had caused fracture of the left parietal bone were certified by PW 1 to be injuries sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature cause death.
PW 3 went to the New Market alongwith PW 2 and saw the dead body of Manjit Singh lying there.
The appellant was duly charged and tried for the offence of murder.
The Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case and rejected the plea of the accused and companyvicted him under the respective charges framed against him and the High Court companyfirmed the companyvictions and sentences.
PW 2 took the appellant to the new market which was only about 9 or 10 yards from where PW 2 was sleeping and pointed out Manjit Singh sleeping on the bench.
While the appellant went away to his house Manjit Singh went to Judgment dated April 7, 1989 in Criminal Appeal No.
At once the appellant caught hold of the hair of Manjit Singh and pulled him down to the ground and thereafter beat him on his head 3 or 4 times with an iron rod brought by him.
Thereafter it is said that Kartar Chand took PW 2 to the Police Station and PW 2 lodged the first information report.
Manjit Singhs dead body was sent for autopsy and PW 1 Dr. Gurdip Kumar Uppal, who companyducted the autopsy found two incised injuries on the chest, another incised injury on the upper part of the left car pinna and three companytused injuries on the forehead and both sides of the head.
Not stopping with that, the appellant took out a knife brought by him and inflicted two or three stabs on the chest of Manjit Singh.
He has also been companyvicted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months on each companynt, the sentences to run companycurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life.
The appellant was number immediately traceable but later in the day he was apprehended near the bus stand and on being questioned he gave a statement leading to the recovery of a bloodstained knife from a place of companycealment in his house.
The appellant denied his companyplicity in the offence and stated that PW 3 and the Municipal Commissioner Kartar Chand were engaged in doing Satta gambling and deceased Manjit Singh was their henchman and because he appellant and some others had raised objection to the satta gambling activities they have all joined together and falsely implicated him in the case.
PW 2 went back to his house and dozed off for some time and thereafter went and informed PW 3 at his house as to what had happened.
Independent material for this inference is furnished by the evidence of the doctor PW 1 who companyducted the autopsy.
The appellant has been awarded companyviction for the offences mentioned above in the following circumstances At about 9 or 10 p.m. on 8.5.75 the appellant and deceased Manjit Singh, who were both aged about 18 years had a quarrel while taking curd and while in a drunken mood near the shop of one Mohinder Pal in Kharasanwali Gali, Amritsar.
Manjit Singh died almost instantaneously on receipt of the injuries inflicted on him by the appellant.
The appellant warned PW 2 that if he told anyone of what he had seen he would also be dealt with in the same manner and then left the place.
Natarajan, J. The appellant Surinder Singh who has preferred this appeal by special leave has been companyvicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
