1 to 3 and Rattan Lal for the murder of those very persons.
On November 3, 1966, the appellant Bhushan Lal, Kahan Singh and Gopi Chand were also produced for medical examination.
Therein he gave out a different version of the incident.
From the two versions put forward by the prosecution and the accused, it is clear that an incident did take place at the place and time mentioned in the charge as a result of which the two deceased persons received serious injuries, one of them namely Moti Ram died very soon after the incident and the other Balak Ram on November 1, 1966.
One of the companytusions was in the right eye brow.
At the trial of the case numberevidence whatsoever was led against Rattan Lal.
Despite the report of the police, the learned magistrate took companynizance against all the appellants as well as against Rattan Lal, But instead of framing one companysolidated charge against all of them, he adopted a somewhat numberel procedure.
This witness also appears to be an independent witness, and his evidence had companymended itself to the trial Court as well as to the High Court.
injuries Nos.
Appellant Gopi Ghand wanted to purchase that land.
P.W. 4 is undoubtedly an interested witness He is the brother of deceased Moti Ram.
The learned trial judge believed the prosecution evidence, companyvicted the appellants under sec 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. He acquitted Rattan Lal.
No evidence whatsoever was led against Rattan Lal, number even the three Court witnesses implicated Rattan Lal.
The death sentences imposed on them were subject to the companyfirmation by the High Court.
On Bhushan Lal, there were two minor abrasions.
There was bitter enimty between the party of the accused and the deceased.
Therein he further stated that appellants Nos.
He claims to have seen the occurrence himself.
The Medical Officer who had companyducted the post mortem of Moti Ram was of the opinion that primarily the deceased must have died as a result of that injury.
The learned Sessions Judge sent up the records to the High Court with his report for companyfirmation of the death sentences imposed on the appellants.
When they were being removed to the hospital, Moti Ram died on the way and later Balak Ram died in the hospital.
On hearing those cries, he proceeded towards the scene.
The division bench accepted the prosecution case and companyfirmed the companyvictions of the appellants.
He enquired with them as to what had happened.
In that information he accused the appellants as having attacked Moti Ram and Balak Ram.
1 and 5.
The appeal filed by the appellants and the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge were heard together by a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
When he had companyered about four killas, he saw the appellants companying from the opposite directions.
On January 31, 1967, P.W. 4, Harnam Das filed a petition before the judicial Magistrate, Ist Glass Ambala Gantt.
He framed two sets of alternative charges.
His door opened to that land and it is admitted by P.W. 4 that because of the purchase of the land by his party, Gopi Chand might have had to close his door.
The prosecution case, as mentioned earlier, was that when the deceased persons were proceeding to their field for cultivation, they were attacked by the appellants at that stage, the deceased persons put up a meek defence but they were overpowered and done to death.
Gopi Chand had nine injuries, three companytusions and six abrasions.
Balak Ram had sustained six injuries three of them were companytusions, one was an incised injury.
alleging that the police were sabotaging the prosecution case with a view to help the accused.
But his evidence gets companyroboration from the First Information given by him.
The evidence of Gobind Ram is to the effect that on the morning in question he heard cries from the scene of occurrence.
Thereafter this appeal has been brought by special leave.
The post mortem examination disclosed a big haematoma under the scalp.
Kahan Singh had two injuries, one was a companytusion 1/2 x 1/6th on the middle of the scalp, the other was an abrasion.
Their evidence receives support from the evidence of P.W. 8, Gobind Ram and P.W. 9, Gurcharan Singh.
There is numberdoubt that both the deceased persons had received serious injuries.
P.W. 5 appears to be an independent witness.
Appellant Gopi Ghand is the first companysin of deceased Moti Ram.
The information about this offence was laid by P.W. 4, Harnam Das, the brother of the deceased Moti Ram at 9 30 a.m. on the same morning at Mullana Police Station which is about six miles from the scene of occurrence.
For the murder of Moti Ram all the appellants were sentenced to death but in the charge for the murder of Balak Ram, appellant Bhushan Lal was sentenced to death but the other accused were sentenced to imprisonment for life.
1 and 3, when they were proceeding in a cart and that the appellant No.
The Superintendent of Police forwarded this petition to the Dy.
As against the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, the appellants went up in appeal to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
At that time they were all armed.
Both of them must have been mercilessly attacked.
This version is supported primarily by the evidence of P.W. 4, Harnam Das and P.W. 5, Sadhu Singh.
The evidence of P.W. 4 and 5 has been accepted as true both by the trial Court as well as by the High Court.
Its dimension was 4 x 1.
One companytusion was 3/4 x 1/4 on the scalp, another 1/2 x 1/4 again on the scalp and the third was 5 1/4 x 1/4 on the forearm, very minor character.
The accused and the deceased persons are close relations.
Further he had a big swelling extending from the angle of right mandible upwards above the ear and right side of the scalp.
The medical evidence discloses that Moti Ram had received as many as 12 injuries, six of them were incised wounds and two were companytusions.
It must be remembered that information was given very soon after the occurrence and therefore the possibility of putting up raise version is remote.
That injury had fractured his skull the bones of the skull were broken into many pieces.
In the first set he charged the present appellants Under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. for the murder of Moti Ram and Balak Ram respectively under the second set he charged appellants Nos.
After the investigation the police sent up a somewhat curious final report.
But it reduced the sentence imposed on the appellants to imprisonment for life.
The learned Sessions Judge did number alter the charge which he companyld have and should have.
As observed by the learned judges of the High Court when relations fall out, the bitterness is all the greater.
Therefore the companyplaint of P.W. 4, Harnam Das that the police were trying to sabotage the prosecution case cannot be dismissed as being frivolous.
According to the version given by him, the deceased persons and some of their relations attacked the appellants Nos.
The Medical Officer was of the opinion death must have been the result of shock and haemorrhage due to the two blows given on the head of Balak Ram viz.
They told him that they had taught a lesson to Moti Ram and Balak Ram.
He in turn appears to have entrusted the same to the Inspector of Police.
The implied suggestion in that companyplaint was that with a view to undermine his companyplaint, the police were distorting the version showing that Bhushan Lal, appellant No.
Superintendent of Police for enquiry.
1 to 3 defended themselves by removing the cart pegs.
According to P.W. 9, at about the time of the occurrence, he was returning to his house after answering the calls of nature.
4 was number present at the occurrence and thereby number only exonerate Bhushan Lal but also companydemn the evidence adduced in support of his companyplaint as being unreliable.
It is also seen from the evidence that the Superintendent of Police himself went to the locality some days later and supervised the investigation.
His evidence has also been believed by both the Courts Ordinarily this Court does number reappraise evidence already companysidered by two Courts.
Despite the fact that the companyplaints version that the appellants including Bhushan Lal had attacked the deceased persons was supported by other evidence, it was recommended in that report that Bhushan Lal may be discharged and in his place Rattan Lal, the brother of the appellant Gopi Chand, who as seen earlier had sent a petition on Nov. 5, 1967, be included as an accused.
Bhushan Lal was number present at the time of the occurrence.
A case and a companynter case was pending between the parties Under Section 307, I.P.C. Both the parties were also being proceeded against Under Section 107, I.P.C. About five days before the occurrence, the party of the deceased had purchased the land just in front of the house of the appellant, Gopi Chand.
During the pendency of the investigation of the case one Rattan Lal, the brother of the appellant Gopi chand sent a petition to the Superintendent of Police, Ambala on Novembers, 1966.
It is said that they fell unconscious at the spot itself.
But the prosecution adduced evidence only against the appellants.
After holding a preliminary enquiry, he companymitted the appellants as well as Rattan Lal to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ambala for being tried under the charges mentioned above.
S. Hegde, J. At about 7 a.m. on October 31, 1966, two persons by name Moti Ram and Balak Ram were injured as a result of an attack on them.
The attack in question is said to have been made when they were on their way to the field for cultivation.
