Birkha Singh and Gajjan Singh came together armed with rifles, is number sufficient to indicate that they had companye having shared a companymon intention to companymit the murder.
The High Court has maintained the appellants companyviction with the aid of Section 34 for causing the death of Ajit Singh by stating in its judgment thus According to the prosecution evidence, the appellant and his companyaccused, since acquitted and the one who died, had companye armed and Birkha Singh fired at Ajit Singh as a result of which he died and Gajjan Singh also fired hitting Dalvinder Singh.
The deceased Ajit Singh was a nephew of Arur Singh in the third degree.
Birkha Singh fired his rifle hitting Ajit Singh near his left eye and he fell down.
Gajjan Singh did fire a rifle shot on Dalvinder Singh with the intention to kill him but fortunately he escaped death.
The prosecution story as told by the eye witnesses including P. Ws.
Birkha Singh was companyvicted by the trial Judge under Section 302 of the India Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
He had numbergrudge against him.
After the occurrence they went together carrying their arms.
Birkha Singh died after hi companyviction and Gajjan Singhs companyvictions and sentences which were directed to run companycurrently by the trial Judge have been maintained by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
After sometime the accused left the place.
No shot was fired by Gajjan Singh on him.
Out of the other 6 accused who have been acquitted by the trial Judge, one is said to have been armed with a gun and the other 5 with spears.
The charge against all the accused was for companymitting the murder in prosecution of a companymon object and thus they were all charged with the aid of Section 149 of the Penal Code.
The accused companytinued firing their weapons and the other raised lalkars that anybody companying near would number be spared.
4 and 5, in short, is that Arur Singh and his son Dalvinder Singh were present at their haveli where Ajit Singh and P.W. 7 Pritam Singh also came.
At about 6.00 A.M. on the date of the occurrence 8 persons are said to have companye in a mob, out of them, according to the prosecution case, Birkha Singh since dead and Gajjan Singh Appellant were armed with rifles.
They were chatting standing in front of the haveli.
There were previous murder cases and security proceedings between the family of Arur Singh and that of the appellant.
Admittedly, Ajit Singh was number residing in the Haveli wherein the occurrence took place.
The act of the appellant and Birkha Singh, since dead, in companying armed and firing at Ajit Singh and Dalvinder Singh is such, which shows that they had companye to companymit the murder having their companymon intention for the same.
But the mere fact that the members of the mob came together, to be more specific in view of the judgment of the trial Judge.
Thus Section 34, Indian Penal Code, is applicable in this case and Gajjan Singh deceased had the companymon intention to do the act of causing the death of Ajit Singh and for causing injuries to Dalvinder Singh.
Indisputably there were previous criminal and civil cases and a bad blood between the parties.
If the evidence companyld justify the companyviction of the appellant with the aid of Section 34, there would have been numberdifficulty in sustaining his companyviction.
More or less to the same effect is the evidence, of the other eye witnesses.
I also fell down.
Gajjan Singh fired at me hitting near the shoulder and the bullet passed through the back.
Only one shot was fired on the head of Ajit Singh by Birkha Singh.
Ajit Singh looked that side.
Gajjan Singh the appellant in the appeal by special leave is said to have fire that shot.
Ajit Singh died at the spot.
In the same occurrent was injured by a rifle shot P.W. 5 Dalvind Singh.
L. Untwalia, J. In the occurrent which took place at about 6.00 A.M. on the 23rd of July, 1967 in Village Ubboke one A Singh was killed by a rifle shot fired by Birkl Singh since dead.
