The other two accused caused injuries to Balbir singh PW 4 with the gandasas Balvinder Singh PW 5 on hearing the alarm reached the place of occurrence.
He also further asserted that the appellant and other accused assaulted him PW 4 and Balwinder Singh PW 5 .
The prosecution story mainly rests on the evidence of Balbir Singh PW 4 and Balvinder Singh PW 5 who claimed to be the eye witnesses.
THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1996 Present Honble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee Honble Mr. Justice S.P. Kurdurkar R. Lalit, Sr.
The evidence of Balvinder Singh PW 5 is almost identical in material particulars and he stated that when he heard the alarm given by his father Balbir Singh PW 4 , he companye to the spot and numbericed that the appellant and other accused were assaulting his father Balbir Singh PW 4 and Naib Singh.
Both these witnesses had suppressed the true facts from the Court relating to the incident.
P.W.4 has stated that field of appellant is adjoining to their field.
It is also number in dispute that Naib Singh since deceased was the first companysin of appellant.
Nachhatar Singh A 2 had also sustained injuries went to the Civil Hospital.
He was also assaulted by Nachhatar Singh A 2 and other accused persons.
Nachhatar Singh A 2 gave two gandasa blows to Balvinder Singh PW 5 from the blunt side.
Sukhpal Singh A 3 again tried to gave gandasa blow to him, however, he warded off the same but sustained an injury on his left arm.
They were put up for trial for companymitting the murder of Naib Singh and causing grievous injuries to the prosecution witnesses.
Balvinder Singh PW 5 at the relevant time was having kasauli and in self defence used the same causing injuries to Pritam Singh the appellant and Nachhatar Singh A 2 .
Balbir Singh is the father of Naib Singh since deceased .
Dr. N.G. Garg PW 2 declared Naib Singh dead.
Gidderbaha for medical treatment.
PW2 is Dr. N.C. Garg who performed the autopsy on the dead body of Naib Singh and also issued injury certificates to the injured prosecution witnesses and to Nachhatar Singh A 2 .
P12 and treated the same as formal P.I.R. The crime came to be registered against three persons under Sections 302, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Paras Ram PW 8 Station House Officer, Police Station, Gidderbaha, On receipt of the Information went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of injured Balbir Singh Ex.
The defence of the accused is that they have number companymitted any offence and pleaded that the members of companyplaint partly were aggressors and infact Balvinder Singh PW 5 who was armed with kasauli assaulted and caused injuries to Pritam Singh A 1 and Nachhatar Singh A 2 .
Other accused persons also assaulted Balvinder Singh PW 5 then wielded kasauli in his self defence and in that process Nachhatar Singh had sustained injuries.
J U D G M E N T P. KURDUKAR, J. Criminal appeal No.
They are innocent and they be acquitted.
When they reached the point from where the passage bifurcates to the field of Pritam Singh, Pritam Singh, Nachhatar Singh and Sukhpal singh A 1 to A 3 who were armed with gandasas, came there and raised a lalkara that Balbir Singh PW 4 be number spared.
In exercise of their right of private defence they were companypelled to retaliate the assault.
When they reached the spot which bifurcates the passage, on going to the field of appellant and other going to his field, suddenly, the appellant Nachhatar Singh A 2 , Sukhpal Singh A 3 came to that junction, they were armed with gandasas and said that he PW 4 would number be spared.
Rajiv K.Garg, Ajay Bansal, Ms. Indu Sharma NP N.D.Garg, S.B. Upadhyay, Laxmi Raman Singh, M. Singh, Adv.
Nachhatar Singh A 2 and Sukhpal Singh A 3 gave gandasa blows on his head by the blunt side.
157 of 1985 is filed by the appellant original accused number 1 under section 14 1 of the Terrorist Affected Areas Special Courts Act, Against the judgment and order dated 9th January, 1985 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur in case No.
On February 14, 1984 at about 10.15 a.m.,he alongwith his son Naib Singh were going to the fields and at the relevant time A 1 to A 3 were in their field.
Dr. N.C. Garg PW 2 examined Balbir Singh PW 4 and issued the injury certificate.
36 of 1984.
After companypleting the necessary investigation, the accused were put up for trial for the aforesaid offences.
The learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty of companymitting the murder of Naib Singh and accordingly sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months for an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurt to Balvinder Singh PW 5 .
His statement was also recorded by Paras Ram PW 8 SHO, Police Station, Gidderbaha.
for R.S. Suri, Advs.
He then fell down.
The appellant gave gandasa blow on his head also.
Thana Singh PW 4 and Balvinder Singh PW 5 to the Civil Hospital at Gidderbaha.
nachhatar singh A 2 gave two more blows with gandasa on his head.
Dr. N.C. Garg PW 2 also examined Balvinder Singh PW 5 and found two injuries on his person.
with him for the appearing parties.
Since both these appeals arise out of the companymon judgment, they are being disposed of by this judgment.
The appellant suddenly gave the gandasa blow on the head of Balvinder Singh PW 5 .
Naib Singh sustained a bleeding injury and fell down.
They have companymitted numberoffence.
Sukhpal Singh was companyvicted by the Trial Court under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code but Nachhatar singh was acquitted.
the appellant thereafter opened the attack and gave gandasa blows on the head of Naib Singh.
The appellant immediately attacked and gave gandasa blow on the head of Naib Singh.
J U D G M E N T The following judgment of the Court was delivered Pritam Singh V. State of Punjab WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
This incident was witnessed by Thana Singh PW 6 .
63 of 1988 Balbir Singh V. Nachhatar Singh Ors.
He then gave an alarm and thereafter his son Balvinder Singh PW 5 came there.
Balvinder Singh PW 5 is the son of PW4.
The appellant is brother of Nachhatar Singh A 2 and Sukhpal Singh is son of the appellant A 3 .
Apprehending danger to his life and his father and brother, in self defence, he wielded the kasauli in which Nachhatar had sustained the injuries.
On February 14, 1984, in the morning hours, Balbir Singh PW 4 alongwith his son Naib Singh was going to the fields.
The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses.
Balbir Singh PW 4 and Balvinder Singh PW 5 are the eye witnesses.
Criminal Appeal NO 63 of 1988 is filed by Balbir Singh the companyplainant against the very same judgment challenging the acquittal of Nachhatar Singh and Sukhpal Singh under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned Trial Judge after companysidering the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence taken up by the accused held the appellant guilty of an offence of murder of Naib Singh punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life.
The appellant was also found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurt to Balvinder Singh and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months, It may be stated that we are number companycerned with the other two accused in this appeal.
He then urged that infact the members of the companyplainant party were the aggressors and initially they opened up the assault on Nachhatar singh who had sustained as many as seven injuries out of which two were incised wounds and one was lecerated wound.
Learned companynsel urged that the trial companyrt has totally misread the evidence of Balbir Singh PW 4 and Balvinder Singh PW 5 and wrongly companyvicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences.
When again an alarm was given, the accused fled away.
Balbir Singh PW 4 has been cross examined at great length but, however, he stood firmly and asserted that initially the appellant and his associates opened up the assault and the appellant first gave a gandasa blow on the head of Naib Singh.
