Gurmail Singh son of Nahar Singh has also challenged his companyviction under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC for causing simple injuries to Kaka Singh and Piaro as well as his companyviction under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC for causing grievous injuries to Gurmail Kaur.
He allegedly fired another shot at Gurdial Singh and injured him on the finger of his right hand.
Therefore, Gurmail Singh son of Nahar Singh was acquitted of the charges against him.
The injuries on Gurmail Kaur from a blunt object were companyfirmed by the medical evidence.
He also fired two shots at Kaka Singh which hit him on the front side of his right shoulder and behind his right upper arm.
Jarnail Singh has been companyvicted by the High Court of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, but we say numberhing in this regard since he has filed a separate petition in this Court against his companyviction.
In the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses while the defence examined one witness.
During the trial, three accused Shingara Singh, Bibi and Raju died and the prosecution abated against them.
He has challenged his companyviction by the High Court for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 149 thereof as well as for an offence under Section 148 of the IPC.
It appears that as a result of the land dispute, Nachhatar Singh allegedly murdered Gurdial Singhs son Mohinder Singh on 20th February 1989.
Decision of the High Court Against the decision of the Trial Judge, the companyvicts filed appeals and the State also preferred appeals, though against the acquittal and for enhancement of the sentence awarded.
The companytentions urged by the accused persons before the High Court were essentially a reiteration of the companytentions urged before the Trial Court.
No one from Gurdial Singhs party all of whom were unarmed was spared, except Joginder Singh who had hidden himself.
Decision of the Trial Court The Trial Judge held that there was a land dispute between Gurdial Singh and Nachhatar Singh.
They were informed by Gurmail Kaur and Piaro both daughters of Gurdial Singh that some shots were fired in the village near Nachhatar Singhs house.
It needs to be mentioned here that some of these eight persons were residents of village Shahpur Kalan, while others were residents of village Jharon, both under Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur Punjab .
The injuries were ante mortem in nature.
The Trial Judge rejected this companytention, taking numbere of the fact that Joginder Singh companyplainant hid himself.
Gurmail Singh son of Nahar Singh and nephew of Nachhatar Singh along with Pargat Singh an associate gave gandasa blows to Gurdial Singh on his right shoulder and on his right arm.
The Trial Judge also rejected the companytention that there were improvements in the statements of PW 5 Gurmail Kaur and PW 6 Piaro and held that there companyld be discrepancies with the passage of time.
The post mortem examination of the body of Gurdial Singh showed as many as 116 lacerated wounds and 15 pellets were found in his thigh.
Shingara Singh husband of Bibi also gave Gurdial Singh a gandasa blow on the left side of the forehead.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the appeals by judgment and order dated 10th October 2006 under appeal .
On this, eight persons the accused which included Nachhatar Singhs nephews, their associates and Nachhatar Singhs sister Bibi attacked them.
The Trial Judge also relied on the evidence of PW 4 Joginder Singh companyplainant to hold that there was a land dispute between Gurdial Singh and Nachhatar Singh.
On receiving this information, all of them left for the village.
Gurmail Singh son of Bachan Singh an associate fired at Piaro with a 12 bore double barrel gun and injured her left ankle.
He has challenged his companyviction by the High Court for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for which he was earlier acquitted by the Trial Court.
Necessary medical attention was provided to Kaka Singh, Dial Singh, Gurmail Kaur and Piaro who had sustained injuries.
He has also challenged the upholding of his companyviction by the High Court for an offence under Section 324 of the IPC for causing injuries to Kaka Singh and Piaro.
The High Court held that the accused had a motive for companymitting the crime.
On the issues raised regarding the motive for the crime and the alleged delay in lodging the FIR and submitting a report to the Ilaqa Magistrate, the Trial Judge ruled in favour of the prosecution.
Under these circumstances, Jarnail Singh was companyvicted of an offence punishable under part I of Section 304 of the IPC.
It was urged that Joginder Singh companyplainant was number present when the occurrence took place since he did number receive any injury.
As already numbered, Gurdial Singh succumbed to his injuries.
Gurmail Singh son of Nahar Singh had earlier been acquitted of all charges by the Trial Court.
Before the Trial Judge, it was companytended that there was a delay in lodging the FIR of the incident and in sending a report to the Ilaqa Magistrate.
Two members of the assembly Gurmail Singh, nephew of Nachhatar Singh and Bibi, sister of Nachhatar Singh gave a lalkara a challenge to effectively finish off Gurdial Singh and his party.
However, with regard to the companystitution of an unlawful assembly, the High Court disagreed with the Trial Court.
He relied on the statement of PW 3 Darshan Singh, a Court Ahlmad who companyfirmed the pendency of the civil suit between Gurdial Singh and Nachhatar Singh.
1783 of 2008 filed by Gurmail Singh son of Nahar Singh.
The High Court did number give much significance to the companytention that had Joginder Singh been present, he too would have suffered some injuries.
The medical evidence also showed that Kaka Singh received two injuries through a firearm and similarly a firearm caused the injury received by Piaro.
The High Court found numbermerit in the companytention that the investigating officer was biased.
He also numbered his testimony to the effect that Mohinder Singh son of Gurdial Singh was murdered by Nachhatar Singh and that Gurdial Singh was an eyewitness to the alleged murder.
On dissection clotted blood was present and the muscle and vessels were found lacerated 15 pallets were found packed.
In other words, the High Court agreed with and upheld the companyclusions arrived at by the Trial Judge on all issues.
Shingara Singh and Raju gave gandasa blows to Gurmail Kaur daughter of Gurdial Singh from the blunt end of the gandasa.
Moreover, the offence was first registered under Section 307 of the IPC but on the death of Gurdial Singh, it was companyverted into one punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
Gurmail Singh son of Nahar Singh was responsible for giving gandasa blows to Gurdial Singh.
After the attack and on cries being raised by the victims, the assailants left the scene.
On this basis, the Trial Judge companycluded that there some enmity between the two families and that the appellants and others had a motive for companymitting the offences for which they were charged.
Following up on this, shots were fired at Gurdial Singh, Kaka Singh and Piaro.
1782 of 2008 filed by Gurmail Singh son of Bachan Singh.
However, on the substantive legal issue before him, the Trial Judge pithily observed that the prosecution did number lead any evidence to show the formation of an unlawful assembly by the accused persons number was any evidence led to show that the assembly had any companymon object.
Gurmail Singh son of Bachan Singh was companyvicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act for possessing an unlicenced gun.
The Trial Judge was of the view that since the firearm and gandasa injuries caused to Gurdial Singh were on number vital parts of his body, they were number dangerous to life and so there was numberintention on the part of Jarnail Singh and Gurmail Singh son of Nahar Singh to kill him.
As far as Gurmail Singh son of Nahar Singh is companycerned, it was held that since the accused party was armed with guns, causing injuries to Gurdial Singh with gandasas does number arise.
He also received some injuries in the scuffle that took place.
The motive being the land dispute between the families and also that Gurdial Singh was an eyewitness to the alleged murder of his son Mohinder Singh by Nachhatar Singh.
It was held that there was numberdelay in lodging the FIR by Joginder Singh.
He was also companyvicted under Section 324 of the IPC for causing injuries to Kaka Singh and Piaro.
With regard to the firearm injuries caused to Kaka Singh and Piaro on number vital parts of their body, it was held that Gurmail Singh son of Bachan Singh was guilty of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.
Therefore, on the facts alleged by the prosecution, the Trial Judge agreed with the prosecution and believed all its witnesses.
The dispute pertained to ownership of land and a civil suit is pending between the parties in this regard in Mansa.
Dial Singh also received some injuries.
The High Court was of the view that the witnesses had withstood their cross examination and it companyld number be said that they had given an incorrect version of the events because of inimical relations.
Kaka Singh did number enter the witness box he was apparently won over by the defence but the testimony of the eyewitnesses was relied on to hold that Gurmail Singh son of Bachan Singh had injured him.
Gurmail Singh son of Nahar Singh was acquitted of the charges against him.
Joginder Singh companyplainant went to the police station and lodged a first information report FIR for short at about 11.30 p.m. This reached the Ilaqa Magistrate the next morning at about 6.30 a.m. Based on the FIR, investigations were carried out and a charge sheet was filed against eight persons.
During the attack, Jarnail Singh nephew of Nachhatar Singh allegedly fired a shot with a 12 bore double barrel gun at Gurdial Singh and injured him on his left thigh.
The High Court found that there was numbersubstance in the companytention that Joginder Singh was number present at the scene of the crime.
On 10th March 1989 at about 9/9.30 p.m. Gurdial Singh and his two brothers, Kaka Singh and Dial Singh along with Joginder Singh, the companyplainant whose daughter is married to Gurdial Singhs son were irrigating their fields in village Heeron Kalan, Police Station Bhikhi, District Bhatinda Punjab .
The Trial Judge companyvicted Jarnail Singh under part I of Section 304 of the IPC.
With regard to the injuries suffered by Gurmail Singh son of Nahar Singh, it was held that the evidence showed that the injuries were caused by his companyaccused in the darkness.
Gurdial Singh, Dial Singh and Gurmail Kaur were subjected to gandasa blows.
The facts There was a dispute between the families of Gurdial Singh and Nachhatar Singh.
As can be seen, Gurmail Singh son of Bachan Singh had injured Piaro and Kaka Singh with a 12 bore double barrel gun.
On the merits of the case, the Trial Judge relied on the evidence of the eyewitnesses, PW 4 Joginder Singh, PW 5 Gurmail Kaur and PW 6 Piaro.
Gurdial Singh was an eyewitness to the alleged murder.
The injured were taken to the Civil Hospital where Gurdial Singh succumbed to his injuries.
The Trial Judge rejected the companytention that PW 5 Gurmail Kaur and PW 6 Piaro were interested witnesses and therefore they ought number to be believed.
Individual companyvictions were, accordingly, handed down.
It was held that there was numberchallenge to the genuineness of the FIR number was there any allegation that it was fabricated or doctored.
The second appeal is Criminal Appeal No.
In the scuffle that took place, Gurmail Singh son of Bachan Singh received some injuries.
The medical evidence indicated that Gurdial Singh had received two injuries caused by a firearm and injuries from a sharp weapon.
When they were about to enter their house, a lalkara a challenge was given by Gurmail Singh son of Nahar Singh and nephew of Nachhatar Singh and Bibi Nachhatar Singhs sister to the effect that numberone from Gurdial Singhs party would be spared.
The disputants are related.
Of the remaining five accused, we are companycerned only with the appeals of Gurmail Singh son of Bachan Singh an associate and Gurmail Singh son of Nahar Singh and nephew of Nachhatar Singh.
