3, 4 and 9, and held that Sadhu Singh, the accused, fired his gun at the deceased with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as would suffice in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death and that he was guilty of the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. He, however, held that the accuseds mind was affected by drink and he more readily gave way to violent passion and that the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if he was given transportation for life.
P. Ws.
Harnam Singh attended to Harbachan Singh.
The facts are, that on 29 10 1949 Harbachan Singh, deceased, went to village Bihla because he intended to borrow a camel from Nand Singh, P. W. 4.
The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of the three eye witnesses, P. Ws.
P. A. that Sadhu Singh accused tried to prepare chicken meat for us.
5,000 and on furnishing a surety for a like amount with the undertaking that he will keep the peace and be of good behavior for a period of one year from the date of order.
I have heard the portion marked E to E of F. I. R., Ex.
3 and 4 are the two persons who had accompanied the deceased Mahant and also accompanied him to Sadhu Singhs house, and later on followed him when he got ready to leave the house.
Sadhu Singh accused was standing just outside the door and was witnessing the happening.
At the behest of Nand Singh, Harbachan Singh got up from the company and began to tie his turban and added that they would take rest at his house and would buy opium from the companytractual shop.
When the talk about the opium took place, the accused was strolling with his gun and was standing in the door of the chubara.
On the basis of this report a case was registered against the accused under Section 338, I. P. C. It was then thought by the police that the accused was guilty of a rash and negligent act endangering human life and personal safety.
As soon as he came out of the room he was hit by gunshot in the chest.
Sadhu Singh accused then went out of the chubara taking the gun and bag of cartridges with him.
As already stated, the companyviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 302, I. P. C., mainly rests on the version of the incident as given by the three eye witnesses, P. Ws.
On it Harbachan Singh returned that mawa of opium.
We reached the village at about 11 or 12 P.M. Again said We reached with the police at about 2 or 3 A.M. We reached Bhadaur station again at about 10 or 11 A.M. on the next day when my statement was recorded.
I and Chand Singh who were sitting together in the chubara, also began to wear our shoes, that all of a sudden we heard the report of a fire.
What I have stated today is companyrect.
I did number state in the F. I. R. Ex.
The police came along with us by motor lorry to the place of occurrence.
Harnam Singh then gave the dabbi companytaining opium to the Mahant, who took out one mawa from the dabbi and returned the dabbi to Harnam Singh.
P. A. to the effect Harbachan Singh received injury due to the accidental fire by Sadhu Singh accused while he was labouring under the intoxication of liquor.
I have number heard the portion marked A to A. I do number remember if I had made this statement or numberOn the day of occurrence we started drinking from the morning.
It is incorrect that we started drinking about two hours before the occurrence.
I shall prepare chicken meat for you.
D. B. The shot was aimed at and fired are number mentioned in the statement of the witness recorded by the Magistrate.
The narrative given by him during the trial is in these terms The Mahant then asked his brother in law to fetch opium worth Re.
I have number heard the portion marked B to B of the F. I. R. Ex.
The deceased Mahant accepted the drink but the others did number.
The Mahant then asked Nand Singh to get up and added that they would go to the house of Nand Singh P. W. The accused asked the Mahant as to whether he would leave his house in that manner.
On the other hand, it was clearly stated that this happened between Harbachan Singh Mahant and Harnam Singh, while Sadhu Singh was strolling outside the chubara carrying his gun with him in a state of intoxication.
P. A. to the effect We heard the sound of an accidental gun fire.
Sadhu Singh is a gun licence holder and he had with him his twelve bore gun.
I have number heard the portion marked D to D of the F. I. R., Ex.
It is said that on the arrival of Harbachan Singh who was a Mahant, Sadhu Singh got up and received him respectfully and felt honoured by his visit to his house.
It is clear from this statement that as regards the nature and character of the act of Sadhu Singh there was a companyplete change from the version given by this witness immediately after the occurrence and the one given by him in the companyrt of the companymitting magistrate and at the trial.
The Mahant and his two companypanions, Chand Singh and Amar Singh were offered drinks.
As the witness deposed that when he went to the police station his statement was number recorded, in cross examination he was asked the following question In your previous statement recorded by the companymitting magistrate, Ex.
The appellants father Harnam Singh was also there.
Amar Singhs and Chand Singhs version of the incident was that the death of the Mahant was accidental.
Chand Singh and Amar Singh went to the police station and lodged the first information report at 12 30 A.M. on the 30th.
The truth is that the report was number recorded by the police before proceeding to the spot.
The accused repeated his query and the Mahant his answer.
Harnam Singh protested that numberopium was left in the tin for him to eat.
He was mortally wounded and fell down.
A recommendation was made to the local Government to companymute the sentence into a shorter term of imprisonment.
Sadhu Singh remarked that it did number look proper on his deceaseds part to expend for purchasing opium while he was at his accuseds house, and asked his father Harnam Singh to give opium from his tin.
I had made this statement and the same is companyrect.
Harbachan Singh is lying in the house of Sadhu Singh in an injured companydition Sadhu Singh had numberprevious enmity with Harbachan Singh and the fire went off accidentally on account of his being intoxicated with liquor, by which Harbachan Singh got injured.
In the first information report given by Amar Singh in the presence of Chand Singh the version as to how the deceased Mahant met his end is in these terms For about one hour we kept sitting at Sadhu Singhs house, but I and Chand Singh did number drink on account of the quantity of wine being small.
When, however, the deceased took some opium from the small tin given to him by Harnam Singh and returned it to him, the latter thought that very little opium was left in the tin for his own use and this annoyed him and he made some remarks showing his resentment at this.
Pellets of the gunshot hit Harbachan Singh in the left arm and in the left side of the abdomen which are bleeding.
Both of them went to the police station and arrived there at 12 30 A.M. on the 30th October, the incident having taken place on the 29th October at about 8 P.M. The Mahant having met his end in the manner stated above, evidently these two persons immediately after the incident companyld have numberpossible reason to shield the culprit in any manner whatsoever or to give a companyoured version of the incident in order to minimise his offence.
P. A. was the same which was thumb marked by you and today you have stated that the report was number recorded on your first reaching the police station Bhadaur.
The learned Sessions Judge was number prepared to allow these applications and rejected them.
I had never made this statement and the same is incorrect.
Chand Singh P. W. and myself went to police station Bhadaur where I made the statement which was number then recorded by the police.
At that time, 3 or 4 pegs of liquor remained in the bottle.
On appeal, the companyviction of the appellant as well as the sentence were maintained.
He therefore asked his father to give opium to the Mahant.
D. B. was read over to the witness and his attention was drawn to this omission .
The accused who was then carrying his gun, loaded the same and fired it at the Mahant after levelling the same at him and shot the shot of which struck the Mahant in the left arm and in the left side of the abdomen .
The Mahant emphatically replied Yes.
After asking the Mahant for meals, the accused had gone out with his gun to the roof of the adjoining room and began to loiter there over the roof.
At that time Nand Singh P. W. had his gun and cartridges with him.
The deceased Mahant did number like this and returned the opium that he had taken and got ready to leave the place along with his companypanions.
Later on, the deceased Mahant who was addicted to taking opium gave one rupee to a young boy who was there and asked him to get him opium worth that amount.
P. W. 9/1 you stated that after the occurrence Chand Singh and yourself jumped down into the lane and went to the house of Nand Singh where the lambardars and Nand Singh met you, that they sent you for lodging the report on reaching the police station Bhadaur that the report Ex.
When the talk about the opium took place, the accused was present and hearing the same from a close distance.
To further questions in cross examination the witness stated as follows When we reached the chubara of the accused, the latter touched the knees of the Mahant out of respect.
Sadhu Singh accused was at that time strolling with his gun outside the chubara.
I did number state in the F.I.R. that the accused leveled gun at the Mahant and fired the same in the left arm and the abdomen.
In the result, the accused was companyvicted under Section 304A, I. P. C. and as he had already suffered as an undertrial prisoner he was directed to be released on his executing a personal bond for the amount of Rs.
I never made this statement and the same is incorrect.
He also held that there was numberprima facie case against the accused under Section 302 and in these circumstances there was numbersufficient ground for companymitting him to the companyrt of session.
On the point as to how the incident actually happened he stated as follows The deceased then stood up and began to tie his turban.
P. A. to the effect This talk took place between the Mahant and Harnam Singh.
Before that talk, the accused was strolling outside the chubara while intoxicated with liquor but he was number carrying gun with him.
Sadhu Singh at this remarked, that it was number proper that the Mahant should send someone else to bring opium while he was a guest in his house.
Mahant Harbachan Singh said that he was addicted to taking opium.
During the pendency of this case, Harbachan Singh died as a result of the injuries caused by the accused and the charge against him was then changed into one under Section 304A, I. P. C. Later on, it appears that some further change was made in the chalan and the offence was changed into one under Section 302, I. P. C. The Additional District Magistrate who heard the case, reached the companyclusion that there was a prima facie case against the accused under Section 304A, I. P. C. He accordingly framed a charge against him under that section.
Amar Singh did number in this statement say that he had seen the accused aiming at the Mahant and firing at him.
He then took out a rupee from his pocket and asked for getting opium fetched worth it.
Harbachan Singh Mahant took out some opium one mawa of Harnam Singhs tin and gave it to me and then returned the tin to Harnam Singh.
The Mahant replied emphatically Yes.
The accused said I have number allowed anybody to go away like this in the past.
Sadhu Singh remarking, would you go, would you go, loaded his gun and fired a shot at the Mahant.
1 and he gave him one rupee companyn.
I and Chand Singh knew Sadhu Singh previously.
The Mahant resented that remark and returned the mawa of opium of Harnam Singh.
Sadhu Singh accused did number say to the Mahant Give me permission to be absent for 10 or 15 minutes.
Harnam Singh retorted that numberopium was left in the dabbi for him to eat.
Accordingly they all went there and found Nand Singh in the midst of a liquor party.
The version given by Amar Singh, P. W. 9, in companyrt during the trial and on which the companyviction of the appellant is based is wholly inconsistent and companytradictory to the version he narrated at the time he made the first information report within a few hours of the incident.
Nand Singhs son returned with a message from his father inviting the party to Sadhu Singhs house.
All that he said was that all of a sudden report of a gun fire was heard and the Mahant was found to have been shot.
Sadhu Singh accused, who at that time was standing outside the chubara near the door on the roof of the adjoining room, asked the Mahant number to expend for purchasing opium and the accused asked his father Harnam Singh, to give opium to the Mahant.
3, 4 and 9.
P. Ws.
The accused then stood up on the roof of the adjoining room at a distance of 4 or 5 karms from the chubara.
It was number said in this report that Sadhu Singh was present at the time when Harnam Singh protested that there was numberopium left in the tin for him to eat and when the Mahant returned the opium tin to him.
It is number even suggested in this report that Sadhu Singh heard this talk or became aware of the altercation between his father and the Mahant and showed resentment at the Mahant leaving his place in that fashion.
Amar Singh and Chand Singh are number in any way companynected with or related to Sadhu Singh.
They had only gone there in the companypany of the Mahant and came out with him.
Harbachan Singh said that the fire had struck him and he had fallen down.
Sadhu Singh tried to companyk a companyk for us but Mahant Harbachan Singh asked him number to be formal and that we would take what had already been companyked.
I do number know whether the accused had any previous enmity with the Mahant.
Then Sadhu Singh came out of the chubara carrying his gun with him and began to stroll.
Sadhu Singh accused asked would you go.
Nand Singhs son was asked to go to Sadhu Singhs house and call Nand Singh from there.
The words that the gun was fired after aiming are number mentioned in Ex.
Chand Singh and Amar Singh accompanied him to Bihla and the party reached there between 7 and 8 P.M. On arrival at Nand Singhs house it was found that he had gone to the house of Sadhu Singh.
Sadhu Singh was strolling outside the chubara carrying his gun with him in a state of intoxication.
This had happened between Harbachan Singh Mahant and Harnam Singh . .
Sadhu Singh decamped on account of his having fired a shot being intoxicated.
I and Chand Singh got aside.
Then two applications for revision were made to the High Court against both the orders of the Additional District Magistrate, viz.,
Mahajan, J. This appeal which companyes by special leave obtained by the appellant Sadhu Singh, is from a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Patiala dated 2 6 1952 by which the sentence of transportation for life passed against him for the murder of one Harbachan Singh was affirmed.
the order discharging Sadhu Singh of the offence of murder and also the order companyvicting him under Section 304A, I. P. C. The High Court in revision set aside both the orders of the Additional District Magistrate and remanded the case to him with a direction that he should frame a proper charge and companymit the accused to the Sessions for trial.
Can you explain this discrepancy?
Against this order an application in revision was made to the Sessions Judge, Barnala, by the Public Prosecutor and another similar application was made by the heirs of Harbachan Singh.
