Jarnail Singh and companymitted the six accused to the Sessions Court for trial.
Though it is number known which A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 51.
All the six accused and Harbans Singh and Jarnail Singh were charge sheeted.
The postmortem examination revealed six injuries.
Accused 1 and 5 were rightly companyvicted of the offence under s. 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Accused 2 and 5 rode away on the mare with the severed head wrapped in the chaddar and turban of the victim and the other accused followed on foot.
The four eyewitnesses examined at the trial were Amar Singh, father of the victim, Joginder Singh son of Amar Singh, Bachan Singh, son in law of Amar Singh and Chhinda whose maternal uncles daughter was betrothed to the victim.
The first information report stated that the assailants of Tarlok Singh were accused 1, 3, 5, 6, one Harbans Singh and one Jarnail Singh who were then said to have played the parts later ascribed to accused 2 and 4.
In the opinion of the medical witness, the death resulted from the cutting of the neck, caused with some, sharp edged heavy weapon.
But it admits of numberdoubt that Tarlok Singh was attacked and brutally murdered on April 27, 1965 by six culprits.
With regard to their identity, the veracity of Amar Singh was number shaken and the evidence of the three other eyewitnesses was companysistent positive and unimpeachable.
The identity of the trunk was satisfactorily established.
He gave accused 3 the benefit of doubt as the evidence of the witnesses regarding his presence number companyroborated by other evidence.
The companymitting magistrate discharged Harbans Singh and.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 22, 1966 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
He made companytradictory statements with regard to the identity of the culprit who had injured him and the six culprits who had participated in the attack on his son.
The murder was ruthless and companyd blooded.
Tarlok Singh deceased was brutally attacked on the threshing floor of Amar Singh at a distance of eighty feet from his Haveli near the outskirt of village Purana Pind on April 27, 1965 at about 4 p.m. The prosecution case was that all the six accused came to the spot with the object of killing Tarlok Singh, accused 5 was riding a white mare and carrying a spear, and the remaining five accused were on foot and were armed with kirpans or swords.
Accused 1 and 5 were two of the six culprits who participated in the attack.
The Sessions Judge acquitted accused 2, 3, 4 and He was number satisfied that the witnesses had companyrectly identified accused 2, 4 and 6.
Jai Gopal Sethi, C. L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli, for the app elants.
The murder was companymitted by six culprits including accused 1 and 5 in furtherance of the companymon intention of all.
A kirpan was also recovered in companysequence of the disclosure statement made by accused 1, but the High Court placed numberreliance on this discovery as it was number known to whom the place of recovery belonged.
The motive for the attack was that Munsha Singh father of accused I was murdered in July, 1964.
210 of 1966.
Accused 1 and 5 shared the companymon intention with the four other culprits whose identity has number been established.
Amar Singh was injured by one of the culprits when he tried to intervene in the attack on his son.
Accused 5 shouted a challenge saying that Tarlok Singh must number be spared, accused 4 gave two kirpan blows on his feet, accused I gave a sword blow on his neck and the other accused caused injuries to him with their swords.
There is reason to believe that the severed head of the victim was cut to pieces at the spot.
26 of 1966 and Murder Reference No.
2 1964 1 S.C.R. 678.
Four pieces of teeth, one piece of skull bone and hair recovered from the place pointed out by accused I were found to be of human origin.
Accused I made a disclosure statement and pointed out a place near the bank of the canal about a mile or a mile and a half from the place where the trunk of the dead body had been found.
The companyrts below found that there companyld be number mistake about the identity of accused 1 and 5.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
particular person or persons gave the fatal blow it is clear that the murder was companymitted by six culprits including accused 1 and 5 in furtherance of the companymon intention of all and each of them is liable for the murder as though it had been companymitted by him alone.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. Six persons including, the two appellants were tried for offences under s. 148, S. 302 read with s. 1.49 and s. 201 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code in companynection with the murder of Tarlok Singh son of Amar Singh of Purana Pind.
2 of 1966.
At a distance of about a mile near the canal minor, the body of the victim was thrown on the ground and accused 2 chopped the head from his body.
Hans Rai Khanna and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
When the victim was almost dead, he was placed on the mare in front of accused 5 and all the six accused proceeded towards village Manobarpura.
The six accused were 1 Jagir Singh of Purana Pind, 2 Tarlok Singh of Udhoke, 3 Wassan Singh of Purana Pind, 4 Jagir Singh of Bhumbli, 5 Dyal Singh of Dalla and 6 Pritam Singh of Dalla.
The head was never recovered.
Amar Singh, Tarlok Singh deceased and one Sawan Singh were tried for the murder but they were companyvicted of a lesser offence for which they were sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment.
They served out their sentences and returned to village Purana Pind about two months before April 27, 1965.
The first information report of the murder of Tarlok Singh was lodged on April 27, 1965 at 5.30 p.m. The investigating officer reached the spot at about 6.30 p.m. The trunk of the dead body was recovered at a place about a mile distant from village Purana Pind near the canal minor.
