Lastly, he is said to have fired at Kartar Singh, son of Bishan Singh and one Jangir Singh, while they were raising an alarm, but the bullet missed them.
It appears that the appellant was greatly affected by this quarrel, and thereaf ter he is said to have armed himself with a rifle and at tacked 3 persons in the vicinity of Gurmail Singhs companyton field.
28 of 1950, affirming the companyviction and sentence of the appellant by the Sessions Judge of Sangrur.
To support their version of the occurrence, the prosecu tion examined 3 eye witnesses whose evidence has been ac cepted by both the companyrts below after careful scrutiny.
Soon after that, while Gurmail Singh was returning to his field after attending to his buffaloes in a garden which was nearby, the appellant chased him and fired at him thereby causing his instantaneous death.
He fired firstly at Kartar Singh, son of Satwan Singh, while the latter was returning to his house from the field of Gutmail Singh, but he was number hurt.
and the rifle which he is said to have used had been given to him by his superior officer with 20 rounds of ammunition.
Upon these allegations, the following three charges were framed against him That you fired a shot at Gurmail Singh deceased with rifle P.I. with the intention of killing him and caused his death and thereby companymitted an offence pun ishable under section 302 That you fired a shot at Kartar Singh and Jangir Singh with rifle P.I. with the intention of causing death and made an attempt to cause their death section 307 That you fired a gun shot at Kartar Singh s o Satwan Singh with the intention of killing him and made an attempt to cause his death and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 307 It appears that the appellant was an Instructor in the Home Guards.
Gopal Singh and Kartar Singh, for the appellant.
Jai Gopal Sethi R. L. Kohli, with him for the Cavea tor.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
38 of 1950.
Narinder Singh, Advocate General for the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Jindra Lal, with him for the respond ent.
About that time, Gurmail Singh, the deceased person, returned to his house, which was close to the house of Darbara Singh, from his companyton field, where he had been working, in order to take tea for his companypanions who were still working in his field.
Appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Patiala Teja Singh C.J., and Gurnam Singh J. dated 5th October, 1950, in Criminal Appeal No.
December 19.
The appellant asked Gutmail Singh to lend him a spear to enable him to kill Darbara Singh, but since the latter refused to do so, there ensued a quarrel between him and the appellant, in the companyrse of which they exchanged abuses and grappled with each other, and the fight was stopped only by the intervention of cer tain persons present at the place.
The prosecution story is a somewhat long and companyplicated one, but ignoring unnecessary details, the material facts may be shortly stated as follows On the 5th October, 1949, there was a quarrel between the appellant and one Darbara Singh, in the companyrse of which the appellant attacked the latter with a phawra a cutting instrument .
The Judgment of the Court was deliv ered by FAZL ALl J. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court at Patiala upholding the companyviction and sentence of the appellant, who was tried by the Sessions Judge of Sangrut for the offence of murder and sentenced to death.
