x 1/4 cm.
Except Gurmej Singh, who was unarmed, all had rifles in their hands.
On their way to the village when the latter group had reached the janj ghar place for marriage parties the five accused along with one Joginder Singh since absconding accosted them.
The margins were inverted.
From the judgments of the learned Courts below it appears that the trial Court found the evidence of PW 4 and PW 6 suspect as against accused Harpal Singh and Jaswinder Singh on the ground that as they were number residents of the village to which the deceased and the other accused belonged it was unlikely that they would be present at the material time with rifles in their hands, much less, participate in the murders which arose out of a dispute between those two families over dismantling of a water companyrse.
In appeal, preferred by the two companyvicts, the High Court affirmed the companyviction and sentence of the appellant but acquitted Sukhwinder Singh.
From Dr. Vaid PW 5 , we get that he found the following injuries on the person of Sukhdev Singh A lacerated wound on top and back of left shoulder measuring 2 1/2 cm.
Thereafter all the accused persons fled away.
The High Court companycurred with all the findings of the trial Court but gave the benefit of doubt to Sukhwinder Singh as Swaran Singh DW 5 did number mention him as one of the persons who fired at the deceased.
Dhanwant Singh then went to Majithia police station and lodged a First Information Report.
So far as Sukhdev Singh is companycerned, P.W.4 P.W.6 testified that the appellant shot at his back and Sukhwinder Singh at his shoulder.
The margins were ecchymosed and inverted A lacerted wound 1 1/4 cm.
He then went to the place of occurrence and seized some blood stained earth and also some pellets found embedded on the walls of the house of Ajit Singh.
from midline.
He first went to the house of the deceased and after holding inquest upon the dead bodies sent them for post mortem examination.
The prosecution case in brief is that on October 27, 1979 at or about 9 A.M. the acquitted accused Sukhwinder Singh was preparing a path to his behak farm house by dismantling the water companyrse of Sukhdev Singh one of the two deceased and his brothers running through their lands while Gurmej Singh since acquitted , father of the appellant and Sukhwinder Singh, was standing nearby.
On being so fired at, both of them fell down on the ground.
on back and right side of the upper half of chest placed 7 cm.
In dealing with the case of accused Gurmej Singh, the father of the appellant, the trial Court observed that the allegation against him was only of raising a lalkara and it would number be safe to companyvict him on such accusation alone.
To prove its case prosecution examined twelve witnesses of whom Dhanwant Singh PW 4 and Manohar Singh PW6 , the two brothers of the deceased, figured as eye witnesses and in their defence the accused persons examined five witness, including Swaran Singh DW 5 who also claimed to have witnessed the occurrence.
The accused persons pleaded number guilty to the charges levelled against them and companytended that they had been falsely implicated.
Gurmej Singh raised a lalkara saying that they should be taught a lesson for stopping them from preparing the path to their behak whereupon Joginder Singh fired from his rifle hitting Surjit Singh on his chest.
2,000/ in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, while acquitting the other three.
x 1 cm.
Then the appellant fired from his rifle hitting Sukhdev Singh on his back.
The other accused persons also fired from their rifles aiming at Dhanwant Singh and Manohar Singh but their shorts hit the walls of the nearby house of Ajit Singh.
Hence this appeal by the appellant after obtaining special leave.
The witnesses then took injured Sukhdev Singh and Surjit Singh to their house nearby but by then they had succumbed to their injuries.
Sukhwinder Singh also fired from his rifle which hit Sukhdev Singh on his left shoulder.
S.I. Janak Raj P.W.12 registered a case on that report and left for village Khatra Khurt.
This was objected to by Sukhdev Singh, his brothers Surjit Singh the other deceased , Dhanwant Singh PW 4 and Manohar Singh PW 6 which led to an exchange of hot words and abuses between the parties.
Thereafter Gurmej Singh and Sukhwinder Singh left for their behak and the two deceased and their brothers for their village Khatra Khurt.
The trial Court, however, held that the evidence of the above two eye witnesses was reliable as against the appellant and his brother Sukhwinder Singh and that their evidence was strengthened by that of Swaran Singh DW 5 .
2 and 3 were companymunicating with each other while injury No.
After receipt of the report of the post mortem examination held on the two dead bodies by Dr. Harish Chander Vaid PW 5 and on companypletion of investigation S.I. Janak Raj submitted charge sheet and in due companyrse the case was companymitted to the Court of Session.
The margins were inverted and ecchymosed.
The learned Judge companyvicted the appellant and his brother Sukhwinder Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC on two companynts and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
K. MUKHERJEE, J. The appellant along with four others, including his father, brother and nephew, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar for rioting, companymitting murders and attempting to companymit murders.
