Accused Nos.1 and 2 are own brothers and son of one Baldev Singh, accused No.3 is the brothers son of Baldev Singh and companysin of A1 and A2, and while A4 is the friend of Baldev Singh, A5 is the servant of Baldev Singh.
The companyplainant party had a sugarcane crusher in the land adjoining the lands of Baldev Singh.
PW 8 was said to have been watching what has happened from a distance of 25 paces and all the accused gave lathi blows on the deceased and by the time PW 8, who was hiding behind a tree, raised an alarm, all ran away from the spot with their respective weapons.
The learned Judges of the Division Bench in the High Court, by its judgment dated 8.1.2001, dismissed the appeal filed by A1 and partly allowed the State appeal so far as A3 is companycerned and companyvicted him under Section 302, IPC, read with Section 34, IPC, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, in addition to the levy of a find of Rs.5,000/ with a default clause.
The admitted case of the prosecution is that everything relating to the said Panchayat and the decision therein was oral and there was numberhing in writing.
In the meantime, A3 was said to have given a lathi blow to the deceased on his head and the Tongawala also seems to have ran away.
A1 was companysequently sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, in addition to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/ and two years R.I. in case of default in payment of the same.
The assailants had companye near the Tonga and the assault was from very close range.
Later, it appears that the victim died at the Hospital at about 4.00 A.M. on 10.11.1990.
A1 filed Criminal Appeal No.532 DB.of 1995 and the State filed Criminal Appeal No.193 DB of 1996 questioning the acquittal of the other accused.
Shri Sushil Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, and Shri K.B. Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, appeared for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.634 of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No.1191 of 2001 respectively, whereas Shri J.P. Dhanda, learned companynsel, was heard for the respondent State.
Thereafter, PW 8, driving the Tonga brought the deceased, said to be companyscious at that time to their house and both narrated the incident to their father as well as the other brother.
The same was said to have been sold to PW 6, Ram Lal, for Rs.400/ by the deceased who handed over the same to PW 8 and both were returning by the same Tonga to their Village Chouwala, the deceased and Tongawala seated on the front seat and PW 8 seated on the back, by about 8.00/8.15 P.M. When they were near the lands of Baldev on the link road of Ram Khera to Chouwala, the five accused, armed with lathis, raised lalkara that PW 8 and the deceased should number be allowed to go.
It was stated that since A3 and others admitted their misconduct and it was decided that in case of any misbehaviour at any time thereafter, A3 will pay Rs.10,000/ as fine and if the other party misbehaved, they will pay Rs.3,000/ to the other party, respectively.
The case as disclosed from the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses may have to be briefly stated to appreciate respective companytention of the parties before us.
Later in the evening on that day at about 4.30/5.00 P.M., the deceased and PW 8 left for Bilaspur in a Tonga belonging to Sheo Ram, who also drove the Tonga for selling the Gur weighing about one quintal.
These two along with Harvinder Singh A2 , Tikka Singh A4 and Jaswant Singh A5 stood charged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, under Sections 302, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, for having caused the death of Naresh Kumar, brother of PWs 8 and 10, and son of PW 11, at about 8 or 8.30 P.M. on 9.11.1990.
It is only after examination of witnesses during trial, an order came to be made under Section 319, Cr.
It was also claimed that since each were in the process of assault calling the other by names, he companyld identify them from their voices, being known persons.
P.C., A1 and A2 were also summoned to face trial and fresh trial was held against all the accused for offences under Sections 302, 148 and 149, IPC, resulting in the companyvictions, as numbericed supra.
It is immaterial that the occurrence took place around 8.30 P.M. and it was dark but still there was numberhing to prevent the companyplainant side from identifying the assailants.
It was strenuously companytended for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.634 of 2001 that the companyrts below including the High Court having number accepted the claim of prosecution of the recoveries made and disbelieved the version of the father PW 11 on the alleged oral dying declaration of the deceased, there was hardly any justification for the High Court to reverse the verdict of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Judge in respect of the said appellant.
A1 was said to have given a lathi blow, which hit the Tonga and PW 8 jumped from the Tonga.
Thereupon PW 8, PW 11 and PW 3 brought the deceased in the Trolley of PW 3 to Civil Hospital, Jagadhri, and on the way the deceased was said to have become unconscious.
Jagtar Singh Vs.
The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.634 of 2001 was accused No.1 and the third accused is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1191 of 2001.
On 8.11.1990, A3 and two others came to the cane crusher where besides PW 8, his father two brothers Ramesh and Naresh were present and abused them.
On 9.11.1990, a Panchayat was said to have been companyvened in the Village Chouwala, which was said to have included also Sumer Chand PW 3 besides Avtar, Ram Saroup, and one another person.
State of Haryana J U D G M E N T RAJU, J. These two appeals are dealt with together, since they relate to the same occurrence and arise out of a companymon judgment of the companyrt below.
Hence, these appeals.
The parties were known to each other intimately.
After trial, the learned Trial Judge by his Judgment dated 7.10.1995 found A1 Jagtar Singh guilty under Section 302, IPC, and acquitted all others holding that the prosecution has number been able to prove the charges against them beyond all reasonable doubt.
