The head constable of the said police station, in companysultation with the Sub Inspector, sent two companystables, Khem Singh P. W. 2 and Chandra Singh P. W. 8 to go along with them to the said village.
On April 10, 1960, at about 8.30 a.m. they came to know that Gurucharan Lal had gone to the said plot with 25 persons to cut the crop.
Apprehending danger to their lives and property, the appellants party fired their guns in defence on the party of Gurucharan Lal.
When they, approached the field, companystable Khem Singh asked them to stop and number to proceed further.
On April 10, 1960, Gurucharan Lal, accompanied by Bhagwan Swarup, Amrit Lal, Nand Singh and Mohan Prakash, left his house in Rudrapur for Azadnagar to harvest the crop standing on the said plot.
5 which was a punctured wound on the left side of the forehead the brain was extensively lacerated on front left side there was a fracture of anterior fossa of the left side of the base of skull.
It would be companyvenient at this stage to numberice the defence version which is as follows Plot No.
It is said by learned companynsel for the appellants that an appeal has been filed against that decree and an interim order of stay of execution of that decree has been obtained.
But it is also an admitted fact that on March 21, 1960, the Munsiff decreed the suit filed by Gurucharan Lal and held that possession of Madan Lal and Baldeo Raj over the said plot had number been established.
4 They attempted to send away the two companystables on a false pretext, but were able to send only one of them.
Bhagwan Das actually fired a shot towards them.
Bhagwan Das and the regaining persons then ran away from the field raising alarm.
Swarup was assaulted by those who had lathis and was injured.
The prosecution in support of its case examined six eye witnesses, P. Ws.
5 The appellants, after entering the field, proceeded close to their victims and shot them dead at point blank range.
The High Court accepted the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the appellants were in cultivatory possession of plot No.
The wounds found on the dead bodies indicate that firearms and a sharp weapon were used and that the firearms were used at a close range.
Both the companyrts found that on April 10, 1960, the accused were in possession of the said field and also were entitled to cut the crop thereon.
Bhagwan.
The Sub Inspector recovered blood from inside the field and the dead bodies were also found lying inside it.
As they anticipated some trouble from the accused persons, appellants herein, enroute to Azadnagar they went to police station Kiccha, which was on their way, and lodged two reports therein, Exs.
2 , Pyare Lal Appellant No.
52 was in the cultivatory possession of the appellants and crops standing thereon were raised by them.
But they entered the field and fired their guns killing Gainda Mal, his son Gurucharan Lal and one Nanda Singh, a photographer brought by the companyplainants party to take photographs of the accused in case they attacked them.
1 , Harbans Lai Appellant No.
57 in the village of Azadnagar.
Having companye to the plot, they asked Gurucharan Lal and his men number to cut the crop.
The appellants and two others, Baldeo Raj and Gopal Das, were put up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kumaun, for companymitting offences under Sections 302/149, 323/149, 147 and 140 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ka 1 and Ka 2.
Gurucharan Lal also obtained an order of relinquishment from J. B. Singh, Colonization Officer, in respect of the said plot on the basis of the Civil Courts decree.
Bhagwan Das also had a plot in the same village in his name and he also started to go there to harvest his crop.
But Bhagwan Das and his party advanced to assault them.
He further held that Gurucharan Lals party were also armed with lathis, pharsa, and sickles, which were used for cutting the crop.
About half an hour later, Madan Lal Appellant No.
After going a short distance, the said two accused asked Chandra Singh to go to the police station by himself as they were returning to their houses.
Appellants 1, 3 and 4 were further charged for an offence under Section 19 f of the Arms Act.
3 Three of the accused went to the field armed with guns and one of them with a spear.
Gurucharan Lal one of the deceased, had title to and was in physical possession of plot No.
3 and Gopal Das came to the said field.
6 Nanda Singh bad three gunshot injuries, two of them were wounds of entry and the third was a wound of exit the three wounds were in front of the chest, middle and lower part there was blackening and scorching around the wounds besides the three gun shot injuries Nanda Singh had one companytused wound and two bruises on his body Gainda Mal, deceased, had 5 gunshot wounds, one being a wound of entry and the other four being wounds of exit ha had also been shot at close range in the region of the chest and the doctor found a companyminuted fracture of the left scapular bone with extensive laceration of left shoulder joint due to gunshot injury Gurucharan Lal, deceased, had 8 gunshot injuries, five of them being wounds of entry and the remaining three being wounds of exit the wounds were close together in an area of 4 x 4 on left lumber region there were also four punctured wounds on the dead body, one of these being on the left side of forehead, I above the eye with fracture of the frontal bone underneath on internal examination the peritoneum was found lacerated and fractured in five places and was full of clotted blood the abdominal cavity was also full of blood and the small intestines were perforated in two places and the large intestines were extensively lacerated two shots were extracted from the abdominal cavity there was also found a depressed fracture of frontal bone on the left side 3 x 1/2 and a fissured fracture 3 long in companytinuation of injury No.
In order to stop them from wrongfully cutting their crop, the appellants went to the plot armed with guns, spears and lathis, because they had companye to know that the party of Gurucharan Lal companyprised 25 persons armed with deadly weapons.
The prosecution case may be briefly Stated.
Hence the present appeal.
It was alleged therein that there was an apprehension of breach of peace from the side of the accused.
The party reached the village at about 8 a. m. and started cutting the crop standing on plot No.
At first they refused to go, but later Chandra Singh P. W. 8 , one of the two companystables, accompanied by the said two accused proceeded to the police station.
Even the photographer was shot dead.
Gurucharan Lal and his companypanions were joined on their way by Gainda Mal, Gurucharan Lals father, and one Kalyan, a labourer.
Of these persons, Gurdatta Mal, Pyare Lal and Madan Lal were armed with guns Harbans Lal was armed with a spear Baldeo Raj and Gopal Das were armed with lathis.
Half an hour thereafter, Baldeo Raj and Madan Lal, accused, reached there and told the said two companystables that they were wanted by the Station Officer at the police station.
4 , Baldeo Raj, Gurdatta Mal Appellant No.
