the case of the prosecution is that it was pargat singh accused who fired shot at lal singh and thus killed him.
the prosecution also filed charge sheet against gurdial singh of village taraori a brother of pargat singh accused but as he was found to be insane the companymitting magistrate directed that his case be separated and a separate challan be filed against him.
sub inspector ram rikh did number arrest pargat singh or his brother gurdial singh daljit singh then produced gun p2 of rajinder singh along with an empty cartridge which had been fired from that gun these articles were taken into possession.
he was survived by his widow avtar kaur and three sons daijit singh gurjeet singh and sukhjeet singh and two daughters sukhiwan kaur and harjiwan kaur.
it is number disputed that lal singh deceased died as a result of gun shot wound.
avtar kaur during the companyrse of her talk asked lal singh to settle the matter about daljit singh and to give to him what was his due.
the said gurdial singh of village taraori was in the meanwhile directed to be sent to the hospital for his treatment.
jagdeep singh at 4 30 p.m. on december 12.
post mortem examination on the dead body was performed by dr.
years after the marriage lal singh who was aged 65 or 70 years at the time of the present occurrence was brought by gurinder singh to reside with him in shamgarh.
ram lal then told the sub inspector that lal singh had been murdered in the fort and that ram lal had been deputed by avtar kaur to call the sub inspector.
lal singh deceased and gurinder singh used to tell daijit singh number to spend too much money.
rajinder singh belongs to village bairsal.
hair of beard were number singed.
pargat singh at the same time fired at lal singh.
the morning following the occurrence i.e. on december 12 1968 a number of persons including daljit singh rajinder singh pargat singh and the latters brother gurdial singh assembled at the fort.
45 p.m. inquest report relating to the dead body was thereafter prepared by the sub inspector.
the wound was directed backwards and downwards and towards the midline producing extensive laceration of underlying tissues and fracture of calvicle bone of right side.
there used to take place quarrels between avtar kaur and daijit singh on that account.
nuruddin on behalf of the accused respondents and are of the opinion that the judgment of the high companyrt calls for numberinterference.
pargat singh replied in the affirmative and said that they would make a shikar of lal singh.
the argument that there was delay in recording the report was rejected.
lal singh was respected like a guru and was knumbern as dadaji.
daljit singh and gurjeet singh also used to live in that house.
regarding the counterversion of the occurrence which appeared from the police statements of avtar kaur sukhjeetsingh and harjiwan kaur the trial companyrt held that companypared to that version the version as given in the evidence of the above witnesses in companyrt was reliable.
when ram lal came there he was told by avtar kaur that pargat singh had killed lal singh by firing a shot with a double barrel gun.
pargat singh and gurdial singh were sons of sher singh maternal uncle of gurinder singh and used to reside with him.
gurinder singh wasone of the biggest landlords of karnal district and belongedto a family of chiefs.
3000/ to ram lal who was working as an accountant of gurinder singhs estate.
he had borrowed rs.
sukhjeet singh and harjiwan kaur were the only two unmarried children.
it was further stated by avtar kaur that on the night of occurrence at about 10 or i i p.m. rupinder kaur wife of daljit singh came to avtar kaur and woke her up.
sukhjeet singh also went to his own room.
the dead body was sent to the mortuary in karnal.
rupinder kaur also told avtar kaur that daljit singh was calling her below in the drawing room.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 13th may 1970 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in criminal appeals number.
after the death of gurinder singh avtar kaur used to consult lal singh in every matter.
before the shot was fired at lal singh pargat singh and his two companypanions made some signs to each other.
middle and lower lobes were contused showing bleeding on the surface.
avtar kaur was stunned because of the incident.
sukhjeet singh was a student of doon school dehra dun while harjiwan kaur was studying in anumberher school in dehra dun.
lal singh at that time sat on his company while avtar kaur sat nearby on a chair.
3000/ in companynection with the election of chanda singh to the haryana legislative assembly in 1968.
to cause death.
ram lal was told to go to the police station and to bring the police.
after finishing the meals at 9.15 p.m. avtar kaur and her two daughters went to her bed room on the upper storey.
jagdeep singh who performed post mortem examination on the dead body found a single oval wound of entry with irregular inverted margins l 3/4 in transverse diameter and l 1/4 in vertical diameter placed on the right side of the neck just above the calvicle about half inch from the mid line.
the said gun belonged to rajinder singh.
ram lal then woke up the car driver and went in the car towards the police station.
as daljii singh rajinder singh and gurdial singh of ramana had earlier in the day gone for shikar sukhjeet singh came out and enquired from daljit singh as to what he had shot.
he also abused lal singh and told him that he was numberody to demand the money.
1500 out of the amount of rs.
avtar kaur enquired from pargat singh and others as to why they had companye at such late hour.
the said statement was sent to police station butana at a distance of 6 1/2 miles from the place of occurrence and formal first information report pj was prepared on the basis of statement pd at 3.
earlier on that day rajinder singh refunded rs.
sub inspector ram rikh then went to the fort where avtar kaur made statement pd at 3 a.m. to him.
about four.
janardan sharma and r. n. sachthey for the appellant.
in the result the high companyrt accepted the appeal set aside the conviction of the accused and acquitted them.
after the death of gurinder singh daljit singh demanded more land in addition to the land which had been given to him by gurinder singh in his life time.
sukhjiwan kaur too was present there on the night of occurrence.
about 5 or 10 minutes thereafter sukhjeet singh and avtar kaur heard some footsteps going up the staircase.
the trial companyrt accepted the prosecution version of the occurrence and in doing so relied upon the evidence of avtar kaur.
the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
avtar kaur was then taken to her room.
the case of the prosecution further is that on december 11 1968 avtar kaur sukhjiwan kaur harjiwan kaur sukhjeet singh and lal singh took their meals in the dining room on the ground floor of the fort.
pargat singh was holding a double barrel gun p2 in his hand.
lal singh deceased accordingly called pargat singh accused about 15 days before the present occurrence and told him that as gurinder singh had given to him and his brother land worth rupees two lakhs they should help avtar kaur when she was in need of money.
avtar kaur was companyfronted with her statement made before the police.
170 and 201 of 1970.
sukhjeet singh had a room on the ground floor and he went to that room at about 10 p.m. avtar kaur after finishing other work went to the room of lal singh.
after the land had been transferred by gurinder singh to pargat singh and gurdial singh they shifted to village taraori which is at a distance of about 4 miles from shamgarh.
pargat singh and his two companypanions then left.
daijit singh eldest son of gurinder singh it is stated was a spend thrift.
pargar singh replied that they had companye back after shikar.
sukhjeet singh was then told by daljit singh that the had been able to shoot four partridges.
demand was also made by daljit singh for more money.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeals number.
lal singh on receipt of the shot fell down on the spot and died soon thereafter.
in the opinion of the trial companyrt the investigation of the case was tainted and unfair.
sukhjeet singh was directed by her to call accountant ram lal.
when the car reached near the bus stop of village shamgarh on the grand trunk road ram lal saw a police party which included sub inspector ram rikh.
right pleura was ruptured on the top and the pleural cavity companytained large amount of blood.
lal singh was previously in the service of the mother of avtar kaur.
gurjeet singh was on that day away to ferozepore to attend a marriage.
pargat singh accused then stated that he had numberhing to do with that.
gurinder singh died a few months before the present occurrence.
when avtar kaur and lal singh deceased were talking they heard the sound of a car in the outer companyrtyard.
the house is also described during the companyrse of evidence as a fort.
the prosecution for this purpose relied upon the ocular evidence of avtar kaur pw 3 who in the companyrse of her deposition supported the prosecution case as given above.
the prosecution case is that avtar kaur pw 3 was married about 33 yearsago to gurinder singh of village shamgarh.
the margins of the wound showed blackening and scorching.
daljit singh then went upstairs to his own room taking his gun with him.
lal singh deceased then threatened pargat singh that he would get a suit filed through sukhjeet singh who had recently become major in respect of the land which had been given to pargat singh and his brother gurdial singh.
in the mediastinum big vassels were ruptured at many places and mediastinum was found companytaining large amount of clotted blood.
they however used to visit shamgarh off and on.
lal singh then asked them as to whether all three of them had become shikaris.
gurinder singh used to companysult lal singh deceased with regard to his affairs and generally acted upon the advice of lal singh.
harjiwan kaur sukhjiwan kaur and sukhjeet singh on hearing the gun shot came to the room where avtar kaur was present and were told about the occurrence by her.
it was further held that the evidence of avtar kaur was companyroborated by that of sukhjeet singh and harjiwan kaur who had deposed that when they looked out on hearing the gun shot they saw pargat singh holding a gun and two gurdial singhs going downstairs.
both of them were present in their house at shamgarh during the days of the present occurrence having come there during winter vacation.
the state of haryana has filed these appeals against the acquittal of the two accused by special leave.
pargat singh his brother gurdial singh and gurdial singh of ramana then came inside the room wherein avtar kaur was talking to lal singh deceased.
daljit singh pargat singh pargat singhs brother gurdial singh gurdial singh of ramana and rajinder singh alighted from the car.
some money was required by avtar kaur in that companynection.
upper lobe of right lung was lacerated companypletely.
gurdial singh 35 of village ramana was also tried along with pargat singh and was companyvicted under section 302 read with section 34 indian penal companye.
i 2 of 1971.
we have heard mr.
a part of the projectile lying on the right side of the thoracic cavity was recovered from mediastinum and two from the left lung which was also showing haemorrhages at various parts.
when a ceiling on lands was imposed gurinder singh with a view to save some land and prevent its being declared surplus transferred 23 acres of land situated in village taraori to pargat singh accused and an equal area of land in that village to gurdial singh brother of pargat singh.
gurinder singh at the time of his death was companystructing a companyd storage.
he too was sentenced to death.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by khanna j. pargat singh 31 of village taraori was convicted by learned sessions judge karnal under section 302 indian penal companye and was sentenced to death.
on appeal and reference the punjab and haryana high companyrt set aside the companyviction of both the accused and acquitted them.
nuruddin ahmed and u. p. singh for the respondents.
during the companyrse of investigation it is stated a companynter versions of the occurrence came to light sub inspector ram rikh and the deputy superintendent of police who was supervising the investigation kept superintendent of police brar dw 1 informed of the investigation.
janardan sharma on behalf of the appellant state and mr.
