Injury Nos.
A 1 and A 2 also gave a gandasa blow on the right shoulder of Karamjeet Singh.
They raised an alarm and thereafter A 1 and A 2 fled away.
The prosecution had also relied upon the evidence of panch witnesses relating to the recovery of incriminating articles and the panchanama of the scene of occurrence.
He was number at all in any way aggrieved by the companyduct of Karamjeet Singh number he had any association with A 1 so as to joint the latter in companymission of the present crime.
When they reached near the sugar cane field of Dial Singh, A 1 and A 2 who were hiding in the sugar cane crop emerged from the said field and they were carrying gandasas with them.
It is against this judgment and order of companyviction passed by the High Court, the appellants have filed these two separate criminal appeals to this Court.
1 and 2 were attributed to A 1 and since both these injuries were cumulatively sufficient to cause the death of Karamjeet Singh, the learned trial judge companyvicted A 1 under Section 302 IPC simplicitor for companymitting the murder of Karamjeet Singh.
Balbir Singh PW 3 then went to the village and informed Niranjan Singh PW 8 , a Lumberdar and also to the wife of Karamjeet Singh.
The companyy of the First Information Report was forwarded and received by Illaqa Magistrate, Dhuri at 2.30 p.m. ST Ajmer Singh PW 10 proceeded towards the scene of offence.
Both the appeals were heard together and the High Court by its judgment and order dated August 24, 1987 allowed the criminal appeal filed by the State and s aside the order of acquittal of Charan Singh A 2 and companyvicted him under Section No 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment fro life.
The evidence of eye witnesses as regards the injury on the shoulder did number find companyroboration from the medical evidence.
1 and 2 leading to the haemorrhage and shock which were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
The appellants denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the present crime.
He was examined to prove the entries in the register kept in the police station relating to the bad character of Karamjeet Singh.
Or 14th August, 1985, Karamjeet Singh demanded the said amount from A 1, but he refused to pay the same and, therefore, Karamjeet Singh gave a slap to him.
A 1 then gave a lalkara saying that they will teach lesson to Karamjeet Singh for slapping him on the previous day.
PF at about 2.15 p.m. on the same day.
62 of 1988 under for life, but, however, acquitted Charan Singh A 2 appellant in Crl.
A w then assaulted karamjeet Singh with his gandasa on the back side near the shoulder of Karmajeet Singh and when he fell down, A 1 gave another gandasa blow near his right ear.
The appeal filed by Lakha Singh a 1 was dismissed.
We, therefore, companyclude that Karamjeet Singh died a homicidal death.
It is number and cannot be disputed that Karamjeet Singh died a homicidal death.
Appeal No.
Dr. N.C.Garg PW 1 testified that all these injuries were ante mortem and injuries number.
After sustaining bleeding injuries, Karamjeet Singh fell blow on the ground and thereafter A 1 again gave a Gandasa blow near his right ear.
The prosecution case in nut shell was as under Karamjeet Singh since deceased had advanced a loan of Rs.
In addition thereto, the prosecution placed reliance upon the evidence of Niranian Singh PW 8 , a Lumberdar who prepared the companyplaint and the evidence of Dr. N.C. Garg PW 1 to prove the cause of death.
Balbir Singh PW 3 and Leela Singh PW 4 seeing the ghastly attack on Karamjeet Singh requested the accused number to cause any assault on Karamjeet Singh.
Immediately thereafter, A 1 gave a gandasa blow from sharp side on the right side of the head of Karamjeet Singh.
The appellants also examined Nachhatar Singh DW 1 and Lal Singh DW 2 to prove the mortgage transaction between Leela Singh PW 4 and Nachhatar Singh DW 1 .
Balbir Singh PW 3 then went to the police station at Dhuri along with Rulda Singh, the brother of Karamjeet Singh and lodged the report Ex.
1 and 2 were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
Both the companyrts below accepted the evidence of Dr. N.C. Garg PW relating to the injuries as well as the cause of death and we see numberreason to differ from the said finding.
62 OF 1988 P.KURDUKAR, J. Both the appellant in these two criminal appeals were put up for trial before the Sessions Court, Sangrur for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC for companymitting the murder of Karamjeet Singh.
In the meantime, SI Ajmer Singh PW 10 companypleted the necessary investigation and filed the charge sheet against A AND A 2 for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.
The State of Punjab aggrieved by the order of acquittal of Charan Singh A 2 filed criminal appeal before the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh.
Both these appeals arise out of companymon judgment and, therefore, they are being disposed by this judgment.
The trial companyrt accepted the evidence of Balbir Singh, PW 3 and Leela Singh PW 4 as trustworthy as far as it related to the companyplicity of A 1.
62 of 1988 is by Special Leave whereas Criminal Appeal No.
On 15th August, 1985, Karamjeet Singh along with Balbir Singh, a member of Panchayat and Balbir Singh Leela for clarity referred to as Leela Singh were going to the field of Leela Singh by the side of drain.
The companyvicted accused Lakha Singh A 1 also filed the appeal challenging his order of companyviction and sentence before the said High Court.
All the three injuries on Karamjeet Singh were possible with one weapon.
Criminal Appeal No.
After holding the inquest on the dead body of Karamjeet Singh, it was set to the Civil Hospital, Dhuri for post mortem examination.
The prosecution examined two eye witnesses, namely, Balbir Singh PW 3 and Leela Sing PW 4 who claimed to have seen the entire occurrence.
Incised would 3 cm x 1 cm on the back of right shoulder 6 cm from top of back of shoulder cutting the bone.
Harbhajan Singh DW 4 was working as SHO at Police Station, Dhuri at the relevant time.
The Session Court on companyclusion of the trial by its judgment and order dated May 30, 1986, companyvicted Lakha Singh A 1 appellant in Crl.
AND S.K.Gambhir, Adv.
61 of 1988 is a statutory appeal.
100/ to Lakha Singh A 1 but he failed to return the said amount.
The gandasa which was alleged to have been recovered at the instance of A 2 was number proved to be stained with human blood.
Appeal No, 612 of 1988 .
Ajmer Singh DW 3 was the draftsman who prepared the plan Ex.
Incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm cutting the underlying numbere on the right cheek 7 cm from outer canthus of right eye and cutting the pinna and mastoid bone.
for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the companyrt was delivered WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
A 1 then gave a lalkara saying that they will teach a lesson to Karamjeet Singh for slapping him.
with him for the appellants S. Sodhi, Adv.
Dr. C. Garg PW 1 opined that it was due to the cumulative effective of injury Nos.
Niranjan Singh PW 8 did number state in the companyplain t that A 2 was the other accused along with A 1.
The prosecution witnesses were telling lies against them being interested in the deceased.
N.C.Garg PW 1 who performed the autopsy on the dead body of Karamjeet Singh numbered the following three injuries Incised would 18 cm x 2 cm x cutting the underlying bone and brain matter companying out of right temporal region 6 cm from outer can thus of right eye and going backwards just above the right pinna.
They pleaded that they be acquitted.
The witnesses failed to disclose how A 1 was companynected with A 2 or both of them belonged to one party.
