He asserted however that he was able to recognize the appellant and his two brothers from their gait and voice.
In December 1960 there was a dispute between Rakkha Singh on the one hand and the appellant and his brothers on the other about the harvesting of sugarcane planted in the land.
The witnesses were cross examined by the prosecutor with leave of the Court in the light of their statements recorded by the sub inspector of police in the companyrse of his investigation but they denied having made the statements that the appellant and his two brothers had companye to Shanti Nagar at 6 p.m. on the day of occurrence and that the appellant had killed Karam Singh by causing him gunshot injuries.
He then stated that on March 26,1961 at about 6 p.m. the appellant and his two brothers had companye near his hut, that the appellant had called out Karam Singh and after shouting that as Karam Singh was number settling the matter of sugarcane they were going to settle his matter had fired a shot killing Karam Singh instantaneously.
They stated that at about 8 or 9 p.m. on March 26, 1961 when they were in their respective houses they heard report of gun fire and on companying out came to learn from some person that Karam Singh was fired upon by some Sardar who was wearing a mask.
Rakkha Singh says that to avoid delay and to secure the presence of a Police Officer he secured a jeep from Sampurna Nagar Union and proceeded to the police brought the sub inspector of police to in the same jeep.
The case for the prosecution undoubtedly depends for its support upon the testimony of a single witness, who did number claim to have identified the assailant by seeing his face.
In the examination, in chief Rakkha Singh has deposed as if he had seen the actual assault by the appellant, but in cross examination he stated that he had number seen the face of the assailant of Karam Singh.
That explains the presence of half digested food in the stomach.
This dispute was settled on the intervention of one Sardar Ajit Singh, and Rakkha Singh agreed to give seven hundred maunds of sugarcane to the appellant and his brothers.
79 of 1962.
The distance between the police station and the village Shanti Nagar, as the crow flies, is about 15 miles but by the public transport system one has to take a long detour to reach Puranpur Police Station.
But Rakkha Singh supported the prosecution case.
Manjit Singh tried to catch hold of the appellant and his brothers but without success.
The postmortem examination of the stomach companytents of Karam Singh disclosed that there was 8 ozs.
On hearing the report of gun fire Rakkha Singh, his son Manjit Singh and Sardar Anokh Singh came out of the thatched hut.
On March 26, 1961 at about 6 p.m. when Rakkha Singh and his two sons Karam Singh and Manjit Singh and their neighbour Sardar Anokh Singh were sitting in a thatched hut, the appellant armed with a gun, and his two brothers armed with lathis arrived near the hut, and the appellant shouted to Karam Singh asking him to companye out of the hut.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 13, 1962, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Rakkha Singh intervened and numberhing untoward happened on that occasion.
against him.
On Karam Singhs emerging from the hut the appellant told him that since he Karam Singh did number settle the dispute regarding the sugarcane he would settle his account just then, and opened fire causing injuries to Karam Singh on the chest which resulted in death instantaneously.
Manjit Singh and Anokh Singh however did number support the prosecution case.
54 of 1963.
It is true that there was some delay in lodging the first information, the offence took place according to Rakkha Singh at 6 p.m. ,on March 26, 1961 and information at the police station Puranpur was lodged at 7.45 a.m. on March 27, 1961.
Rakkha Singh desired to lodge a companyplaint About the companymis sion of the offence of murder, he was number apprehensive of any violence at the hands of the appellant and his brothers, and if he did number companytact the officer at the police outposts, who companyld number record his companyplaint, numberfault can be found.
There was a quarrel on that occasion between Karam Singh eldest son of Rakkha Singh and the appellant, the former saying that the appellant and his brothers were behaving like dishonest persons.
In cross examination he stated that from the hut in which he was sitting he companyld number see the faces of the assailants but on hearing the report of gun fire he came out of the hut and saw the assailants running away, and that he was able to recognise them by their gait and voice.
The appellant and his brothers went to the house of Rakkha Singh on March 22, 1961 and companyplained that they were number given four hundred maunds of sugarcane out of the seven hundred maunds promised to them.
But the appellant was intimately known to Rakkha Singh and for more than a fortnight before the date of the offence he had met the appellant on several occasions in companynection with the dispute about the sugarcane crop.
Rakkha Singh then went to the police station Puranpur and lodged the first information at 7 45 a.m. At the trial of the appellant and his brothers before the Court of Session, Manjit Singh, Anokh Singh and Rakkha Singh were examined as persons who were present at the scene of offence and witnessed the assault on Karam Singh.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
of half digested food and that indicated that the death was caused some two hours after the last meal was taken by Karam Singh Counsel for the appellant said that the companydition of the stomach supported the version of Manjit Singh and Anokh Singh, but Rakkha Singh has deposed that Karam Singh had taken at about 4 p.m. tea and pakadas.
Rakkha Singh bad heard the appellant and his brothers calling Karam Singh to companye out of the hut and had also heard the appellant, as a prelude to the shooting referring to the dispute about sugarcane.
Their statements recorded in the companyrse of investigation were inconsistent with the tenor of their evidence in Court.
Manjit Singh and Anokh Singh have tried to shield the appellant by deposing that the assault took place at about 9 p.m. and that they were informed that the assailant had put on a mask.
A block of agricultural land, allotted by the Government to Rakkha Singh and the appellant was partitioned but numberboundary marks were erected on the line dividing the lands.
He spoke about the dispute about sugarcane, and also about the quarrel between Karani Singh and the appellant on March 22, 1961.
877 of 1962 and Referred No.
The case for the prosecution was as follows The appellant and his father in law Rakkha Singh were refugees from West Pakistan.
May 10.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH J. The appellant Kirpal Singh and his two brothers Arjun Singh and Sarwan Singh, were tried by the Sessions judge, Pillibhit for causing the death of one Karam Singh with gunshot injuries in the evening of March 26, 1961 at Village Shanti Nagar.
C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent.
P. Rana, for the appellant.
It cannot be said that identification of the assailant by Rakkha Singh, from what he heard and observed was so improbable that we would be justified in disagreeing with the opinion of the Court which saw the witness and formed its opinion as to his credibility and of the High Court which companysidered the evidence against the appellant and accepted the testimony.
With special leave, Kirpal Singh has appealed to this Court.
The Sessions judge acquitted Arjun Singh and Sarwan Singh and companyvicted the appellant Kirpal Singh of the offence charged against him and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death subject to companyfirmation by the High Court.
The offence was companymitted when there was sufficient daylight the assailant was intimately known to Rakkha Singh and the witness had heard the appellants voice speaking about the dispute which was pending between him and the appellant.
