The accused persons kept on firing shots with their respective guns.
That Jagdev Singh, Harbans Singh and Sadhu Singh were brothers.
In default of payment of fine the respondent was directed to undergo a further imprisonment for four months.
Jagdev Singh sent his brothers, Sadhu Singh and Harbans Singh to the Civil Hospital, Bhatinda in a tractor trolley along with his sister in law, Malkiat Kaur and Harbans Kaur.
But Jagdev Singh died subsequently and therefore, his evidence companyld number be recorded in the Court.
The prosecution in its support examined number of witnesses but primarily, the star witness was P.W.1, Dr.Gupta, P.W.2 Dr.Malik and P.W.3 Harbans Kaur the wife of the deceased Harbans Singh.
Jagdev Singh went to the Police station and lodged the report which was recorded by the S.H.O. Satwant Singh W.7 .
Sadhu Singh and Jagdev Singh had licenced .12 bore guns.
It is alleged that at the time of entering into their house Darsan Singh and Bhola Singh started raising Lalkar saying that they would teach them a lesson for taking possession of the plot of Bikker Singh.
Learned companynsel for the appellant State has taken us to the statements of P.W.3 Harbans Kaur, P.W.4 Sadhu Singh, P.W.5 Baldev Singh and P.W.7 the Investigating Officer.
Learned Sessions Judge after companypletion of the trial companyvicted the respondent Hakam Singh under Section 302 I.P.C. for causing the death of Harbans Singh and also companyvicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. in respect of the murder of Mohinder Singh and also companyvicted under Section 449 I.P.C. for entering into the house of Harbans Singh with a view to murder him.
Darshan Singh was declared as a proclaimed offender.
Accused Darshan Singh fired a shot with his .315 bore rifle at Sadhu Singh which hit him on his right arm.
Jagdev Singh witnessed the entire incident from the roof of his house clandestinely.
Thereafter, her husband Harbans Singh retraced his steps and took a turn, but respondent Hakam Singh fired a shot from his gun hitting on the back side of the buttock of her husband, Harbans Singh.
This is the long and short story of P.W.3, Harbans Kaur an eye witness who has seen the death of her husband and she unsuccessfully tried to save her husband.
On hearing the numberse of the fire shots, other brother Sadhu Singh came out of his house.
After some time accused persons left that place.
It is alleged that on hearing the alarm, P.W.5 Baldev Singh son of Mohinder Singh, deceased and others reached there to save them Mohinder Singh and Bhola Singh died at the spot.
Thereafter, she put a jaffa around her husband, Harbans Singh and took him inside the baithak for his safety and bolted the door from inside.
Under these circumstances learned companynsel for the respondent has submitted that looking to the material companytradictions and negligence on the part of the investigating agency in number seizing the arms and ammunitions and number seizing the empties from the site and in number seizing the blood stained clothes of Harbans Kaur, the High Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the respondent.
Hakam Singh and Darshan Singh had rifles while the remaining accused were armed with 12 bore guns.
In that injured companydition, Harbans Singh fired a shot with his gun in self defence which hit Bhola Singh.
Prosecution examined other formal witnesses also.
The respondent Hakam Singh was also found guilty under Section 307/34 I.P.C. in respect of the injuries caused to Sadhu Singh which were in fact caused by companypanion Darshan Singh.
As against this, learned Senior companynsel for the respondent has seriously companytested and submitted that the appreciation of the evidence done by the High Court was companyrect and there is numberreason to reverse the order of acquittal of the respondent Hakam Singh.
Harbans Singh rushed into the house and brought a licenced gun of the companyplainant, Jagdev Singh.
Thereafter Jagdev Singh came down and knocked the door and on recognizing his voice she opened the door.
Thereafter, it is alleged that multiple shots were fired but she did number open the door.
Jagdev Singh left the house to find out the welfare of Sadhu Singh who is the brother of the deceased, Harbans Singh and he came to know that Sadhu Singh has also received injuries.
Jagdev Singh went to the Police station to lodged the F.I.R. Meanwhile, Harbans Singh died on the way.
In the said Panchayat meeting it was decided that they should vacate the land after getting it demarcated by the Patwari.
One shot hit on the flank and the other on the head of Bhola Singh.
Thereafter a tractor trolley was brought and Harbans Singh was placed in injured companydition inside the tractor trolley along with Sadhu Singh and they took them to the hospital.
All the substantive sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
Sadhu Singh, the injured eye witness as P.W.4, Baldev Singh W.5 , son of Mohinder Singh, Sub Inspector Satwant Singh, H.O. as P.W.7 was the Investigating Officer.
Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the remaining accused persons i.e. Mander Singh, Nachhatar Singh and Bikkar Singh.
While Harbans Singh and Jagdev Singh lived in the same house, Sadhu Singh lived in a separate house.
It was also pointed out that the blood stained clothes of Harbans Kaur were number seized number blood stains from all places.
Hence the present State Appeal against acquittal of accused Hakam Singh.
Sadhu Singh ran away from there and entered in his house and thereafter scaling his wall and entered into the house of Mohinder Singh.
The said report was treated as the formal F.I.R. and special report was sent to the Judicial Magistrate on the same day at 8.00 p.m. Though originally Nachhatar Singh was number one of the accused but after the examination of Jagdev Singh, the companyplainant, accused Nachhatar Singh Pamma was also put on trial.
Meanwhile, her husband, Harbans Singh picked up the licensed gun of his younger brother Jagdev Singh from inside the house.
Respondent Hakam Singh then fired a shot with his .303 bore rifle at Harbans Singh which hit his left buttock and pierced through his groins.
Though Jagdev Singh was also one of the witnesses on whose companyplaint the F.I.R. was registered but he died before the trial and as such his statement companyld number be recorded.
Her husband Harbans Singh stepped forward up to a distance of 5/7 Karams towards the side of the accused with the licensed gun of Jagdev Singh but Hakam Singh aimed the gun towards her husband.
Then Harbans Singh fired two shots from the licensed gun of Jagdev Singh in self defence.
Mohinder Singh came out from his house and ran towards the street.
The accused persons pleaded number guilty and put their version of the incident.
On 24.8.1990 a village Panchayat was companyvened for getting the land vacated.
On 25.8.1990 at about 9.30 A.M. Harbans Singh deceased and companyplainant Jagdev Singh were present in their house when respondent Hakam Singh armed with a .303 bore rifle while other accused Mander Singh and Nachhatar Singh Pamma each armed with a .12 bore double barrel gun along with other assailants Darshan Singh armed with a .315 bore rifle and Bhola Singh armed with a .12 bore single barrel gun entered their house raising lalkara shouting .
The High Court acquitted the respondent accused Hakam Singh from all the charges.
The respondent was also companyvicted under Section 449 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ in default of payment of fine the respondent was to undergo R.I. for two months.
That shot was aimed at them i.e. her and her husband but it did number hit.
The accused party then started taking care of their companypanion Bhola Singh who was injured.
Bhola Singh immediately on reaching there, fired a shot and abused them saying , companye out, we will deliver you the possession of the place of manure heaps.
The prosecution case, in brief, was that an F.I.R. was registered on the statement of Jagdev Singh deceased , the brother of deceased Harbans Singh on 25.8.1990.
Learned Sessions Judge also companyvicted the respondent under section 302/34 P.C. in respect of the death of Mohinder Singh and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2000/ , the respondent was also companyvicted under Section 307/34 I.P.C for causing injuries to Sadhu Singh and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ in default of payment of fine, the respondent was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months.
First of all Bhola Singh fired a shot from his gun.
Aggrieved against this companyviction, the respondent Hakam Singh filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab Haryana and numberState appeal was filed by the State against acquittal of other accused persons.
Learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda companyvicted the respondent Hakam Singh under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ .
K. MATHUR, J. This Criminal Appeal filed by the State of Punjab is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated April 18, 1996 whereby the Division Bench of the Punjab Haryana High Court has acquitted the respondent accused Hakam Singh from the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter to be referred to as the I.P.C. for companymitting the murder of the deceased Harbans Singh.
One of the assailants namely Darshan Singh fired a shot with his.315 bore gun at Mohinder Singh which hit on his back.
They purchased about 15 marlas of land on which accused Bikkar Singh and others had heaped their manure.
