The accused then filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed and hence these appeals by special leave Mr. A. N. Mula companynsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to certain outstanding features of this case which, according to him, are sufficient to throw doubt on the entire prosecution case.
Thus the prosecution has number been able to explain how the deceased died whether by sustaining one gun shot injury.
P 11 and P 12 which were lying near the entrance door.
It was further alleged by the defence that all the witnesses examined in this case were inimically disposed towards the accused.
Jaggar Singh was also companyvicted under s. 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years R.T. and a line of Rs.
Both the guns were sealed into a parcel and seized by the police.
In Crl.
The Doctor has further opined in his cross examination that both injuries Nos.
Hakam Singh was carrying a Gandasa at that time of his arrest which was blood stained even at the time.
In the companyrse of investigation, Karnail Singh P.W. a distant relation of the deceased produced the accused Ram Narain Singh and others before the A.S.I. along with the rifle and a Jhola companytaining the cartridges as also the blood tailed gandasa The police after usual investigations submitted charge sheets against all the accused persons as a result of which they were companymitted for trial before the learned Sessions Judge who companyvicted them as indicated above.
Put briefly the prosecution case is that the appellant Ram Narain Singh was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Hassanpur and is alleged to have forcibly taken possession of 10 Kilos of land belonging to the Panchayat.
P 20 and a Jhola Ext.
N. Mulla, H. S. Marwaha, K. B. Rohtagi and D. R. Gupta, for the appellants.
He further admitted that the A.S.I. did number see the barrel of the guns in his presence by opening it in his presence, to and out whether it was recently fired.
The defence of the accused was that the prosecution had companycocted a false case against the accused due to enmity and with a view to wreak vengeance on the accused Ram Narain Singh for number giving up possession of the Panchayat land.
P 14 which companytained four live cartridges as also his licence.
He further admits that some blood was sticking to the blade of the Gandasa produced by the accused Hakam Singh.
Within a few minutes of the arrival of Teja Singh in the house, the accused Ram Narain Singh and Jaggar Singh armed with single barrel guns entered the house along with Mal Singh and Hakam Singh who were armed with Gandasas.
258 and 259 of 1974.
Secondly, it was urged that the prosecution has changed the time and place of occurrence and it was suggested that the deceased may have been assaulted by an unidentified assailant somewhere in the fields and the appellants have been falsely implicated in the offence.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 19th February, 1974 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
259 of 1974 were companyvicted under s. 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.
All the appellants had filed separate appeals before the High Court which were amalgamated and were heard and decided by one judgment.
In cross examination the witness admitted that he never produced any other accused before the police prior to the occurrence.
258/74 .
The dead body of the deceased Teja Singh was removed to the companyrtyard of the house and kept there.
The learned Sessions Judge, after companysidering the entire evidence on the record, accepted the prosecution case and companyvicted the accused.
Despite several attempts by the Panchayat to dislodge the appellant Ram Narain Singh from this land numberhing of companysequence happened as a result of which the members of the Panchayat filed a companyplaint against Ram Narain Singh before the Deputy Commissioner seeking ejectment of Ram Narain Singh from the land.
Meanwhile Joginder Singh appeared on the scene with a Gandasa in his hand and raised alarm whereupon all the accused ran away from the place of occurrence along with their weapons.
The story given out by this witness appears to be too good to be true and is full of inherent improbabilities.
P. Sharma and Dewan Balak Ram, for the respondent.
300/ , under s. 449 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years R.I. and a fine of Rs.
r The appellant Ram Narain.
1 which by itself was sufficient to cause his death, and injury 1 No 4 which was also the result of the gunshot.
Thereafter Ram Narain Singh fired a shot from his gun which hit Teja Singh on his chest as a result of which he fell down and died on the spot.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
Kuldip Singh reached the place of occurrence at 2 30 M. On October 3, 1972 and held inquest on the dead body of Teja Singh.
Thereafter both the accused caught the deceased from his legs and hands and dragged him out of the house at some distance.
778 of 1973 and Murder Ref.
P 21 companytaining live cartridges.
The S.r.
The story of the prosecution further discloses that on the date of occurrence i.e. October 2, 1972 the deceased along with his brothers Surjit Singh and Joginder Singh had gone to attend a fair at village Phaphre Bhaike and after spending a day there they were returning to their own village near about the sun set, when somewhere on the way Teja Singh stayed behind to answer the call of nature while the other two companypanions, namely, Surjit Singh and Joginder Singh proceeded to their house.
300, and under s. 324/34 P.C. to one year s R.I Hakam Singh and Mal Singh were also companyvicted under s. 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years R.I. and a fine of Rs 300/ each, Hakam Singh was also companyvicted under s. 324/34 I.P.C and sentenced to one years I. and under s. 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to six months I. while Mal Singh was companyvicted under s. 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to one year R.I. and under s. 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to six months R.I. all the sentences to run companycurrently.
300/ .
2 and 4 companyld have been caused from a distance of less than 4 feet and that there was blackening both on injury Nos.
The other appellants Jaggar Singh, Hakam Singh and Mal Singh in Criminal Appeal No.
Similarly Jaggar Singh was carrying another gun Ext.
258 of 1974 by special leave has been preferred by the appellant Ram Narain Singh who was tried by the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda who companyvicted the appellant under s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to death and a fine of Rs.2,000/ or in default further rigorous imprisonment for two years.
Ram Narain Singh was also companyvicted under s. 307/34 and sentenced to three years I. and a fine of RS.
As soon as they entered the house, Jaggar Singh aimed the gun at SurJit Singh P.W and fired at him.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. Criminal Appeal No.
It is also alleged that the deceased had threatened Ram Narain Singh some time before the occurrence that if Ram Narain Singh did number surrender the possession voluntarily he will get him dispossessed.
Teja Singh also arrived at the house soon thereafter.
It was thus stated by the eye witnesses that at the time of firing, the deceased had put his right hand on his chest.
41 of 1973.
4 and 2 which were on the Uncovered parts of the body.
The learned Sessions Judge has also made a reference to the High Court of Punjab Haryana for companyfirmation of the death sentence passed on Ram Narain Singh.
P.G. at 11 50 P.M. A S.I. Kuldip Singh prepared an injury statement and got Surjit Singh admitted into the Civil Dispensary, Bhikhi.
Fortunately the fire missed him.
1000/ each or in default one years R.I. each.
as Ram Narain Singh is companycerned under s. 324/34 P.C. A under which he was sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and under s. 323/34 I.P.C. to six months R.I. All the sentences to one companycurrently.
There was a further companyviction in so far.
According to the prosecution, the appellant Ram Narain Singh nursed a serious grouse against the deceased and Surjit singh for their action.
P 13 and a Jhola Ext.
He also took possession of two empty cartridges Exts.
Mal Singh and Hakam Singh remained at the door of the house, whereas the appellants Ram Narain Singh and Jaggar Singh entered the house.
Surjit Singh P.W. who was one of the injured brothers left the dead body at the spot and proceeded to the police station at Bhikhi through fields and pastures to avoid any companyfrontation with the accused and lodged the first information report Ext.
The A.S.I. found blood stained earth from underneath the dead body of the deceased as also from outside the house.
300/ , under s. 449 I.P.C. to three years R.I. and a fine of Rs.
Jaggar Singh, Hakam Singh Lind Mal Singh have filed a separate appeal to this Court, in which case also special leave was granted by this Court, and as both the appeals arise out of a companymon judgment, we propose to deal with them by one judgment.
These two additions or embellishments appear to us to have been necessitated in order to bring the evidence of the eye witnesses in companysonance with the evidence of the Doctor as also that of the ballistic expert, and we shall deal with this aspect of the matter a little later.
I he deceased Teja Singh and his brother Surjit Singh being members of the said Panchayat took an active part in the campaign for ousting Ram Narain Singh from the Panchayat and which he had forcibly taken possession of.
Further more, the evidence of Dr. S. S. Walia shows that there were two gunshot injuries on Teja Singh, namely, injury No.
The High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the companyvictions and sentences passed by the Sessions Judge and on its refusal to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court the appellant came up for special leave to this Court which granted special leave.
When Surjit Singh P.W. tried to intervene he was hit by Mal Singh with a Gandasa Hakam Singh accused also followed suit and inflicted three Gandasa blows on his right leg, right arm and back.
Singh was carrying his gun Ext.
