P D/2 by M.H. C. Sikandar Singh.
Wazir singh and Pappa walked upto the tractor and stopped it.
Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows On November 12, 1996 Bachittar Singh PW 3 along with his sons Sukhdev Singh PW and Jagdev Singh hereinafter referred to as deceased were returning to their village at about 9.00 p.m. on a tractor which was being driven by Bachittar Singh while his two sons were sitting on it and when they were about 5 7 Karams short of the house of accused Sadhu Singh they saw the three accused standing in Sadhu Singhs doorway.
Bachittar Singh left Sukhdev Singh near the dead body and drove the tractor to his house from where he companylected Baljinder Singh brother in law of the deceased and met S.I. Satwant Singh S.H.0.,
Bachittar Singh and others raised alarm and the accused retreated to their house.
Thereafter, Wazir Singh raised a lalkara that Bachittar Singh and others should be taught a lesson for cultivating the land companying in their fathers share and thereupon Sadhu Singh fired a shot at the deceased and Pappa Singh started throwing bricks.
The trial Court and the High Court proceeded on the basis as if the accused had time to go into his house and on that he picked up a gun.
It was pointed out that the claim that the accused persons came and attacked the deceased and PWs is number established.
The trial Court makes out a third case.
At that time Sadhu Singh was armed with a 12 bore SBBL gun while Wazir Singh and Harjinder Singh alias Pappa were empty handed.
P. D. This statement was sent through Constable Chhinder Pal to Police Station Saddar for registration of the case after recording proceedings Ex.
Sadhu Singh, Wazir Singh and Harjinder Singh faced trial for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
It was numberodys case that the accused went inside and brought a gun.
It did number accept the plea of right of private defence as set up by the accused persons.
When Bachittar Singh and Sukhdev Singh came down from the tractor they saw that Jagdev Singh had died.
In fact the trial Court and the High Court have number recorded any positive finding regarding the deceased and the PWs travelling in a tractor as on bullet marks were found on the tractor.
After companypletion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
The doctor found various injuries on the body of the deceased.
Police Station, Saddar P.W.6 , near the canal bridge within Bir Behman and narrated the occurrence to S.I. Satwant Singh who recorded his statement Ex.
Additionally, appellant was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
In appeal, the stand before the trial Court was re iterated but the High Court found that there was numberquestion of exercise of right of private defence.
The deceased was about to hit the accused with a spear.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the companyviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 in short Arms Act .
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has relied primarily on the statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
Three persons faced trial for companymission of murder of Jagdev Singh hereinafter referred to as the deceased .
The factual scenario shows that the companyplainant was returning after ploughing the land in front of the house of the accused but companyrect genesis of the situation has number been brought on record.
The Investigator took up investigation.
As the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held.
In order to further its version the trial Court primarily relied on the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4.
