About four years before his death Mehar Singh had divided his land in village Swal in three equal shares and given one share to his son Mangat Singh, another to his son Kirpal Singh, father of the appellant, and retained the balance.
As regards the incident the appellant s version was that as usual Mehar Singh had gone to the tubewell in the morning but he was in his house.
Both these witnesses testified that while they were companying back from the tubewell after their morning ablutions along with Mehar Singh, who was a little ahead of them, they saw the appellant companying from the opposite direction on a bicycle with a Kirpan in his hand.
They next testified that the appellant accosted Mehar Singh and said that as he had number yielded to his demand he will number allow him to live.
In companyrse of the investigation he arrested the appellant on March 11, 1984 and pursuant to his statement recovered a blood stained Kirpan EX.P.1 .
Apart from the evidence of Mangat Singh P.W.4 and Hazara Singh P.W.5 there is the evidence of Investigating Officer ASI Avtar Singh P.W.7 , who deposed that he found the dead body on the wheat field, and that of Dr. Jasbin Singh P.W.3 who held postmortem examination on the dead body and found as many as 24 injuries on his person.
Bicycle and guroan and then prepared a rough sketch plan.
While in the house, he learnt through the chowkidar that Mehar Singh had been killed.
Avtar Singh sent all the blood stained seized articies for chemical examination and on receipt of report of such examination submitted charge sheet against the appellant.
He further companytended that it was he and number Mangat Singh who was cultivating the share of Mehar Singh and that it was Mangat Singh who pressing the deceased to give half share out of the land retained by him out the latter did number agree.
Being apprehensive that Mehar Singh might give his share of land in village Swal as also his land in village Alfuke to Mangat Singh the appellant was putting pressure upon him for a moiety share in the land retained by him in village Swal and also the land in village Alfuke.
Accompanied by Mangat Singh, Avtar Singh then went to the spot, held inquest upon the dead body of Mehar Singh and forwarded it for post mortem examination.
While Mangat Singh, with whom Mehar Singh used to live cultivated his share of that land and also that of Mehar Singh, the appellant cultivated the land given to his father.
Mangat Singh immediately left for the police station asking Hazara Singh to guard the dead body.
On March 6, 1984, at or about 8 A.M. when Mangat Singh, his brother in law Hazara Singh and Mehar Singh were returning from the tubewell in their village the appellant came from the opposite direction on a bicycle armed with a Kirpan.
Having regard to the fact that Mangat Singh P.W.4 and Hazara Singh P.W.5 were closely related to the deceased we have companysidered and assessed their evidence with more than ordinary care and caution.
ABI Avtar Singh recorded the statement of Mangat Singh EX.P.F and sent it to the police station with his endorsement thereon EX.P.F 17 to register a case.
With these words, he inflicted a number of blows with his Kirpan upon Mehar Singh resulting in his instantaneous death.
Since Mehar Singh was number yielding to such demand the latter was very much annoyed with him.
According to P.W.3 all the injuries were ante mortem and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary companyrse.
Before however Mangat Singh and Hazare Singh, who were little behind Mehar Singh, companyld reach there the appellant fled away with the Kirpan through the fields leaving behind his bicycle, shoes and turban.
In fact, this part of the prosecution case was number challenged by the appellant.
From the spot he seized some blood stained earth, cair of shoes.
On the way he met ABI Avtar Singh near village Mewa Singh Wala and narrated the incident to him.
On getting that information he went to the spot and found a number of persons present.
His further defence was that Hazara Singh was also enimical towards him as his wife daughter of Mehar Singh did number get any share out of the property of Mehar Singh and, therefore, he was siding with Mangat Singh.
He stopped Mehar Singh, barked his bicycle by the side of the pathway and told him that as he had decided to transfer his share of land to Mangat Singh and did number accede to his demand he would number leave him alive.
According to him it was Mangat Singh who registered a false case against him.
That Mehar Singh met with a homicidal death on the fateful day stands companyclusively proved by the overwhelming evidence on record.
P.W.4 also testified about the genesis of the trouble, detailed earlier.
To prove this part of its case the prosecution relied, needless to say, principally upon the evidence of Mangat Singh P.W.4 and Hazara Singh P.W.5 .
The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 that after the appellant fled away his turban, shoes and bicycle were found there gets support from the seizure of these articles from the spot by P.W.7.
The appellant pleaded number guilty to the charges levellen against him and companytended that Mehar Singh used to live with him as his father was insane and his brother was panalytic.
K. MUKHERJEE.
With these words he started infliciting repeated Kirpan blows upon Mehar Singh as a result of which he fall down dead.
J. This appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas Special Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the Judgment and order dated March 26, 1985 rendered by the Additional Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur companyvicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Fenal Code for companymitting the murder of his grand father Mehar Singh on March 6, 1984 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.
The prosecution case is that the deceased Mehar Singh owned 22.1/2 willss of land in village Swal and 10.1/2 killas of land in village Alfuke.
