He found wadding and card board pieces embedded in injuries 1 2, and blackening on the margins of injury 3, indicating that those injuries were caused from close range.
Nachhittar Singh appeals after obtaining special leave, to this Court.
On that day, at about 7 a. m., the de ceased had just stepped out of his house for going to Barnala, when the appellant and his son Jagjit Singh whose house adjoins that of the de ceased, companyfronted him.
In due companyrse, this parcel was sent to the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist who found human blood on the chadar.
Then, there was the testimony of Mr. J. K. Sinha, ballistic expert who after examination of the empties which were found at the scene of murder on the 18th December and the licensed gun of the appellant, opined that those empties had been fired through the barrel of this gun.
The deceased was on that account being prosecuted for an offence under Section 307, Penal Code in a companyrt at Barnala.
Thus the ballistic evidence companyfirmed the companynection of the appellant with the crime We do number intend to examine the other points canvassed such as the delay in.
The prosecution story was as under About four months before the occurrence in question the police arrested on the basis of secret information given by Dan Singh deceased, Isher Singh, the brother of the appellant for being in possession of illicit opium.
Sarpanch P.W. 4 and Bhag wan Singh, Panch.
Zora Singh and Bhagwan Kaur falsely substituted the appellant and his son to save their own skin.
Bhagwan Kaur laid herself on the body of the deceased in order to save him from further injuries.
Mr. B. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant companytends that since the prosecution had miserably failed to prove that the appellant or his son had any motive or animus to murder the deceased, the companyrts below should have given due weight to the defence version and disbelived the interested and untrustworthy evidence of the alleged eye witnesses and accorded the benefit of doubt to the appellant.
Shri Sukh dev Singh, M.L. A. was number examined to support this bare assertion of the appellant.
It was further maintained that while the relations of the appellant with his brother Ishar Singh were number companydial, the deceased was always on very good terms with Ishar Singh that the deceased far from implicating Ishar Singh, had stood surety for the latter in the opium case.
The companyrts below have for companyent reasons rejected the defence companytention and accepted the prosecution version that the appellant was taken into custody alongwith his gun, on the 24th December.
It was alleged that Pritam Singh P.W. and Nidhan who were the real culprits, had with the aid of P.Ws.
Zora Singh went to Police Station, Dhanaula, 13 miles away, and on reaching there at 11 .a.m. ,
He prevaricated a good deal, and these facts had to be wrenched out from his unwilling lips after hard questioning.
This application was rejected by the High Court on 26 10 1973.
On the other hand it was brought out in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses that the relations of the deceased with his brothers Pritam Singh P.W. 3 and Nidhan Singh were inimical.
They were, as deposed to by Shri J. K. Sinha.
The deceased was being pro secuted in the Court of Judicial Magis trate at Barnala in respect of an of fence under Section 307, Penal Code for causing gun shot injuries to his brothers, Pritam Singh P.W. 3 and Nidhan, Singh.
Bhagwan Kaur, the mother in law of the deceased and Pritam Singh P.W. 3 came out on hearing the numberse.
P.W. 12, in the possession of the Forensic Laboratory since the 21st December.
Cross examined, Pritam Singh P.W. 3 did number admit the facts about his animosity and criminal litigation with the deceased in a straight forward manner.
Thereafter he moved this Court on 10 12 1973 for the grant of special leave to appeal under Article 136.
Firstly, it is argued, it was number satisfactorily established that Ishar Singh was arrested and prosecuted by the police in the opium case on the basis of any information given by Dan Singh deceased that the mere ipse dixit of Head Constable Amar Singh P.W. 11 regarding the giving of such information by Dan Singh, uncorroborated by any record, was a highly improbable and unsafe ground for reaching a finding on that point, particularly when it was inconsistent with the companyduct of the deceased in furnishing bail for Ishar Singh.
He also seized and sealed into a parcel the blood stained chadar of Bhagwan Kaur.
The parcels companytaining the empties were carried to and delivered in the Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Chandigarh on the 21st December, 1971 by Constable Gurdev Singh.
The gun having been seized by the police on the 24th, there was numberscope for fabrication, number any ground for doubting the genuineness of the empties picked up from the scene on the 18th December, and which on the 24th December were numberlonger in the possession or companytrol of the investigating officer.
He then on 22 10 1973 made an application under Article 134 of the Constitution in the High Court for the grant of a certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court.
Mr. Singh however, company tends that numberempty cartridges had.
Jagjit Singh proclaim ed that they would avenge the implication of his uncle in the opium case.
The testimony of Shri J. K. Sinha had number been seriously challenged in cross examination.
Dan Singh died on the spot.
Subsequently, the gun was sent to the Forensic Laboratory at Chandigarh.
December 18, 1971 was the date of hearing fixed in that case.
In his examination at the trial, the appellant had asserted that he was produced before the police by Shri Sukhdev Singh, M.L. A. on the 19th December, and was arrested and lis gun also was taken away from him by the police at that time.
He had just proceeded from his house for Bar nala to attend the hearing of the case against him when he was shot dead.
Soon after the incident, Zora Singh went to Kartar Singh, Sarpanch and informed him about the occurrence.
Mr. J. K. Sinha, Ballistic Expert examined the gun and the empties, received earlier, and opined that the empties had been fired through the barrel of this gun.
Jagjit Singh pulled her aside, while the appellant fired two more shots at Dan Singh from very close range.
The appellant then ran away taking the gun with him.
Amar Singhs solitary word, says the Counsel, companyld number be taken as the last word on the point because it stood companytradicted by the evidence of Ishar Singh D. W. 1 himself.
lodged the First Information Report.
For that reason, Nachhittar Singh was nursing a grudge against the deceased.
Zora Singh, the father, and Nidhan Singh another brother of the deceased, had also witnessed the assault.
Assistant Sub Inspector Shiv Kumar companymenced the investigation and reached the spot at 1 p.m. He found three empties of 12 bore gun at the scene of murder, two near the dead body and the third on the doorway of the appellant.
He recorded the statements of the witnesses.
Appellant was armed with his licensed 12 bore double barrel gun.
Chandigarh on the 21st December.
PD/1 and P. K. which were attested by Kartar Singh.
Pritam Singh and Ni dhan Singh both were cited as eye witnesses by the prosecution.
Pritam Singh P.W. 3 and Nidhan Singh both had received gun shot injuries.
Reference in this companynection has been made to Ex.
The defence set up by the appellant was that the deceased had been murdered by his own brothers, Pritam Singh P.W. 3 and Nidhan Singh who were inimical towards him and wanted to avenge the gun shot injuries caused earlier to them by the deceased.
in fact, been found at the spot, and that this circumstantial evidence had been fabricated after the arrest of the appellant and seizure of the gun which took place on the 19th December.
He took these empties into possession and prepared two seizure memos Exhts.
Memo Exh.
DF, a certified companyy of that bail bond furnished by Dan Singh deceased.
The appellant was arrested by the Assistant Sub Inspector Shiv Kumar at the bus stand of the village on December 24, 1971 in the presence of Karnail Singh and Lal Gir of village Kahneke.
PE was prepared in this companynection.
Appellant was then carrying his licensed gun which was seized and sealed into a parcel.
The prosecution case was that the arrest of the appellant and the seizure of his gun were made on the 24th December while the empties found on the spot had been sent earlier to the Forensic Laboratory.
Thereupon, the appellant fired his gun felling Dan Singh to the ground.
Ishar Singh Was arrested in the opium case about four months prior to the murder of Dan Singh.
In his opinion the crime cartridges had been fired from the gun of the appellant.
There was numberevidence whatever to indicate that Ishar Singh, much less the appellant, had companye to know that it was the deceased who had got him implicated in the opium case.
Nachhittar Singh was companyvicted under Section 302, Penal Code and sentenced to death while Jagjit Singh was companyvicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
There was number a shred on the record to show that during this period of four months preceding the murder in question, there was any incident in which the appellant by any overt or companyert act betrayed hostility or ill will against the deceased.
Indeed, the High Court did so.
S. Sarkaria, J. Nachhittar Singh, aged 40 years and his son Jagjit Singh, aged 21 years residents of Rurke Khurd were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala for the murder of their companyvillager Dan Singh.
The companyviction of the appellant mainly rests on the evidence of Bhagwan Kaur, P.W. 2, which had been companyroborated in material particulars by independent evidence including that of the ballistic expert, Mr. J.K. Sinha.
Dr. Jagjit Singh, P.W 1, who companyducted the autopsy numbered six gun shot wounds on the body of the deceased.
The investigating officer prepared the inquest report.
