ANTU S O MUNSHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has come up in this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upholding his conviction by Sessions Judge of Karnal, with some modifications in the offences and the sentences. The Sessions Judge had convicted Antu appellant under Sections 302, 307 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to death six years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively for the three offences. The High Court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 and the sentence of death. The conviction under Section 307 read with Section 149 was altered to one under Section 307 read with Section 34. L. P. C., but the sentence was maintained. The conviction for the offence under Section 148 was set aside.

(2.) The prosecution case was that there were disputes going on about land in Killas Nos. 10 and 11 of rectangle No. 15 in the revenue estate of village Mangna, which formed part of Shamilat land belonging to the Panchayat. On one side were deceased Bakshish Singh, who claimed that they had obtained joint possession of this land with one Manna Singh who had obtained a lease of this land from the Panchayat, after the Collector had handed over possession of the land to the Panchayat having acquired it under the Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act, 1949. Bakshish Singh and Jagtar Singh had constructed a 'dera' in this land. The other party disputing the right to this land was that of the cused. The principal person fighting in the dispute was Labh Singh who had filed a civil suit with regard to this land against a number of person who were co-accused of the appellant in the trial Court. Proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also pending against both these parties. In this situation, on the 17th July, 1967, a party of 16 persons, including the appellant, came to this land at about 9 A.M. They were carrying various arms. The appellant was himself armed with a gun. There were others also who were carrying gun. These persons came to the land from three different directions. A group of five came from the eastern side. Another group of five came from the southern side. The appellant was in this group. A third group of six came from the northern side. Having thus surrounded the dera from various sides, they raised a shout that the dera should be burnt and its inmates killed. Bakshish Singh who was looking after his cattle grazing in a field a short distance away, rushed to the dera and so did his brother Ajaib Singh who was ploughing his field a little farther away. Labh Singh and Jagtar Singh were inside the dera and came out. On the challenge made by his companions, Antu appellant fired the first shot which hit Bakshish Sigh on the left side of the chest as a result of which he fell down on the ground and died. Tek Chand one of the companions of the appellant, then fired his gun at Labh singh who was hit in the back of the fight shoulder. Labh Singh was then given further blows by other companions of the appellant with the weapons which they were carrying. The first person to arrive there to witness the incident was one Darshan Singh who happened to be going to a village Pehowa and he saw injuries being inflicted on Labh Singh. Thereafter, Pal Lachhman, Ram Sarup, Phula, Raunqi and Gian Singh amongst the party of the accused set fire to the hedge of the dera on its eastern side, whereas Santa Singh, Banta Singh, Jit Singh, Spattar and Ramji Lal similarly set the hedge on fire on the southern side. While this fire was being started by their companions, Antu, Tek Chand, Romesh Kumar,Sulakhan Singh and Dhara from amongst the assailants ran away. According to the prosecution at this stage Labh Singh, Ajaib Singh and Jagtar Singh armed themselves with a gandasa, a sua and a lathi respectively and wielded then so as to cause injuries to Santa Singh, Banta Singh Jit Singh, Ramji Lal and Spattar. Thereafter, all the assailants ran away and the fire was put out. A report was lodged at the Police Station Pehowa and after the usual investigation, fourteen persons were sent up for trial. The Sessions Judge convicted all the 14 persons for various offences which do not require mention in dealing with the, case of the appellant alone. The High Court on appeal, acquitted 11 of them and upheld the conviction of only 3. Viz, Antu appellant, Tek Chand and Ramesh Kumar Bakshish Shingh had died as a result of the shot fired at him by Antu, so that Antu's conviction was upheld for the offence of murder under Section 302 L. P. C, in respect of Bakshish Singh, Tek Chand and Ramesh Kumar were convicted for the same murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 L. P. C . The conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 L. P. C. was recorded in respect of Antu for the injuries inflicted on Labh Singh Tek Chand was convicted under Secdon 307. L. P. C. simoliciter for the injuries caused to Labh Singh while Ramesh Kumar for the same injuries was convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34. L P. C. Antu alone hao appealed and in this appeal therefore, we are concerned with his case only.

(3.) The first aspect of which we have to take notice, is that, in this case, the prosecution examined only three eye-witnesses Labh Singh, Ajaib Singh and Jagtar Singh with Darshan Singh providing corroboration for part of their verdon. The High Court, in dealing with the evidence at these witnesses pointed out why it was not possible to rely on their evidence at all. The features occurring in their evidence emphasised by the High Court are several Sixteen assailants are supposed to have while only five of them are alleged to have used their weapons of whom two fired guns and the remaining inflicted one or two injuries each. This was considered very improbable. At the same time, according to these witnesses, the three persons Ajaib Singh, Labh Singh and Jagtar Singh were able to inflict as many as 57 blunt weapon injuries on five of the assailants, Santa Singh Banta Singh Jit Singh, Spattar and Ramji Lal. This according to the High Court was too much to believe. The High Court further proceeded to hold: