HARCHAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For reasons to be pronounced later, the appeal filed by Harchand Singh is allowed and his conviction and sentence for the different offences under the Indian Penal Code are quashed, He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in connection with some other case. In case he is on bail, his bail bond shall stand discharged. So far as the other appellants are concerned, their appeal is dismissed.

(2.) The appellants were tried for the murder of Jit Singh and Kehar Singh. The case of the prosecution was that Jit Singh, Kehar Singh and Sarwan Singh (P.W. 4) were three brothers. They were accused of murdering the appellant Kaka Singh's uncle Hari Singh, but were acquitted. Some time later on 30th December, 1971 at Mandi Ahmedgarh when the appellants Kaka Singh, Harchand Singh and Dalip Singh met Kehar Singh a quarrel took place between them. Kehar Singh returned to his fields and informed Jit Singh and Sarwan Singh and the latter's son, Mohinder Singh, of what had taken place. Towards sunset, it was alleged, when the four started for their village, Jit Singh riding on a mare and the other three walking behind him, including Kehar Singh who had a bicycle with him, they were attacked by the appellants. Jit Singh and Kehar Singh were done to death while the others ran away. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana tried the appellants and convicted Dalip Singh and Kaka Singh under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Jit Singh and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each, and convicted the other four appellants under S. 302 read with S. 149 of the Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. For the murder of Kehar Singh, Charan Singh, Ranjit Singh and Karam Singh were convicted under S. 302 of the Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each, and the remaining accused were convicted under S. 302 read with S. 149 of the Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Convictions under S. 27 of the Arms Act followed in respect of Harchand Singh, Charan Singh, Kaka Singh and Dalip Singh and they were sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The six accused were also convicted under S. 148 of the Code and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Two appeals were preferred to the High Court, Criminal Appeal No. 1317 of 1972 and Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1973 against the convictions and sentences. The High Court considered the evidence led before the trial Court, which consisted both of evidence led by the prosecution as well as evidence led in defence. The High Court found in the testimony of Sarwan Singh (P.W. 4) and Harbhajan Singh (P.W. 8) sufficient evidence of motive in the appellants for assaulting the deceased, and in regard to the actual attack on the deceased it saw good ground for relying on the evidence of Sarwan Singh (P.W. 4) and Major Singh (P.W. 5). Supporting and corroborative evidence was considered by the High Court to be sufficient to confirm the guilt of the appellants. In the result, it held that the case against the appellant had been established beyond doubt, and consequently it dismissed the appeals.

(3.) Shri Ram Jethmalani has very fairly placed the entire material an the record before us and has attempted to show that the evidence of Sarwan Singh (P.W. 4) and Major Singh (P.W. 5) was tainted by animus and partisanship, that it was vitiated by their bad character and lack of credibility, and that there were material contradictions between the statement of Sarwan Singh (P.W. 4) before the committing Magistrate and his unsworn testimony before the police. Learned counsel also sought to demonstrate that the delay in filing the First Information Report was not validly explained and the conduct of the prosecution witnesses shortly after the murders was unnatural. In particular, he has placed before us specific material in the endeavour to show that the appellant Harchand Singh had been falsely implicated. We have carefully considered the matter and, in our judgment, but for the case of Harchand Singh, the appeal must fail. The testimony of the eye-witnesses is fully supported by other evidence and we have no doubt that all the appellants, except Harchand Singh, were involved in the commission of the offences for which they have been tried. We consider it unnecessary to detail the direct and circumstantial evidence on which the High Court has relied. Whatever may be said in respect of the eye witness accounts of Sarwan Singh (P.W. 4) and other witnesses, there is no reason why the testimony of Major Singh (P.W. 5) should not be accepted. His statement seems to us to present a fair and straightforward account of the incident except so far as it relates to the appellant Harchand Singh, and we are satisfied that he more than sufficiently proves, and confirms, that the remaining appellants were involved in the two murders.