RAM LAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The four appellants, namely, Ram Lal Singh, Shetan Singh, Pitram and Krishan, stand convicted under S. 302 read with Ss. 34, I.P.C. and 323 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and four months' rigorous imprisonment respectively. The appellants have directed this appeal canvassing the correctness of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana made in Criminal Appeal No. 1583/76 dated 12-11-1976, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment of the trial Court. The crux of the indictment of the prosecution is that on 16-4-1976 at about 12-50 p.m. at the Railway Station of Nangal Digrota, these appellants in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of the deceased, Smt. Shugna. It is alleged that all the appellants dragged her out of the train, while returning to her village from Tehsil Court, and that the second appellant, Shetan Singh, indiscriminately cut her with a gandasa and that in the course of the same transaction they also caused simple injuries to Nanar, P.W. 10. The facts of the case are well set out in the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court. Therefore, we are of the view that all those facts need not be reproduced in extenso, but for the purpose of the disposal of this appeal the relevant facts are given below:

(2.) The entire prosecution case rests only on the evidence of two eye-witnesses namely of PWs 10 and 11 of whom PW-1 is her brother. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants took us very meticulously through the recorded evidence and the judgments of the courts below and contended that the victim alone should have gone to the Tehsil Court and returned, that PWs 10 and 11 could not have accompanied her and that these two witnesses now are pressed by the prosecution into service to serve as direct witnesses to the occurrence. We are unable to accept this submission particularly in view of Ex. P.D/P.D-1 which is a telegram purported to have been sent by PW-4 at the instance of PW-3. Under one of the columns reading "Particulars of accident" the message sent by PW-4 reads thus:

(3.) The above telegram was sent within an hour of this incident. The particulars of the telegram clearly show that PW-10 was present at the scene of occurrence. After scanning through the evidence of PWs 10 and 11, we are of the firm opinion that safe reliance can be placed on the testimony of these two witnesses. Therefore, we see no force in the submission made by learned counsel that the victim woman alone should have returned from the Tehsil Court without being accompanied by anybody.