AJAIB SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Ajaib Singh has directed this criminal appeal canvassing the correctness of the judgment made in Criminal Appeal No. 970 of 1979 rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dismissing his appeal preferred against the judgment of the trial Court whereunder he stood convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2.) This appellant along with his two brothers, Sucha Singh and Ajit Singh (who were arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3 before the trial Court) took his trial on the allegation that he on 11-11-78 in the village Bachki caused the death of the deceased Buta Singh by stabbing him with a sua (Exh. P1) and in the course of the same transaction PW 7, Jagir Singh and PW 8, Kashmir Singh I sustained injuries at the hands of A3 I and A2 respectively by means of Barchhi (Ex. P6) and lathi (Ex. P7). In respect of this incident, PW 5 the father of the deceased laid the first information report (Ex. PJ) to PW 10 who took up the investigation and held the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the house of PW 5 where the deceased was brought dead from the scene of occurrence. PW 10 in the course of his investigation arrested all the accused persons and recorded their statements and in pursuance of the admissible portions of their statements recovered the weapons of offence, namely, Sua (Ex. P1) Barchi (Ex. P.6) and lathi (Ex. P7) said to have been used in the occurrence by all the three accused persons 1 to 3. To substantiate the accusation made against the accused the prosecution examined four witnesses, namely, PWs 5 to 8 of whom as we have indicated above PWs 7 and 8 were injured. Both the trial Court and the High Court have rejected the evidence of PWs 7 and 8 into to despite the fact that these two witnesses were injured. However, relying upon the evidence of PWs 5 and 6, the Courts below have recorded the conviction of the appellant which is now challenged before us. It may also be noted here that the trial Court has acquitted A2 and A3 of all the offences and this appellant of the offence under Section 324 read with S.34, I.P.C.

(3.) Mr. Prem Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant took us very meticulously and scrupulously through the recorded evidence as well as the judgment of both the Courts below and vehemently tended that PWs 5 and 6 could not have witnessed the actual occurrence since during the time of occurrence, it was cloudy and raining. According to him, the injury found by the medical officer, PW 1 who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased is irreconcilably in conflict with an oral testimony of these two witnesses and as such no safe conviction can be recorded. He also took us to the evidence of PW 10 and vehemently contended that the alleged recovery of Exhs. P1, P6 and P7 is nothing but a planted evidence. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent makes a futile attempt to sustain the conviction stating that both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence and concurrently found the appellant guilty of the offence of murder and hence the concurrent findings of fact need not be disturbed.