JAI DEV HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants Jai Dev and Hari Singh along with four others Yudhbir Singh, Dhanpat Singh, Sajian Singh and Parbhati were charged with having committed offences under S. 148 and Ss. 302 and 326 both read with S. 149. The case against them was that on September 14. 1960, they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in the area of Dhani Khord and that the common object of this unlawful assembly was to commit the offence of rioting while armed with deadly weapons and that in pursuance of the said common object the offence of rioting was committed. That is how the charge under Section 148 was framed. The prosecution further alleged that on the same day and at the same time and place, while the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly, they had another common object of committing the murders of Hukma, Jai Narain, Jai Dev, Amin Lal, Mst. Sagroli and Mst. Dil Kaur and that in pursuance of the said common object the said persons were murdered. Dhanpat Singh killed Hukma, Sajjan Singh attacked Hukma. Yudhbir Singh shot at Amin Lal, Jai Dev shot at Mst. Sagroli and victim Jaidev, and Hari Singh shot at Jai Narain and Parbhati killed Mst. Dil Kaur. It is the murder of these six victims which gave rise to the charge against the six accused persons under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. An assault made by the members of the said assembly on Ram chander, Juglal, Mst. Chand Kaur. Sirya, Murti and Murli gave rise to a similar charge under Section 326/149. At the same trial along with these six persons, Basti Ram was tried on the charge that he had abetted the commission of the offence of murder by the members of the unlawful assembly and thus rendered himself liable to be punished under Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code. The case against these seven accused persons was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. He held that the charges against Parbhati and Basti Ram had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt; so he acquitted both the said accused persons. In respect of the remaining five accused persons, the learned Judge held that all the three charges framed against them had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. For the offence of murder, the learned Judge directed that all the five should be hanged; for the offence under Section 326/149 he sentenced each one of them to two years' rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 148 he sentenced each one to suffer R.I. for one year, These two latter sentences were ordered to run concurrently and that too if the death penalty imposed on them was not confirmed by the High Court.

(2.) Against this order of conviction and sentence, there appeals were preferred on be half of the five condemned persons. The sentence of death imposed on them were also submitted for confirmation. The Punjab High Court dealt with the confirmation proceedings and the three appeals together and held that the conviction of Yudhbir Singh Dhanpat Singh and Sajjan Singh was not justified and so, the said order of conviction was set aside and consequently, they were ordered to be acquitted and discharged. In regard to Jai Dev and Hari Singh the High Court differed from the view taken by the trial Court and held that they were guilty not under Section 302/149 but only under Section 302 I.P.C. In the result, the appeals preferred by them were dismissed and their conviction for the offence of murder and the sentence of death imposed on them were confirmed. It is this order which is challenged by the two appellants before us in their appeals Nos. 56 and 57 of 1962. These two appeals have been brought to this Court by special leave.

(3.) The incident which has given rise to the present criminal proceedings occurred in Khasra No. 888 in Mauza Ahrod known as 'Inamwala field' on September 14,1960, at about 10-30 A.M. This incident has led to the death of six persons already mentioned as well as the death of Ram Pat who belonged to the faction of the appellants. It has also resulted in injuries to nine persons three of whom belonged to the side of the appellants and six to the side of the complainants. The incident itself was in a sense a tragic and gruesome culmination of the battle for possession of the land which was waged between the appellants on the one hand and the faction of the complainants on the other. One of the principal points which fell to be considered in the courts below was:who was in possession of the said field at the material time The appellants pleaded that they were in possession of the field and were cultivating the field at the time of the incident, whereas the prosecution contends that the complainants' party was in possession of the field and the appellants virtually invaded the field and caused this massacre.