MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of a criminal case in which the appellants Mohan Singh and Jagir Singh along with three others were charged with having committed offences under S. 148 and S. 302 read with S. 149, as well as S. 323, read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The three other persons who were thus charged along with the two appellants were Dalip Singh and two Piara Singhs who were the sons of Ujagar Singh and Bahadur Singh respectively. Of the five accused persons, Dalip Singh was also charged under S. 302. The case against these persons was tried by the II Additional Sessions Judge at Ferozepore. He held that the charges framed against the two Piara Singhs had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. So, giving them the benefit of doubt, he acquitted them. Dalip Singh was convicted under Ss. 302 and 147 and the appellants were convicted under S. 302 read with Ss. 149 and 147. For the major offence of murder, all of them were sentenced to imprisonment for life and for the minor sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. There sentences were ordered to run concurrently. This order of conviction and sentence was challenged by the said three accused persons by preferring an appeal before the Punjab High Court. The High Court has accepted the findings of the trial judge and has confirmed the orders of conviction and sentence passed against them. Thereafter, the said three accused moved this Court for special leave. The application for special leave filed by Dalip Singh was dismissed, but that of the two appellants was granted. That is how the two appellants have come to this Court by special leave, and on their behalf, Mr. Raghubir Singh has urged that the conviction of the appellants under S. 302/149 is unsustainable in law, because as a result of the acquittal of the two Piara Singhs, the provisions of S. 149 were inapplicable.

(2.) Before dealing with the merits of the contention thus raised by the appellants it is necessary to state briefly the material facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants. The incident giving rise to the present case took place on the 9th May, 1959, at a Village called Malsian. The prosecution case is that on the said day, the flive accused persons named in the charge were members of an unlawful assembly and that in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, they committed rioting and at that time were armed with deadly weapons. It has also alleged that in pursuance of the said common object, Gurdip Singh was murdered and injuries were caused to Harnam Singh. That is the basis of the charge under S. 148 I. P. C. The second charge was that since Dalip Singh, one of the accused, had inflicted a fatal injury of Gurdip Singh on his head in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly' all the members of the assembly were guilty under S. 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Gurdip Singh. Dalip Singh was also charged under S. 302 without reference to S. 149 That is the substance of the charge based on the allegation that Gurdip Singh had be murdered in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. For the injury caused to Harnam Singh, an additional charge was framed under S. 323/149. As we have already pointed out, in the present appeal we are concerned with the conviction of the appellants under S. 302/149.

(3.) It appears that the appellants Mohan Singh and Jagir Singh are uncle and nephew respectively, the latter being the son of Mohan Singh's brother Dalip Singh who was one of the accused in the present case. There was a third brother named Tara Singh who was married to Tej Kaur, the daughter of Gurdip Singh, the victim of the assault. Tara Singh was murdered by some Muslims during the communal disturbances that raged in the Punjab in the wake of the partition of the country in 1947. As a result of the said, communal disturbances, the parties migrated from their homes in West Pakistan to the East Punjab and in due course, were allotted land in village Malsian. After her husband's death Tej Kaur began to reside with her father Gurdip Singh in village Ghandyala. Since Tej Kaur had left the village of her husband, Dalip Singh and Mohan Singh managed to get into possession of her share of the land. After the holdings in village Malsian had been consolidated, Tej Kaur obtained a separate holding of land as representing the interest of her deceased husband, Tara Singh. Thereupon, Mohan Singh and Dalip Singh entered into possession of the said land after executing a pattanama in her favour. Having entered into possession of her land in this manner, they did not care to pay the share of the produce to Tej Kaur regularly and in consequence, the amounts due from them fell into arrears. Tej Kaur was thus compelled to appoint her father Gurdip Singh as an attorney in order to realise the arrears of rent and to take steps for evicting Mohan Singh and Dalip Singh from her land. When the attorney instituted eviction proceedings, Mohan Singh and Dalip Singh paid up the arrears, but even so, Tej Kaur succeeded in obtaining an order of eviction. The said order was challenged by Mohan Singh and Dalip Singh by preferring an appeal. But the appeal failed and the order of eviction was confirmed. That naturally led to an application by Gurdip Singh for obtaining the execution of the said order. On this application warrants for possession were issued. It is because Gurdip Singh was thus effectively protecting the interests of his daughter that he ultimately met his death on the 10th May, 1959, at the hands of the appellants and their companions.