KEWAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three appellants in these appeals were put up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur who by his judgment and order dated July 8, 1998 in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1998 found the appellants guilty of various offences. Appellant Jagjit Singh was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302, I. P. C. while the remaining accused were found guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. Appellant Kewal Singh was found guilty of the offence under Section 307, I. P. C. while the remaining two accused were convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34, I. P. C. Jagjit Singh was also found guilty of the offence under Section 324, I. P. C. and the remaining two accused under Section 324, I. P. C. read with Section 34, I.P.C., Jagjit Singh was also found guilty of the offence under Section 379, I.P.C. while Kewal Singh and Amarjit Singh were found guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 and 302/34, I. P. C. They have also been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under the other sections of the I. P. C. and the Arms Act referred to hereinabove.

(2.) It appears that Sukhwinder Singh and two others of the prosecution party were also tried in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 1998 but were acquitted by the Sessions Court by a judgment of the same date.

(3.) The appellants preferred two appeals before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh being Criminal Appeal Nos. 366-DB/1998 and 367-DB/1998 against their conviction and sentence. In Criminal Appeal No. 367-DB/1998, all the three accused were the appellants, while in the other only Jagjit Singh was the appellant. Amarjit Singh also preferred an appeal against the order of the Sessions Judge acquitting Sukhwinder Singh and others in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 1998 dated 8-7-1998 which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 228-DB/1999. The High Court by its impugned common judgment and order dated 18th April, 2001 dismissed all the appeals and affirmed the judgments and orders of the learned Sessions Judge. The appellants have preferred these appeals by special leave. It appears to us that an appeal even against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 228-DB/1999 has been preferred in a mechanical manner by a common special leave petition, in which there is no reference to the facts of that case, nor any grounds have been urged impugning the judgment and order of the High Court affirming the judgment of acquittal.