BISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above criminal appeal arises out of a criminal trial held in Sessions Case No. 61 of 1981 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Ferozepore in which the four appellants Bishan Singh, Teja Singh, Jullundur Singh and Gurdial Singh were found guilty of offences punishable under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to death. On appeal, in Criminal Appeal No. 197-DB of 1982 the High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirmed the convictions of all of the four appellants and the sentences of death imposed on three of them viz. Bishan Singh, Teja Singh and Gurdial Singh. But in the case of Jullundur Singh, the sentence of death was commuted into one of imprisonment for life. The above appeal by special leave is filed by the appellants. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2538 of 1982 is filed by one Balbir Singh against Jullundur Singh one of the appellants herein for imposing on Jullundur Singh the sentence of death.

(2.) The four appellants - Bishan Singh, Teja Singh, Jullundur Singh and Gurdial Singh were tried on a charge of committing the murder of four persons, namely, Dhankaur, Malkiat Singh alias Gurmit Singh. Surinder Singh alias Chhinda and Tejkaur. The offence took place at about 7.00 P.M. on June 20, 1981 in village Nurpur Sethan. It was alleged that in the course of the assault, Bishan Singh was armed with a kirpan, Teja Singh with a gun, Jullundur Singh with a rifle and Gurdial Singh with kappa. The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the High Court and the Sessions Court. It is not necessary for us to repeat the same. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court and the Sessions Court and also through the important evidence of the case and we find that the judgment of the High Court is substantially correct. However, there are some telling circumstances which raise a considerable doubt regarding the involvement of Teja Singh in the crime. It is true that it is stated Teja Singh was found along with a gun and the gun was recovered and pellets were found on the spot, but that by itself would not establish the actual participation of Teja Singh in the crime. According to the prosecution all the four accused went with the object of liquidating the entire family of Surinder Singh and were variously armed but Teja Singh was the only person who was unarmed. This aspect of the case suffers from an inherent improbability. If all the accused intended to kill all the members of the family there was no reason why Teja Singh would not have armed himself with some weapon. The prosecution wants us to believe that Teja Singh went to the house of the deceased with the hope of finding a gun at the house of Gurmit Singh alias Malkiat Singh and using it at the time of the assault. The learned Sessions Judge noticed the improbability of this part of the prosecution case when arguments were advanced before him, but instead of giving the benefit of it to the accused concerned, he tried to solve it by the following observations:

(3.) The explanation given by the learned Sessions Judge does not give any convincing answer to the question raised on behalf of Teja Singh. The High Court also tried to get over this question by observing: