SUBA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special courts) Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and order dated 28/2/1985 rendered by the Special court, Ferozepur convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) Shorn of details, the case of the prosecution is as under:

(3.) On 18/4/1984 the betrothal ceremony of Jagtar Singh brother of Pritam Singh (the deceased) was to take place in Village Takhtupura. Amongst others, the appellant was an invitee thereto. After the ceremony was over in the evening food and drinks were served to the guests. At or about 11 p. m. Pritam Singh requested the appellant to leave as he, by then, had had his food and drink. The appellant took serious exception to such solicitation of Pritam Singh and retorted that the guests should not be treated in that manner. To avoid any further untoward incident Pritam Singh, Jagtar Singh, Lahora Singh and others took the appellant aside to escort him to his place of work in the village. After they had proceeded a little distance, the appellant again took Pritam Singh to task for insulting and humiliating him. He then brought out a pistol from the fold of his loin cloth, fired at Pritam Singh hitting him on the abdomen and ran away. Pritam Singh, while being taken to the hospital, succumbed to his injuries. In the meantime Jagtar Singh went to Nihalsinghwala Police Station and lodged an information about the incident. On that information a case was registered and ASI Prithi Singh (Public Witness 7 took up the investigation. He went to the place of occurrence, collected bloodstained earth from the spot and sent the same to the Chemical Examiner for examination. After completion of investigation hesubmitted charge-sheet against the appellant and in due course the case was coat the scene of occurrence so as to enable them to identify the miscreant but such attempt failed. On the contrary, through the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer and exhibited during the trial (Ex. P-3 the prosecution established that there was an electric post there. This apart, considering the sequence of eventand the fact that the parties were known to each other from before, there could not be any scope for mistaken identity. Having carefully gone through the evidence of Public Witness 3 and Public Witness 5 we do not find any reason whatsoever to disbelieve them, particularly when nothing could be elicited in cross-examination to discredit them. Then again, the evidence of Public Witness 3 finds ample corroboration from the FIR which was promptly lodged within three hours of the incident and contains the substratum of the prosecution case.