GURMIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 778-DB of 1983 and Criminal Appeal No. 653-DBA of 1984. Criminal Appeal No. 778-DB of 1983 was filed by Gurmit Singh who was convicted by the Sessions Court, Amritsar for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The other appeal was filed by the State against the order of acquittal of the three co-accused.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 12-7-83 at about 730 p.m. when Sadhu Singh (P. W. 10) and his son Parkash Singh (P. W. 12) were returning from their field to their house, Accused Gurmit Singh, Puran Singh, Joginder Singh and Kashmir Singh met them on the way. At that time, Puran Singh was carrying a kirpan, Joginder Singh was armed with a single-barrel 12 bore gun and Kashmir Singh was carrying a gandhali. On seeing Sadhu Singh (P. W. 10) and Parkash Singh (P. W. 12) the accused started uttering abusive words. Sadhu Singh and his son requested them with folded hands not to do so but after proceeding a little ahead they told the accused that they would come back with Bawa Singh to lodge a protest. After reaching their house Sadhu Singh narrated to Bawa Singh what had happened on the way. Meanwhile Duman Singh (P. W. 13) who was passing by their house was also informed about the incident. Thereafter Baba Singh (the deceased, Sadhu Singh (P. W. 10, Parkash Singh (P. W. 12, Duman Singh (P. W. 13) and Karam Singh (P.W. 11) went towards the house of accused Gurmit Singh to lodge a protest. Bawa Singh and Sadhu Singh were carrying lanterns in their hands, Karam Singh and Parkash Singh had sticks and Duman Singh had a Kirpan with him. When they were a little away from the house of accused Gurmit Singh all the four accused carrying the weapons which they had earlier carried came from the opposite direction. Accused Puran Singh then raised a Lalkara to the effect that Bawa Singh should not be spared. He theri gave a kirpan blow on the right elbow of Parkash Singh. One more blow was given by Puran Singh. Accused Joginder Singh gave a blow with the butt of his gun on the chest of Sadhu Singh. Accused Gurmit Singh took the gun of Joginder Singh and fired with the result that Bawa Singh received injuries on his face and chest. Accused Kashmir Singh gave a blow with the stick portion of his gandhali on the right shoulder of Bawa Singh as a result of which Bawa Singh fell down. He also gave another blow with the. stick portion of gandhali on the back of Sadhu Singh (P. W. 10). Accused Joginder Singh picked up the stick of Parkash Singh (P. W. 12) and gave one blow with it to Karam Singh (P. W. 11). Bawa Singh had already died as a result of the injuries; received by him. So, Sadhu Singh, Parkash Singh and Karam Singh remained by the side of the dead body during the night as they apprehended that the accused would otherwise remove the same. Next day morning at about 6.30, a. m. Sadhu Singh went to the Police Post at Sultanwind falling under Police Station Sadar, Amritsar and lodged the first information report.

(3.) On these allegations all the accused were charged for commission of offences under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. At the trial the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of the three eye-witnesses namely Sadhu Singh (P. W. 10, Parkash Singh (P. W. 12) and Duman Singh (P. W. 13). Karam Singh (P. W. 11) was not examined but was offered for cross-examination. He was not cross-examined by the accused. As the learned Sessions Judge found the evidence of the eye-witnesses consistent and reliable as regards accused Gurmit Singh he convicted accused Gurmit Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and Sections 25 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He acquitted the other accused as he was of the opinion that participation by the other accused as stated by the eye-witnesses was doubtful in view of the nature of injuries alleged to have been caused by the said accused and the medical evidence on record.