AJMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated October 24, 1975, upholding the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Patiala dated October 28, 1974. The High Court has thereby upheld the conviction of appellant Ajmer Singh of an offence under Sec. 302, I. P. C. for committing the murder of Dev Singh, and has confirmed the sentence of death. It has also upheld the conviction of the other appellants, Mehar Singh, Bachan Singh, Chanan Singh, Jarnail Singh, Ujagar Singh, Sardara Singh and Surjit Singh for an offence under Section 302/149. I. P. C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life for Dev Singh's murder. Ajmer Singh, Mehar Singh, Bachan Singh, Chanan Singh, Jarnal Singh, Ujagar Singh, Sardra Singh and Surjit Singh have been convicted of offence under Section 302/149, I. P. C. for committing the murder of Nikka Singh and Gurdev Singh, and they have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for those offences also. Ujagar Singh has been convicted of an offence under Section 307, I. P. C. for attempting to commit the murder of Mehar Singh P. W. 4, and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years while the remaining seven appellants have been convicted under S. 307/149, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. Appellant Chanan Singh has been convicted of an offence under Section 324, I. P. C. for causing injury with an incised weapon to Mehar Singh P. W. 4, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and the other seven appellants have been convicted under Section 324/149, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months. All the eight appellants have been convicted of an offence under Sec. 148, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences, except the sentence of death awarded to Ajmar Singh, have been ordered to run concurrently. Anup Singh, Niranjan Singh, Jogender Singh, Amar Singh and Balla Singh, who were the other accused in the case, have been acquitted.

(2.) The unfortunate incident, which resulted in the death of Nikka Singh, Dev Singh and Gurdev Singh on October 21, 1972, at about 5 p. m., was the result of enmity and litigation regarding the land of one Sampuran Singh of village Selampur. We shall refer to it when we examine the argument of the counsel for the appellants to an question of possession of Sampuran Singh's land on the date of the incident. It has been alleged by the prosecution that Nikka Singh (deceased) and Amar Singh, father of Dev Singh (deceased), were married to the sisters of Sampuran Singh and that after Sampuran Singh's death they, along with their brother Mehar Singh P. W. 4, started living at Salempur with Sampuran Singh's daughter Smt. Siri Kaur P. W. 10 and looked after the cultivation of the land of Sampuran Singh which had been inherited by Smt. Siri Kaur and was being cultivated by her tenants Bachan Singh, Sunder Singh and Nikka Singh. It has further been alleged by the prosecution that on October 21, 1972, at about 5 p. m., Nikks Singh (deceased), Dev Singh (deceased), Mehar Singh P. W. 4 and Balbir Singh P. W. 5 (son of Nikka Singh deceased) were cutting fooder from Smt. Siri Kaur's field. Gurdev Singh (deceased) and his brother Banch Singh P. W. 3. were cutting fodder in Gurdev Singh's field nearby. Appellants Chanan Singh and Jarnail Singh armed with spears, and appellants Mehar Singh, Bachan Singh, Surjit and Sardara Singh armed with gandasas came from the side of the well of Amar Singh, to the place of occurrence, and raised a lilkara warning Nikka Singh, and others that they would not be spared. Nikka Singh, Dev Singh, Mehar Singh and Balbir Singh thereupon left the field and ran towards the village. They were however confronted by appellants Ajmer Singh and Ujagar Singh who were armed with guns, and Jogender Singh, Amar Singh and Ralla Singh who were armed with gandasas, and came from the other side. The gun with Ajmer Singh was said to belong to Anup Singh who had a licence for it. The gun held by Ujagar Singh belonged to Niranjan Singh who also had a license for it. Balbir Singh P. W. 5, son of Nikks Singh, escaped into the nearby sugarcane field to save himself and set down there. It is alleged that the appellants encircled Nikka Singh, Dev Singh and Mehar Singh. Appellant Bachan Singh opened the attack and gave a gandasa blow on the head of Nikka Singh and he fell down. Chanan Singh and Jarnail Singh gave blows with their spears on Nikka Singh's head while he was lying on the ground and Mehar Singh, Bachan Singh, Surjit Singh, Sardara Singh, Jeogender Singh, Amar Singh and Ball Singh inflicted injuries on Nikka Singh's person with gandasas. Nikka Singh succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot. Ajmer Singh fired a gun shot at Dev Singh son of Ajmar Singh as a result of which Dev Singh fell down and died immediately. Ujagar Singh fired a gun shot at Mehar Singh P. W. 4 but he ducked. Appellant Chanan Singh then gave a barcha blow on the left front side of Mehar Singh's chest as result of which he fell down. In the mean time Gurdev Singh and his brother Bachan Singh P. W. 3, who were cutting fodder in Gurdev Singh's field in the vicinity, rushed to the place of occurrence and entreated the accused to stop beating. Ralla Singh gave a gandasa blow on Gurdev Singh's head while Jogender Singh inflicted a gandasa blow on his left foot and Amar Singh a gandasa blow on his left ankle. The other accused also gave gandasa blows on the head and neck of Gurdev Singh. He fell down and died a little later while on his way to the hospital. A report (Exhibit P. A.) of the incident was lodged by Bachan Singh P. W. 3 at 6 p. m. at police station Ghannaur, at a distance of about 3 miles. Inspector Gurdev Singh P. W. 21 reached the place of occurrence at 7.30 p. m. and the copy of the first information report reached the Magistrate at 3. a. m. the same night. The dead bodies of Nikka Singh, Dev Singh and Gurdev Singh were sent for postmortem examination. It is not in controversy that those reports are in conformity with the allegation of the prosecution in regard to the infliction of the injuries on the deceased. The injuries of Mehar Singh P. W. 4 were also examined by the medical officer and we shall have occasion to refer to it when we deal with the criticism which has been levelled against his credibility. The investigating officer took some "empties" in his possession and recovered some gandasas and spears at the instance of the appellants. The police traced out Anup Singh and Niranjan Singh, who were said to be the licence-holders of the guns used by Ajmer Singh and Ujagar Singh, and challaned them also for abetting the commission of the offences. In all 13 persons were committed for trial to the Court of Session. The public prosecutor did not place reliance on the recoveries of the spears and the guns, and conceded that they did not inspire confidence. The trial court found that no case had been made out against Anup Singh and Niranjan Singh and acquitted them. It gave the benefit of doubt to Jogender Singh, Amar Singh and Ralla Singh accused and acquitted them of all the charges. The remaining eight accused have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. They have therefore come up in appeal to this Court.

(3.) As the unfortunate incident which resulted in the the death of the aforesaid three persons took place because of the controversy regarding possession of the land of Sampuran Singh, it will be desirable to examine that aspect of the matter for counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the land of Sampuran Singh was in the peaceful possession of the appellants Ujagar Singh, Jarnail Singh and Surjit Singh, and that it were Nikka Singh, Dev Singh and Gurdev Singh deceased who went to the place of occurrence to forcibly dispossess them on the date and the time of the incident and were therefore the aggressors. It has been argued that because of that aggression there was a free fight which resulted in the death of Nikka Singh, Dev Singh and Gurdev Singh and that there was no justification for blaming the appellants who only protected themselves against the aggression.