BOOTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The ten appellants before us, (hereinafter referred to as Al to A 10 respectively) were tried by the additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for criminal conspiracy, rioting, murder and other related offences. The Trial ended in conviction and sentence of Al under Sections 302, 324/ 34 and 323/34, Indian Penal Code. A2 to A4 under sections 302/34, 324/34 and 323/34 Indian Penal Code, A5 to A8 under Section 324 Indian Penal Code, A2 under sections 326 and 323indian Penal code and A10 under section 326 Indian Penal Code. Against their convictions and sentences Al to A4 filed one appeal and a5 to A10 another. By a common judgment the High Court dismissed their appeals and aggrieved thereby they have preferred these appeals after obtaining special leave.

(2.) Bereft of details the prosecution case is as follows :

(3.) The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and their version of the incident, as given out by Al in his statement recorded under Section 313 criminal Procedure Code, was that in the night preceding the date of the incident a calf of Al had fallen in the outlet of the Bio-Gas plant of the complainant party and over that issue there was an exchange of abuses between A3 and the complainant party. A3 then gave out that he was going to inform the police about the misbehavior of the complainant party. To that the complainant party retorted that the harijans (the accused party) had no right to abuse them. The following day (the date of the incident) the deceased and members of his family including Swaran Singh, Harinder singh, Ajit Singh, Harjit Singh and Hari singh went to the house of A3 armed with deadly weapons and asked him to come out. When he (Al) came out and protested he was attacked by the complainant party with the weapons they were carrying as a result of which he. sustained severe injuries on his person. Al next stated that thereafter when the complainant party trespassed into the house of A3 and his sons and caused multiple injuries to six members of their family, one of them, namely, Nachhatar Singh (A 7) caused injuries on some of the members of the complainant party. According to Al, on account of the affluence and influence'of the complainant party the police, instead of taking action against the complainant party who were the aggressors, falsely implicated them. While some of the other appellants took the same defence others took the plea of alibi.