JAGIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Six persons including the two appellants were tried for offences under Section 148, Section 302 read with S. 149 and S. 201 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the murder of Tarlok Singh son of Amar Singh of Purana Pind. The six accused were (1) Jagir Singh of Purana Pind, (2) Tarlok Singh of Udhoke, (3) Wassan Singh of Purana Pind (4) Jagir Singh of Bhumbli, (5) Dyal Singh of Dalla and (6) Pritam Singh of Dalla. Tarlok Singh deceased was brutally attacked on the thrashing floor of Amar Singh at a distance of eighty feet from his Haveli near the outskirt of village Purana Pind on April 27, 1965 at about 4 p. m. The prosecution case was that all the six accused came to the spot with the object of killing Tarlok Singh, accused 5 was riding a white mare and carrying a spear, and the remaining five accused were on foot and were armed with kirpans or swords. Accused 5 shouted a challenge saying that Tarlok Singh must not be spared, accused 4 gave two kirpan blows on his feet, accused 1 gave a sword blow on his neck and the other accused caused injuries to him with their swords. When the victim was almost dead, he was placed on the mare in front of accused 5 and all the six accused proceeded towards village Manoharpura. At a distance of about a mile near the canal minor, the body of the victim was thrown on the ground and accused 2 chopped the head from his body. Accused 2 and 5 rode away on the mare with the severed head wrapped in the chaddar and turban of the victim and the other accused followed on foot. The motive for the attack was that Munsha Singh father of accused 1 was murdered in July, 1964. Amar Singh, Tarlok Singh deceased and one Sawan Singh were tried for the murder but they were convicted of a lesser offence for which they were sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment. They served out their sentences and returned to village Purana Pind about two months before April 27, 1965. The first information report of the murder of Tarlok Singh was lodged on April 27, 1965 at 5-30 p. m. The investigating officer reached the spot at about 6-30 p. m. The trunk of the dead body was recovered at a place about a mile distant from village Purana Pind near the canal minor. The head was never recovered. The identity of the trunk was satisfactorily established. The post-mortem examination revealed six injuries. In the opinion of the medical witness, the death resulted from the cutting of the neck caused with some sharp-edged heavy weapon. The first information report stated that the assailants of Tarlok Singh were accused 1, 3, 5, 6, one Harbans Singh and one Jarnail Singh who were then said to have played the parts later ascribed to accused 2 and 4. All the six accused and Harbans Singh and Jarnail Singh were charge-sheeted. The committing magistrate discharged Harbans Singh and Jarnail Singh and committed the six accused to the Sessions Court for trial. The four eye-witnesses examined at the trial were Amar Singh, father of the victim, Joginder Singh son of Amar Singh, Bachan Singh, son-in-law of Amar Singh and Chhinda whose maternal uncle's daughter was betrothed to the victim. Amar Singh was injured by one of the culprits when he tried to intervene in the attack on his son. He made contradictory statements with regard to the identify of the culprit who had injured him and the six culprits who had participated in the attack on his son. The Sessions Judge acquitted accused 2, 3, 4 and 6. He was not satisfied that the witnesses had correctly identified accused 2, 4 and 6. He gave accused 3 the benefit of doubt as the evidence of the witnesses regarding his presence was not corroborated by other evidence. The courts below found that there could be no mistake about the identity of accused 1 and 5. With regard to their identity, the veracity of Amar Singh was not shaken and the evidence of the three other eye-witnesses was consistent positive and unimpeachable. Accused 1 made a disclosure statement and pointed out a place near the bank of the canal about a mile or a mile and a half from the place where the trunk of the dead body had been found. Four pieces of teeth, one piece of skull bone and hair recovered from the place pointed out by accused 1 were found to be of human origin. There is reason to believe that the severed head of the victim was cut to pieces at the spot. A kirpan was also recovered in consequence of the disclosure statement made by accused 1, but the High Court placed no reliance on this discovery as it was not known to whom the place of recovery belonged. A chaddar was recovered from accused 1 at the time of his arrest. The chaddar had been washed but on examination by the chemical examiner and serologist it was found that it had stains of human blood. Both accused l and 5 had a strong motive for the murder. Though the courts below discarded a part of the prosecution story and gave the benefit of doubt to four accused, they were justified in accepting the prosecution case regarding the participation of accused 1 and 5 in the attack on the victim.

(2.) The Sessions fudge convicted accused 1 and 5 of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to death and five years rigorous imprisonment. The High Court altered the convictions to those under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and confirmed the sentences. Accused 1 and have now filed this appeal to this Court.

(3.) The High Court recorded the following finding: