HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant along with two other acquitted accused persons was put up for trial for an offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC for having committed the murder of Rajpal Singh. Acchar Singh (A-1) is the father of Keval Singh (A-2) and Harbhajan Singh (A-3), the appellant. The learned trial Court acquitted A-1 and A-2 (which was affirmed by the High Court in the appeal preferred by the State) and their acquittal is not the subject matter of challenge before us. The appellant was, however convicted u/S. 302, I. P. C. and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10, 000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. This appeal arises under the following circumstances.

(2.) Nirmal Singh was living with his father and other members of his family on the outskirts of his fields at a distance of about one mile from the abadi of his village Santuwala. The Tubewell of the accused persons was at a distance of 1-1/2 to 2 killas from the residence of Nirmal Singh. It is alleged by the prosecution that on June 12, 1985, at about 6. 30 p. m. Bhupinder Singh (P. W. 2) along with his brother Rajpal Singh (since deceased) came to the house of Nirmal Singh (P. W. 3) who happened to be the co-brother of Bhupinder Singh. They had come to Nirmal Singh to arrange labour for the purpose of planting paddy crop in their fields at village Jheetha. Gurdev Singh, the father of Nirmal Singh and Rajpal Singh had asked his sons to contact A-1 in this behalf since he had told him (A-1) to assist him in getting the labourers. After spending some time in the house of Nirmal Singh, Rajpal Singh proceeded to the tubewell of A-1 leaving behind Bhupinder Singh in the house of Nirmal Singh. It is alleged by the prosecution that within a short time they heard a roula from the side of the tubewell of A-1 and also overheard A-1 saying that Rajpal Singh should not be allowed to escape. When they came out of the house they noticed that the appellant and two other acquitted accused persons were chasing Rajpal Singh while he was running towards his house. They further noticed that the appellant and Kewal Singh (A-2) were armed with rifle and a single barrel. 12 bore gun. When Rajpal Singh tried to scale over the wall and about to jump into the compound of Nirmal Singh, the appellant fired from his rifle causing a firearm injury to Rajpal Singh. It is further alleged by the prosecution that Kewal Singh (A-2) also fired through his rifle and as a result of these fire arm injuries, the upper portion of the head of Rajpal Singh was blown off. Rajpal Singh fell down and died on the spot. Bhupinder Singh (P. W. 2) and Nirmal Singh (P. W. 3) then reached near the place of occurrence. Bhupinder Singh (P. W. 2) waited near the dead body whereas Nirmal Singh went to the village Jheetha to inform Gurdev Singh , the father of Rajpal Singh. Nirmal Singh the father of Rajpal Singh then left for the police station, Zira and upon reaching there during night at about 12. 10 a. m. they lodged the report Ex. P. D. , on the basis of which a formal FIR Ex. PD/1 was recorded. ASI Chandan Singh (P. W. 10) left along with them, and on reaching the place of occurrence he started the investigation. During the spot panchnama three empty cartridges of rifle (Ex. P1 to P3) were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PF. One bullet Ex. P4 was also found embedded on the outer side of the wall over which the deceased had scaled. It was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PG. The empties were forwarded to the ballistic expert along with the rifle which was recovered from the possession of the appellant on June 16, 1985. The ballistic expert, however could not give any definite opinion about the use of bullet Ex. P4. The autopsy on the dead body was conducted by Dr. J. S. Gujral (P. W. 1) and he found a big lacerated wound 28 cms. x 18 cms. on the right side of the head of Rajpal Singh and the brain matter was coming out. The bones of the right side of the head were found missing. After completing the necessary investigation the appellant along with two other acquitted accused persons was put up for trial for an offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC. The appellant was also separately charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act,

(3.) The appellant and two other acquitted accused persons denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated at the instance of Nirmal Singh (P. W. 3) who was on inimical terms with them. They pleaded that they are innocent and be acquitted.