IQBAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby an appeal and a criminal revision were disposed of. The appellants were found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and sentenced to undergo various terms of sentences. The Criminal Appeal was filed by three appellants questioning the conviction and sentence as recorded. Complainant filed a revision petition stating that she was entitled to compensation.

(3.) Background facts giving rise to the trial are essentially as follows : The complainant and the appellants are first cousins, and as such are closely related to each other. Their grandfather was Roor Singh. As per site plans Ex. PP prepared by Makiat Singh, Patwari PW4 and Ex. PT prepared by Sukhchain Singh PW9 (I.O., it shows that the place of occurrence was in the common land owned both by the appellants and the complainant party. The tubewell of which the pipes were being taken out by the appellants, was also in the common piece of land. Sikander Singh (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was standing in the water-course point B (Ex.PT). Complainant Gursewak Singh was standing in the common land Point C (Ex.PT) and Bhim Singh was standing at Point D (Ex. PT). It is the appellants who went 16 to 35 feet towards the complainants where deceased Sikander Singh and the other two witnesses Gursewak Singh (PW6) and Bhim Singh (PW7) were standing and thereafter attacked them. Gursewak Singh (PW6) asked the appellants not to take out the iron and plastic pipes of the tubewell, but firstly to talk to the elders. Malkiat Singh, Patwari (PW4, who is a key witness in regard to the ownership of the piece of land where the tubewell was installed, was not put any question regarding the ownership of the common land. Gursewak Singh (PW6, in his testimony before the Court, stated that the appellants on 7-1-2001 at about 1.00 P.M. armed with spades came to the tubewell and started removing the pipes, which was jointly owned by both the appellants and complainant party. On being stopped, the appellants felt offended and attacked the complainant party. He (PW6) has further stated that there was no dispute regarding the joint property, but the appellants were not on visiting terms with them as far social functions were concerned. Sikander Singh was attacked in the joint water channel and across the water channel there was the field of Gurpiar Singh, father of Iqbal Singh. After leaving the common pipes of land where the tubewell was installed, rest of the land had been divided by both the parties and they were cultivating the land separately and peacefully. The complainant party did not have any weapons in their hands when they had gone to stop the appellants. This witness (PW6) has stated that they did not go near the appellants, but asked them not to remove the pipes. They were at that time standing at a distance of 5-6 karms. Bhim Singh (PW7) has also reiterated the same. Gursewak Singh (PW6) has stated, that Balbir Singh and Hamir Singh have their fields at a distance of about half a killa from the place of occurrence. Both these witnesses Gursewak Singh (PW6) and Bhim Singh (PW7) corroborate each other inter-se and also corroborate the FIR Ex. PQ/1. The medical evidence also corroborates the statements given by the eye witnesses. Dr. Deepak Rai (PW1) has stated in his testimony, that on examining Gursewak Singh he found that he had received one incised wound injury on the scalp left parietal area vertical in position. Similarly on examining Bhim Singh, he found the first injury to be an incised wound. Second and third were abrasions on the left shoulder and neck. The fourth injury was a lacerated wound on the right parietal area of scalp. On the post-mortem conducted on Sikander Singh, an incised wound was found on the parietal area of the scalp, about 12 cms from right ear pinna backwards, traversing part of left parietal area of scalp to left occipital area. The medical evidence corroborates the ocular account.