STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BHOLA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are directed against the acquittal of the two respondents. They were tried for committing murder of Jaggar Singh. The trial Court convicted respondent Bhola Singh but acquitted respondent Mithu Singh giving him benefit of doubt. Bhola Singh appealed to the High Court against his conviction and the State challenged the acquittal of Mithu Singh. The High Court allowed the appeal of Bhola Singh and dismissed the State's appeal against Mithu Singh.

(2.) It was the prosecution case that after the murder of Kartar Singh, father of both the respondents, Jaggar Singh the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with their mother. This was not liked by the respondents. On 5-2-1987 at about 1.00 p.m. the deceased, who was a labourer, was collecting bricks for one Sukhwinder Kaur. His brother Gamdoor Singh was working at some distance and Bhola Singh had sometime earlier gone for taking tea. Seeing him alone the respondents attacked him. Bhola Singh gave two kirpan blows on the back of his knee and Mithu Singh gave one gandasa blow on his right leg. After the deceased fell down they gave two or three more blows on the back of his neck. Seeing Bhura Singh and Gamdoor Singh coming towards them the accused ran away from that place. On these allegations both the accused were tried in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sangrur in Sessions Case No. 28/87 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. The trial Court believing the evidence of PW-3 Gamdoor Singh and PW-4 Bhura Singh convicted Bola Singh under Section 302, I.P.C. Mithu Singh was given benefit of doubt as it was of the opinion that the evidence of the two eye-witnesses with respect to him was not corroborated by the medical evidence. The High Court also believed the evidence of the eye-witnesses but strangely acquitted Bhola Singh also holding that it was not possible to say from the evidence as to who out of the two accused had caused the fatal injuries to the deceased and, therefore, neither of them could be held guilty.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. R.S. Sodhi submitted that the High Court having come to the conclusion that the evidence of the two eye-witnesses was worthy of acceptance ought to have convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. This contention deserves to be accepted.