MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Mahendra Singh son of Sohan Singh has filed this appeal by special leave challenging his conviction under S. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts are that on 20th June, 1973 PW-1 Mohan Singh and deceased Harbans Singh were requested by the appellant while they were on the way to Prem Pura to attend the betrothal ceremony of the sons of Banta Singh and the appellant. Acceding to this request PW-1 Mohan Singh and deceased Harbans Singh went to the House of Banta Singh and the appellant in village Nav Ghat Ki Tapari. After attending the betrothal ceremony, they expressed a desire to leave but they were pursuaded to stay on for dinner. After the guests had completed the meals, dinner was served to PW-1 and Harbans Singh between 8 and 9 p.m. At that time Bua Singh was also having his meals. When the aforesaid two persons were served meals, Bua Singh came and sat by their side and began to partake of food from the Thali of PW-1. Presumably because Bua Singh was of lower caste, PW-1 resented his behaviour and asked Bua Singh to eat from his own Thali. On Bua Singh persisting in eating from the Thali of PW-1 and Harbans Singh, the latter two got up to leave but Bua Singh tried to stop them. As a result a scuffle ensued between PW-1 and Bua Singh. When the deceased Harbans Singh tried to intervene, the appellant stopped him from doing so whereupon he sat down on a cot lying under a tree. The scuffle between PW-1 and Bua Singh continued and in the course of the scuffle Bua Singh ran into the house and returned with a Dantar. He inflicted two successive blows with that weapon on the head of the deceased Harbans Singh, causing virtual severance of the head from the trunk. On Harbans Singh collapsing on the ground, the prosecution case is that the appellant took the Dantar from Bua Singh and inflicted blows therewith on the back of Harbans Singh. Harbans Singh died instantaneously. It is further alleged that thereafter on the appellant firing four shots from his gun, PW-4 Kashmir Singh and PW-8 Dilip Singh, who were present there, took to their heels.

(2.) The second part of the incident is that after Harbans Singh was done to death, PW-1 went to village Sawalpura and informed PW-2 Dayal Singh about the incident. Apprehending. that the assailants would try to do away with the body of Harbans Singh, PW-2 Dayal Singh and PW-3 Birsa Singh accompanied PW-1 to go to the house of Banta Singh where the incident had taken place. When they were near the canal of village Barundhan they saw four persons. namely; (1) Bua Singh, (2) the appellant (3) Mahendra Singh son of Mangal Singh and (4) Milkha Singh carrying the dead body of Harbans Singh on a cot towards village Sawalpura. As all the four persons were armed, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 did not think it wise to interfere and returned to village Sawalpura and from there proceeded in a Tractor to Talera Police Station where PW-1 lodged the report Ex.P-1. On the basis of the said report S.H.O. Ram Kishore registered an offence and commenced the investigation.

(3.) So far as the first part of the prosecution case regarding the murder of Harbans Singh is concerned, reliance was placed on the evidence of PW-1 Mohan Singh, PW-4 Kashmir Singh and PW-8 Dilip Singh who, it was claimed, had seen the actual commission of the crime. At the trial PW-4 and PW-8 denied their presence at the scene of occurrence and did not support the prosecution. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the presence of both of them was even otherwise doubtful since there was a betrothal ceremony of the son of PW-8 on that very day at his house and hence he could not be expected to be present at the house of Banta Singh. Be that as it may, the fact remains that PW-4 and PW-8 did not support the prosecution case and were treated as hostile. The case, therefore, revolved round the evidence of PW-1 alone.