KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants impugn the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 25th and 29th October, 1997 in S.C. No. 120/1996. Both the Appellants were convicted for committing offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also sentenced to pay fine.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the prosecution case was that the Appellants, PW-2 and PW-3 and the deceased and the latter's brother Amrik Singh were related; they were cousins. The Appellants harboured a grudge against Amrik Singh and his brothers, allegedly because they (especially Amrik Singh) had promised to lend some money from which he later reneged. This led a constrained relationship between Amrik Singh and his two brothers, on the one hand and the Appellants, on the other. It was alleged that on 28th November, 1991, PW-15 Nirmal Kaur who was another cousin (maternal uncle's daughter) of the Appellants (as well as Amrik Singh) invited all of them to her house, with a view to resolve their differences. At that time, according to the prosecution, Amrik Singh was attacked by the appellants. The prosecution case is that Varinder Singh caught hold of Amrik Singh's hair whereas the other brother i.e. Karnail Singh stabbed him on the left side of the abdomen. It was further the case of the prosecution that PW-2 and PW-3 tried to intervene but were kicked and beaten up after which the Appellants fled the spot. Amrik Singh was taken to DDU hospital. He subsequently died on 30th November, 1991.

(3.) BOTH the Appellants initially had sought to impugn the findings regarding their role, questioning the prosecution's inability to produce the blood strained clothes which were worn by PW-2 and PW-3, and also highlighting that MLC PW-21/A stated that the deceased Amrik Singh was conscious despite which his statement was not recorded. Learned counsel, however, later submitted that having regard to the entire conspectus of facts placed before the trial court, its findings are not disputed. He however argued that the conviction in this case under Section 302 IPC was not warranted.