RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (Rajinder Singh) has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shri O. N. Vohra) under section 302 Indian Penal Code . and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. According to the prosecution the deceased (Raghbir Singh) was killed by the appellant, by shooting at him, at about 3 or 4 P.M. on 21-6-1955 on account of various heads of alleged enmity.

(2.) The paternal grand father of the appellant, Bhim Singh, had four wives, the appellant's father Narian Singh having been born to the first wife. Bhim Singh's second wife was Smt. Indrawati who had four sons including Dalip Singh Balbir Singh (P.W. 1) and Balwant Singh (P.W. 4). The third wife of Bhim Singh was a sister of Smt. Indrawati; the deceased Raghbir Singh was Bhim Singh's son through his third wife. Through his fourth wife Bhim Singh had yet another son Partap Singh. The wives of Balbir Singh and the deceased were sisters.

(3.) The motive for the occurrence is said to be the enmity which sprang up in various ways between the appellant and his father on the one side and the deceased and the children born to Smt. Indrawati, sister of the deceased's mother, on the other. Firstly, when Dalip Singh, brother of Public Witness s 1 and 4, was found murdered in the year 1947 the appellant was suspected the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not inclined to accept this version not only because the deceased was only 14 years old then, but the deceased himself had later on stood surety for the appellant when proceedings had been started for a second time, against the appellant at the instance of his own father Narain Singh under section 107 Criminal Procedure Code . Secondly, the deceased and the appellant had supported rival candidates at an election held about three years prior to the occurrence-a feature considered insignificant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Thirdly, the deceased transferred a plot of land in favour of his wife Smt. Anaro to avoid the land being allotted, in consolidation proceedings, to the father of the appellant; the learned Additional Sessions Judge was unable to regard this item of enmity also as having been substantiated because no objection to the consolidation scheme had even been put forward by the parties. Fourthly, the appellant had shot dead a dog of the haveli, where all the members of Bhim Singh's family were living, a few days prior to the occurrence resulting in altercation between the appellant and the deceased, but there having been no reference to this in the F.I.R. the learned Additional Sessions Judge thought that nobody had attached any significance to the above incident. In the result the learned Additional Sessions Judge was unable to regard any of the above as furnishing any motive for the commission of the murder he, however, thought there was grudge between the appellant and the deceased.