JASBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Jasbir Singh who stands convicted under section 3021PCand sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - in default to undergo R.I. for three years and also convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to one year R.I. with a direction that the substantive sentences are to run concurrently, has preferred this criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court made in criminal appeal No. 803 of 1975 whereby the High Court has confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.

(2.) THE brief fact, of the case of prosecution are as follows : PW 2 and his brother Avtar Singh (the father of the appellant) owned a piece of land in common at a distance of about three quarter of a mile from their village Nanakpur. They had jointly installed a tubewell and used to take water by turn. On 7.9.1974 at about sunset time PW 2 and his son PW 4 went to their field for irrigating the same. There was no supply of energy and it was restored only by 9 P.M. Thereafter, PWs 2and 4 started pumping out the water and irrigating their paddy field. The appellant came there at about 11 P.M. and told PWs 2 and 4 that he would not allow them to take water on that day since it was his turn. So saying he diverted the flow of water towards his own paddy field. PW 2 protested and left the place leaving his son PW 4 with an instruction not to pick up a quarrel with the appellant till he returned. PW 2 narrated the incident to his second son, Savinder Singh the deceased herein. The deceased told his father PW 2 that if the appellant were not allowed to usurp the turn of water he would fact encouraged to usurp his land as well. Then the deceased and PW 2 came back to the field. The appellant was found irrigating his field. PW 2 was sitting at the tubewell. The deceased diverted the low of water towards his paddy field thereby blocking the course of water to the field of the appellant. The appellant on being aggrieved by the conduct of the deceased went to the village and appeared at the scene about half an hour later armed with his licensed gun. The appellant raised a lalkara and opened fire from his single barrel gun. The first shot missed the target. Then the appellant reloaded the gun and again fired a shot which hit the deceased on his abdomen. On receipt of this injury, the deceased fell down on the ground. PWs 2 and 4 raised an alarm upon which the appellant left the scene with his gun.

(3.) THE medical officer who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased found a lacerated wound measuring 1 cm x 113 cm vertically based on the left side abdomen and two abrasions and six inverted lacerated wounds. According to the doctor, injury No.4 could have been caused by a fire -arm and the remaining injuries by a blunt weapon. After completing the investigation, the charge -sheet was lodged. The trial Court accepting the oral testimony of PWs 2 and 4 convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned which was confirmed by the High Court. Hence, this present appeal.