HARJINDER SINGH Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 1986. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondents who were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, in Sessions Case No. 26 of 1984.

(2.) THE three respondents were also tried along with six others in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1984 for the same offences but on a complaint filed by the injured victim Harjinder Singh. As the two versions were totally different and the witnesses cited and number of accused were also different this Court had on an appeal filed by the complainant Harjinder Singh, directed the two cases to be tried separately. In both these cases the accused were tried for committing murders of Major Singh, Jit Singh, Dayal Singh, Nazir Singh and Nachhattar Singh and for causing an injury to Harjinder Singh. In Sessions Case No. 26 of 1984, the learned Judge convicted all the three accused (the three respondents in these appeals) under section 302 read with 34 IPC. In Sessions Case No. 15 of 1984 he convicted six accused including the three respondents and acquitted the remaining three. The High Court acquitted all the six convicted accused. Aggrieved by their acquittal in the police case, the complainant Harjinder Singh and the State have filed these appeals.

(3.) THE three policemen, namely, Head Constable Chanan Singh, Constable Karnail Singh and Constable Pawan Kumar, who were examined as eye -witnesses, deposed before the Court consistently with the FIR lodged by Head Constable Chanan Singh and further .stated that the three respondents had fired at Haljinder Singh and his companions in order to save themselves. The trial Court had rightly held that the said version given by those witnesses was not true and the whole incident had not really happened in the manner stated by them. The trial Court relying upon the admission of the respondents that they had fired shots at Harjinder Singh and his companions and the falsity of their defence as indicated by the medical evidence and other circumstances held that the accused had failed to establish that they had caused the deaths those five persons in exercise of the right of private defence. The trial Court, therefore, held them guilty under section 302/34 IPC for causing murder of each of those five deceased. However, no separate punishment was imposed upon them as they were also convicted along with six others in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1984 under section 302 read with 34 IPC for the murders of those five deceased persons and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.