SARWAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Sarwan Singii alias Dhola s/o Harnam Singh of village Dhurkot is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge Bhatinda, at Faridkot dated 18-6-1951 convicting him under Section 302 Penal Code for the murder of Munshi Singh of his village and sentencing him to transportation for life. He was tried with the aid of four Assessors three of whom were of the opinion that the charge against him was fully proved but the fourth expressed some doubt about his being guilty.

(2.) The facts are set out in the judgment of the learned trial Judge and also in the F.I.R. which was lodged at Police Station Saddar Faridkot at 12-30 A.M. on 2-1-1951 by Partap Singh, brother of the deceased. At 5-30 P.M. on 1-1-51 Partap Singh was informed by Sucha Singh P W. 12 and Gajjan Singh P.W. 13 that his brother Munshi Singh had been assassinated with a Barcha by Sarwan Singh accused in Budhewala field and that the incident had been witnessed by them and Arjan Singh P.W. 14. They had further told him that they had left Arjan Singh in the Budhewala field to guard the dead body and that they had come to the village to inform' him of the incident and added that after the commission of the crime the accused had gone towards village Kot Sukhia. Partap Singh P.W. 2 collected Kundha Singh, Bhola Singh, Balwant Singh and Bara Singh Lambardars and Kehar Singh Chaukidar and took them to the place of murder where they found Arjan Singh sitting near the corpse of Munshi Singh. On enquiry he told them that the accused had killed Munshi Singh with a barchha in his presence and that of Sucha Singh and Gajjan Singh, and that he had thereafter proceeded towards Kot Sukhia along with the weapon of offence. A motive for the murder was also alleged. It was stated that about 21/2 months prior to the incident, one Sarwan Singh, who was the wife's brother of Sarwan Singh accused, had eloped with Mst Gebo, maternal aunt of Sarwan Singh accused and in that affair the accused had suspected the hand of Munshi Singh On receiving the above information M. Surjit Singh S.I. left for village Dhrukot and was there by 4. A.M. on 2-1-1951. He recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses and of all those persons who had accompanied Partap Singh to the place of occurrence before 8 A.M and despatched the dead body to Faridkot Hospital where it was examined by Dr. H.G. Chowla, civil Surgeon. The accused was arrested on 8-1-1951 and on the same day at his instance a Barchha alleged to be the weapon of offence was recovered from a heap of manure belonging to Kundhan Singh chamar outside the village. The post mortem examination revealed the presence two injuries with a sharp-pointed weapon in the neck, two on the chest and two on the back as follows:

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel of the Appellant that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive for the crime. This plea had found favour with the learned trial Judge and I am inclined to agree with him. Munshi Singh and the accused were relations the former being the husband of the sister of the wife of the latter. It is true that Sarwan Singh seducer and Mst. Gebo used to live in Dhurkot and are no longer to be found there but in the absence of clear evidence it is difficult to hold that in that elopement Munshi Singh had been helpful. There was no complaint by anybody to any responsible person in the village against that abduction or elopement nor was any made to the police. Moreover, Partap Singh P.W. 2 has himself stated that Munshi Singh deceased and Sarwan Singh accused were not on inimical terms with each other before the occurrence and that it was his own suspicion that Munshi Singh had been killed by Sarwan Singh on account of Mst. Gebo's elopement. Mst. Gebo had disappeared from the village about 21/2 months before the occurrence and nothing untoward had happened between the accused and the deceased since then. Sucha Singh P.W.'s evidence also shows that before the assault upon Munshi Singh was actually started by Sarwan Singh, both of them (Munshi Singh and Sarwan Singh) had talked to each other for a few minutes. Some reason for the attack must have been there but I am not satisfied that it was the one now attituted. The absence or inadequacy of motive or the absence of the evidence relating the immediate cause of the attack cannot, however, adversely affect the prosecution case, as clear evidence of the Appellant being the assassin is available on the record.