JAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by a father, named Jai Singh and his two sons; Chandi and Ramji Lal. They have been convicted under Sections 325,324, 323, Indian Penal Code, with the aid of Section 34, Indian Penal Code; by Shri M. K. Bansal, Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide his order dated 7th August, 1980. The first appellant Jai Singh was released on probation for a period of two years, which obviously has expired. The remaining two appellants were sentenced to 11/2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, each in default of payment of fine to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 325/34, Indian Penal Code, to one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/34, Indian Penal Code, and to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34, Indian Penal Code. All the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case is straight and simple. On 25th May, 1979, at 5-45 p.m. Nasib Singh (P.W. 2) was going to his house from Dhand Mandi. He was accompanied by his brother Prem (P.W. 5) who had lagged behind for taking water. When Nasib Singh (P.W. 2) reached near the crossing known as Dhand Bus-stand, he found all the appellants in the shop of a barber. Jai Singh appellant exclaimed that the enemy had come and he be taken care of. At this Nasib Singh (P.W. 2) started going at a fast speed towards his house but Jai Singh appellant who was armed with a spear gave him a blow therewith on his head. The appellants Nos. 2 and 3 Chandi and Ramji Lal who were armed, with laties assaulted Nasib Singh PW, as a result of which he fell down. Then he was given a volley of blows by the accused. On alarm being raised, Pawan Kumar (P.W. 6) and one Parma Nand were attracted to the scene. Then the appellants left the spot with their respective weapons.

(3.) The motive for the occurrence was that a theft had taken place about 5-6 months back at the petrol pump of Nasib Singh PW, regarding which a report had been lodged at the Police Station. Laying suspicion on Jai Singh, the Police had called him as a suspect but seemingly he was not sent up for trial. The other grudge, as suggested at the trial, but regarding which no mention was made at the stage of investigation, was that the father of the victim had appeared as a witness in a case under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Jai Singh appellant. Whatever be the motive, one or the other or both, even the absence thereof, would, in the instant case, not affect the prosecution case if the victim is to be believed.