HARPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The story setup by the prosecution on the statement of Bant Singh (P.W. 8) father of the deceased is as under: Bant Singh stated that he was resident of Village Jhalhan Kalan and did cultivation. His son Amarjit Singh aged 40 years (deceased in this case) after taking meals at the house of his another son Tara Singh at 7.30 p.m. was going to his inner house for taking sleep. He was also following him to his house for taking sleep. When his son Amarjit Singh reached the street in front of the house of Haripal accused, Haripal son of Manjit Singh, Manjit Singh son of Milkha Singh and Milkha, Singh son of Naranjan Singh, Jats, whose house was also situated nearby, were standing head in the street. Thereupon, Milkha Singh raised a lalkara saying Catch hold of Amarjit Singh today. He should not be allowed to go alive, Saying so, Manjit Singh took his son Amarjit Singh in his grip and Haripal who was armed with a knife, gave three knife blows to Amarjit Singh hitting him on his abdomen. Charan Singh son of Naranjan Singh and his son Tara Singh who had reached the spot on hearing the raula, witnessed the occurrence and raised mula. Thereafter, all the three persons fled away from the spot otherwise they would have given more injuries. The condition of Amarjit Singh had become serious and they had temped him to Civil Hospital, Cham Kaur Sahib, for treatment, where, he was given glucose etc. However, as the injuries were serious in nature, the doctor had referred Amarjit Singh injured to P.G.I., Chandigarh. Tara Singh, another son of Bant Singh (P.W. 8) had removed his brother Amarjit Singh to P.G.I., Chandigarh, where he was examined by Dr. Parveen (P.W. 14) at 11.40 p.m., who found the following injuries on his person:

(2.) Dr. N. Sarathkrishna (P.W. 1) who had brought the case file relating to Amarjit Singh opined that death had occurred mainly due to the aforesaid injuries and the same were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

(3.) Dr. Inderjit Dewan (P.W. 7) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found that urinary blander was empty, mucous membrane was cogested. Corresponding to stab wound No. 1 the parietal pleura and diaphragm showed stab injuries 1.5 x 1 cm and 1 x 1 cm respectively. The stab must have been passed into abdomen and injured the spleen which had been removed by the Surgeon. Stab injury No. 3 had gone into abdominal cavity injuring the two walls of stomach near greater curvature at pyloric ant rum and had passed at the groove between second part of duodenum and head of pancreas injuring both. The main pancreatic duct was also injured. Injury No. 2 was superficial: In his opinion the cause of death in this case was septicaemia due to generalised peritonitis due to stab injury.