BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The pith and substance of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, are that, complainant Manohar Lal (PW5) (for brevity 'the complainant'), his son Rahul Arora (PW6) and father Hari Chand (deceased) were running a provision-store (grocery shop) in village Talwandi Madho. The appellant-convict Baldev Singh @ Deba son of Karnail Singh (for short "the appellant"), used to purchase household articles (ration) from their shop on cash & credit basis. An amount of Rs.400/- was outstanding against him. Although, the appellant was requested, but he refused to pay the balance amount.

(2.) The case of the prosecution further proceeds that on 31.10.2001 at about 7.30 PM, as soon as, the complainant, his son Rahul Arora and father Hari Chand were present in the shop, in the meantime, the appellant came there and asked them to provide him household articles. Hari Chand asked that he had again come and they would not give him articles/ration, unless the previous amount was paid to them. On hearing this, the appellant raised a 'lalkara' that he would teach a lesson for refusing to provide him ration. They came out of the shop on the platform and the appellant started abusing them. Meanwhile, he gave a stick (Danda) blow on the head of Hari Chand, father of the complainant. He felled on the platform and blood started oozing out from his head. They raised a noise and tried to catch, but the appellant threatened them to kill and decamped from the place of occurrence. On hearing the noise, Ravinder Kumar (PW) came there. Hari Chand succumbed to his injury at the spot. The complainant telephonically informed the police about the incident.

(3.) After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police. Having completed all the codal formalities, he was accordingly charge-sheeted for the commission of indicated offence. As, he did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution by the trial Court.