CHHOTA SINGH HIRA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants, Chhota Singh and Gurbux smgn, real Brothers, were along with their third brother puran, tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at sangrur, of an offence of murder of Pali and of offences oi voluntarily causing hurt with srvarp and blunt weapons xo Nike P. W. 2 and Budnu P. w. 3. By his judgment and order of March 17, 1962, the learned trial judge has acquitted Puran and convicted Chhota Singh appellant Under Section 302 of the iPenal Code for the murder of Pall sentencing him to life imprisonment and also Under Section 323, read with Section; 34, of the Penal Code In connection with the injuries to Nikku, P.W. 2, sentencing mm to lour months' rigorous imprisonment and has also convicted Gurbux Singh appellant Under Section 326 of me Penal Code for Injuries caused to Pali deceased sentencing him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and Under Section 323 of the Penal Code for the simple injury to Nikku P.W, Z sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences of each appellant have been oraerea to run concurrently. There is an appeal by the appellant? against their convictions and sentences. There Is a revision application by the State seeking enhancement of sentence of life imprisonment to death in the case of Chhota Singn appellant for the murder of Pali deceased. I here is no appeal or revision against the acquittal of Puran or the acquittal of Gurbux Singh appellant of the offence of murder.

(2.) The case is quite simple, the occurrence took place at about 7 a.m. on September 12, 1961, in village Jailor near the house of Pali deceased. Nikku P. W. I Is the real brother of the deceased and Budhu p, w. 3 is the son of Pali deceased and thus the nephew of the first named witness. The third eye-witness is ennoto P. W. 4 who Is the widow of Pali deceased. The report was loogea by Nikku P. W. 2 at 11 A.M. on the same day in a ponce station some 12 miles away from the village. It is Oviousiy prompt. In this report as also In the testimony of the three eye-witnesses the facts stated are that Chhota Singh appellant and Budhu P. w. 3 were friends, sometime in tne month of Balsakh, which should be about the month of April, they distilled illicit liquor wmch they then diviaea, and each had bottles of liquor, uudhu P. W. 3 consumeo two bottles and kept concealed the remaining half bottle which was quietly taken away by Chhota Singh appellant. This led to Budhu P. W. 3 making demands for the return of the half bottle of illicit liquor from chhota singh appellant who promising to return the same Put him off a number of times. A couple of days before the occurrence there was an altercation between these two at the shop of Sham Lai p. w. 7 on this account because Buanu P. W. 3 demanded price of half bottle of illicit liquor from Chlwta Singh appellant. Sham Lai p. W. 7 intervened and separated them. On the next day, that Is to say, a ray prior to the morning of the occurrence, there was again an altercation between the two in the presence of Fiara P. W. 8 on the same matter, but this witness again stoppeo that altercation. It appears apparent, that budhu P. W. o was making a scene, and ratner unpleasant scene of the conduct of his friend Chhota Singh appellant in not eitner returning the half bottle of illicit liquor or giving dock its price. On the early morning of September 12, 19B1, Buanii P. W. 3 started off with the bullocks of Kartar Singh win whom he was a sri or labourer engaged in cmtivat on. He had not gone far from his house when the two appellants and their brother Puran appeared on the scene, ennota Singh appellant had Khurpa, Gurbux Singh appellant a ganoasa and their third brother Puran a barenna. me three of them challenged Budnu P. W. 3, who ran bacn towards his house. The two appellants and their broinei pursued him. Alarm raised by Budhu P. W. 3 brought our his father fall deceased and his mother Cjihoto P. w, ?.' Pall deceased intervened to stop the quarrel Dut cnnotai smgn appellant sam that he be dealt with first. Thereupon this appellant gave a khurpa blow on the head of Pan deceased which brought the latter to the ground, liurbux Singh appellant followed with a gandasa blow on the face of the deceased with a second blow on his cam intervention of Budhu p. w. 3 to save his father brougni a thrust blow from Puran with a barchha in his chess and another blow with the blunt side of the barchha oh his back. Nikku P. W. 2 and Chnota P. W. 4 also Intervened but Gurbux Singh appellant delivered a blow from the blunt side of his gandasa on the left thigh of Nikku P. W. and Chhota Singh appellant pushed Chhoto P. W. 4 bringing her to the ground causing an injury on the ten elbow. Wazir P. W. 5 also witnessed the occurrence. Budhu P. W. 3 did use a gandasa to save his father pan deceased and this was against Gurbux Singh appenam but the latter was not hit. Hari Singh P. W. 6 arrived and to him the witnesses gave the information of the occurrence. Budhu Ram P. W. 17 also arrived and to him also the witnesses gave the information of the occurrence. But the witnesses say that all they said to the witnesses was that the sons of Hira had caused injuries to fan deceased, Nikku P. w. 2, Budhu P. W. 3 and Chhoto P.W. 4. The appellants and Puran are the sons of Hira.

(3.) The Investigating Officer soon reached the place of the occurrence but he did not succeed in arresting the appellants and their third brother until they were produced before him by Sarpanch Bachan Singh of Khetai on the night between September 14 and 15, 1961 inereaner each one of the three made a statement that he was prepared to produce a weapon and pursuant to that statement be actually produced his weapon and the handle of the weapon. To those statements of the appellants and their brotner Puran and the recoveries made by each one of tnem wazir Chaukidar P. w. 11 is a witness. This witness says that the Sub-inspector had asked me to wait as he stated that the accused were going to make disclosure statements. He also told me that the accused would tell about the place where they had placed their respective weapons. He had also said that the accused had already told rum about the places of concealment of the weapons and he would like to take down their statements in my presence. Among other reasons given By the learned trial Judge one reason is that it is evident from the statement of this Chaukidar that the investigating Officer maze no answer In fact from any statement by either of the appellants or their brother Puran made Under Section 27 of the evidence Act, he already naming Knowledge where ins weapons Were lying. The evidence with regard to the recoveries of the weapons has been discarded by the learned that judge and apparently on sound grounu nothing need more be said about that.