KARAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OUT of the three accused involved in the crime only two. were prosecuted before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur, since the third one had been claimed by the Army authorities to be tried in a Court-Martial. Those two accused were convicted and sentenced as disclosed in the opening sheet of the appeal. And those two are the appellants herein.

(2.) THE manner In which this appeal has been pressed warrants that the facts of the case need not be fully elaborated. The finding of the trial Judge is that the appellants had committed the crime along with the third accused in furtherance of their common intention having lost the initially acquired right of private defence. Now, whether such right was at all lost and, if so, would the appellants be held guilty with the aid of Section 34, Penal Code, are questions which require to be sequentially answered.

(3.) BROADLY stated, the case of the prosecution was that Nazar Singh PW, victim of the crime, was the Sarpanch of villages Noorpur and Moosewal which had a common Panchayat and, as such, Nazar Singh as the Sarpanch had within Us jurisdiction village Moosewal. A piece of land in village Moosewal, statedly belonging to the Gram Panchayat, was the subject of dispute between the parties since the year 1973. The said land was in possession of the two brothers, Gurnam Singh army-man and Bhagwant Singh appellant. Karamjit Singh appellant is the brother-in-law of the aforesaid Gurnam Singh. On 6. 12. 1981 at about 9 a. m. , Nazar Singh was informed that the accused had been ploughing the disputed land with a tractor. On receiving this information, Nazar Singh took along with him Mangat Ram, another member of the Panchayat, to the disputed land where he found a person from another village ploughing the land with a tractor. He asked the driver to stop ploughing the land and, while he was in the process of conversation with the tractor-driver, all the three accused came out of their nearby house, armed with lethal weapons. Gurnam Singh had a sword, Bhagwant Singh appellant had a datar and Karamjit Singh appellant a spear. On the exhortation of Gurnam Singh that Nazar Singh be taught a lesson for not allowing them to plough the land in dispute, the attack was opened by Bhagwant Singh appellant giving him a datar blow on the finger of the left hand. Gurnam Singh gave a kirpan blow which landed on the forehead of Nazar Singh. Karamjit Singh gave a spear blow dang-wise hitting on the right knee of Nazar Singh. The second datar blow given by Bhagwant Singh appellant hit the injured on his left hand and the second kirpan blow of Gumam Singh injured the nose of Nazar Singh. The second spear blow from is wrong side, given by Karamjit Singh hit the left knee of Nazar Singh. Thus, in all six injuries were caused to Nazar Singh. And out of those injuries, the two caused by Bhugwant Singh appellant as also the two caused by Karamjit Singh appellant were found, on medical examination, to be simple in nature. The remaining two 'caused by Gurnam Singh were grievous in nature. These injuries stand detailed out in the opening paragraph of the judgment under appeal. Then again in paragraph 10 of the said judgment, the statement of Dr. Dharam Pal Kapur PW 2 has been detailed out to mention that injury No, 1 on the forehead of Nazar Singh was dangerous to life and injury No. 2 on the nose of Nazar Singh was grievous.