PHUMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Phuman Singh has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur dated 04.01.2002 by which he was convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three and half years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. This appellant was also convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution unfolded on the statement of the complainant Devender Singh that he was resident of Basti Labh Singh Wali and they were three brothers, namely, Gurmej Singh, Baldev Singh and himself and all of them were doing agricultural work. It was stated that all the three brothers were cultivating two acres of land of Railways after getting it from Gurbax Singh son of Jiwan Singh on the basis of power of attorney. It was stated that on 13.09.2008, at about 8.00 A.M. complainant Devender Singh alongwith Jagtar Singh, Teja Singh, Gurmej Singh and Bagicha Singh were harvesting paddy crop in this land and at that time accused, namely, Phuman Singh armed with .12 bore gun alongwith his sons, namely, Gurdeep Singh and Surjit Singh armed with Dangs each came present. Accused Phuman Singh raised a lalkara that complainant Devender Singh should be taught a lesson for harvesting paddy crop. On hearing lalkara, complainant got up and thereafter Phuman Singh fired two shots from his gun. The pallets of these shots hit the complainant on right arm, abdomen, mouth, back of neck and left hand. The companions of the complainant tried to snatch the gun of Phuman Singh and in that process accused Phuman Singh gave a butt blow of the gun on the head of the complainant, as a result of which the butt of the gun was broken. The lalkaras were also raised by Gurdeep Singh and Surjit Singh that complainant should not be spared. On noise being raised by the complainant and his companions, all the accused fled away from the spot.

(3.) All the three accused, namely, Phuman Singh and his sons, namely, Gurdeep Singh and Surjit Singh were charged under Sections 307, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also undedr Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1927.