NIRMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NIRMAL Singh appellant stands convicted and sentenced to R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default R.I. for six months under section 307 I.P.C by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Amritsar, vide his order dated 15.11.1983. The appellant further stands convicted and sentenced to R.I. for six months under section 25 of the Arms Act by the learned trial Judge. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Co-accused of the appellant Mangal Singh was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted by the learned trial Judge.

(2.) SOHAN Singh injured P.W. 4 owns land in village Sathialo and had also taken two acres of land from Pritam Singh on latse. The land of the appellant and his father adjoins the land of Pritam Singh. All this land was canal irrigated. The turn of water of Sohan Singh P.W. stated after the turn of the appellant. The appellant and his father used to cut water during the turn Sohan Singh P.W of Sohan Singh P.W. had lodged a protest with the appellant and his father and also reported the matter to the village Panchayat. On 20th September, 1982 at about 3.30 a.m. Sohan Singh and Chanchal Singh P.Ws had gone to take the turn of their water. The appellant and his co-accused were present there. Sohan Singh P.W. asked the co-accused of the appellant as to why he was present at which Mangal Singh retorted that they were only waiting of him. Mangal Singh is alleged to have raised a Lalkara and caught hold of Sohan Singh P.W., while Nirmal Singh appellant gave a spear blow which landed in the abdomen of Sohan Singh P.W, Nasib Singh P.W. 6 also witnessed the occurrence. Injured Sohan Singh was removed to Civil Hospital Baba Bakala where he was medically examined by Dr. Raj Kumar P.W. 1 on 20.9.1982 at 6.30 A.M. He found the following injury on the person of Sohan Singh P.W. :-

(3.) THE appellant was arrested on 20th September, 1982 by Krishan Gopal A.S.I. and he got recovered spear Exhibit P-3 in consequence of his disclosure statement. After due investigation, the appellant and his co-accused were sent up for trial.