JAGIR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot, dated 2-12-1991, whereby Jagir Singh appellant was convicted under Sec. 302 Penal Code and his other co-appellants were convicted under Sec. 302/149, IPC, for intentionally causing the murder of Gurcharan Singh, Panch, of the village and each one of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00. In default of payment of fine, each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. Gurcharan Singh and Karnail Singh appellants were further convicted under Sec. 307, Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300.00 for committing murderous assault of Natha Singh, Gurmail Singh, Gurmit Singh and Binder Singh whereas their other co-appellants namely Jagir Singh, Kartar Singh, Pirthi Singh and Swaran Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300.00. In default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for two months for each head under Sec. 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Swaran Singh, Kartar Singh and Pirthi Singh appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing simple injuries to Natha Singh, Binder Singh and Surjit Kaur for each head whereas Jagir Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Karnail Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for each head under Sec. 323/149 of the Indian Pena Code. All the six accused were further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) In brief facts of the prosecution case as emerge from the first information report lodged by Natha Singh PW are that land of Natha Singh, Gurdev Singh and Binder Singh is contiguous and they had sown Narma crop in their land. Somebody used to pluck and steal their Narma crop during the night. Two days prior to the lodging of the report Natha Singh, Binder Singh, Gurdev Singh along with Gurmit Singh had gone to their land to have a round of their fields during the night in order to keep surveillance. Gurdev Singh was armed with his licensed gun. He on suspicion fired a shot in the air at night while they were present in their Narma field. Jagir Singh appellant, whose land and hutment is situated near by complained to the sarpanch concerning the incident of firing near his hutment, Gurbachan Singh Sarpanch called both the parties and tried to remove the misunderstanding between them but no compromise would be effected between the paties. Jagir Singh etc. left that panchayat under protest. The present occurrence took place on 24-12-1990 at about 11.30 A.M. when Gurcharan Singh Member Panchayat, Natha Singh, his brother Gurmeet Singh, Gurmail Singh and Binder Singh PWs were present in their field came in the field known as Vehlarwala where Surjit Kaur wife of Gurdev Singh and Natha Singh were plucking Narma crop. Gurcharan Singh, who was Member Panchayat wanted to initiate efforts for effecting a compromise between the parties. At that time Jagir Singh and his son Gurcharan Singh appellants armed with 12 bore double barrel guns, Karnail Singh appellant armed with a 12 bore single barrel gun, Swaran Singh, Kartar Singh and Pirthi Singh and with gandasas came there, and, on seeing the complainant party, raised lalkara, and, moved towards the latter. Gurcharan Singh, Member Panchayat was ahead of the complainant party. Jagir Singh fired from his gun hitting Gurcharan Singh who fell down on the ground on receipt of fire arm injuries. Meanwhile Gurmit Singh and Natha Singh came forward. Gurcharan Singh, appellant, then fired a shot from his gun hitting Natha Singh on the right side of his head, right wrist, right elbow, right side of the abdomen, right cheek and the upper side of the right thigh. Natha Singh fell down on the ground on receipt of the said injuries. Karnail Singh, appellant, fired a shot from his gun hitting Gurmit Singh PW. Gurcharan Singh appellant fired another shot hitting Gurmal Singh PW. Karnail Singh fired one more shot hitting Binder Singh PW. Thereafter Swaran Singh and Kartar Singh came forward and gave blows with their respective gandasas from the reverse side on the head and wrist of Natha Singh and also caused injuries to Binder Singh while both of them were lying fallen on the ground. Pirthi Singh gave gandasa blow from its reverse side on the head of Gurcharan Singh Danch, while he was lying on the ground as a result of gun shot injuries. Kartar Singh gave a kick on the fore head of Gurcharan Singh. All the P.Ws raised raula of Na Maro Na Maro, hearing which all the appellants fled away from the spot along with their respective weapons. The cause of grudge was that the complainant party suspected that Jagair Singh etc. used to pluck and steal their Narma crop at night.

(3.) After recording the statement of Natha Singh PW which constitutes the first information report in this case, ASI Gurnail Singh prepared the inquest report, recorded the statements of the P.Ws., inspected the spot and took into possession two empty cartridges of 12 bore which were duly sealed and taken into possession through seizure memo. The said ASI lifted two empty cartridges from near the place wherefrom Gurcharan Singh appellant had fired. These two were also duly sealed and taken into possession. Two more empty cartridges were recovered from near the place from where Karnail Singh was stated to have fired. ASI Gurnaib Singh also lifted blood stained earth from near the place where Gurcharan Singh (now deceased) has received injuries. The blood stained earth so lifted was duly sealed into a parcel and was taken into possession through seizure memo. He prepared rough site plan and sent the dead-body of Gurcharan Singh for post-mortem examination. After the arrest of the appellants and on completion of the investigation, the appellants were challenged, tried and convicted and sentenced as stated earlier.