SAJJAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appellants, Jagir Singh and Sajjan Singh, are real brothers. They were charged under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code for the murder of Amar Singh and also under Section 324, read with Section 34, of the Penal Code for having caused simple hurt with sharp weapon to Kaur Singh (P. W. 3) and Gian Singh (P. W. 5) on the morning of July 28, 1963, at their village Kulhi Kalan. The learned Additional Sessions Judge of Ludhiana by his judgment and order of April 10, 1964, acquitted Jagir Singh appellant of the offence of murder, but convicting Sajjan Singh appellant for the same, sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He convicted both the appellants for the second offence, sentencing Sajjan Singh appellant to a 8ne of Rs. 100/- or in default to rigorous imprisonment for four months, and Jagir Singh appellant to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to four months further rigorous imprisonment. The appellants appeal against their convictions and sentences. Jagir Singh appellant was released on bail alter the appeal had been filed and that was something like three months after the date of his conviction.

(2.) THE shop of Kaur Singh (P. W. 3) and his deceased brother Amar Singh is separated by a lane from the house of the two appellants. It has been the case of Kaur Singh (P. W. 3) that Sajjan Singh appellant had purchased provisions from their shop of the value of something over Rs. 9/some five years earlier to the date of the occurrence. He not having made the payment, was refused credit. This created bad blood between the parties. To support this, account-book P. 2 and 3, in which entries P. 2/a and 3/a. are said to relate to the account of Sajjan Singh appellant, has been produced, but the witness has admitted that the account-book has not been regularly kept, there are no regular or systematic entries in it, some pages are blank, and it is not even paged. The witness also admits that there is no evidence that there was any earlier quarrel between the parties on this account. This is merely an invention to provide a reason for the incident on the particular morning. The second reason given in this respect is that next to the house of the appellants is a plot of land that the appellants wanted to purchase, but it has been purchased by this witness and his brother and this has created strained relations between the parties. Even with regard to this there is no evidence that before the incident of this ease the parties ever had any altercation or quarrel because of the sale of the plot. These two reasons for the incident do not explain why the appellants attacked the deceased and the injured persons. There is, however, a third reason which appears to be really the basis of the trouble. It is in the evidence of Gian Singh (P. W. 5) that some time before the occurrence of this case daughter of Sajjan Singh appellant had been abducted. This witness was suspected of having hand in that. There followed security proceedings between these parties in consequence of which this witness was bound down to keep the peace. So the appellants had grudge against Gian Singh (P. W. 5 ). As will presently appear from the narration of the facts. Gian Singh (P. W. 5) and Gurdev Singh (P. W. 6) arrived at the shop of the deceased early on the particular morning. It was the presence of Gian Singh (P. W. 5) at the shop of the deceased that incensed the appellants and resulted in the occurrence of this case. In fact Kaur Singh (P. W. 3) refers to this also as a reason why the appellants attacked them. The two appellants admit that Sajjan Singh appellant had Gian Singh (P. W. 5) bound down for keeping the peace and Jagir Singh appellant explains that that was in connection with the abduction of his niece. So that this was the real reason why the appellants all of a sudden on that particular morning came out and opened the attack. There is no further evidence explaining how the incident started.

(3.) ON the evening previous to the morning of the occurrence Gurdev Singh (P. W. 6) approached Gian Singh (P. W. 5) and asked him to accompany him to another village named Farjulapur because he wanted to settle the betrothal of his daughter. Gian Singh (P. W. 5) agreed to this. They had never gone together before, but there is nothing unusual in Gian Singh (P. W. 5) having acceded to the request of Gurdev Singh (P. W. 6 ). On the morning of July 28, 1963, at about 6. 30 a. m. , Gian Singh (P. W. 5) and Gurdev Singh (P. W. 6) arrived outside the shop of the deceased and Kaur Singh (P. W. 3 ). They had a cycle of which the tyre had deflated. They obtained an inflator from Kaur Singh (P. W. 3) and were in the fact (Sic) of inflating the tyre of the cycle when the two appellants emerged from their house across the lane. Jagir Singh appellant was armed with a Kirpan and was ahead followed by Sajjan Singh appellant who had a Barchhi or a spear with him. There is some attempt on the part of the witnesses to say that the appellants shouted a challenge, but the evidence is not consistent on this. Jagir Singh appellant delivered a Kirpan blow in the direction of the head of Kaur Singh (P. W. 3) but hit him only on the right ear. This brought Kaur Singh (P. W. 3) to the ground. Gian Singh (P. W. 5) then held Sajjan Singh appellant. Thereupon Jagir Singh appellant hit Gian Singh (P. W. 5) with the Kirpan on the left arm. The result was that Gian Singh (P. W. 5) released Sajjan Singh appellant. A Kirpan blow by Jagir Singh appellant was received by Gian Singh (P. W. 5) on his right arm. Kaur Singh (P. W. 3) getting up caught hold of the Kirpan of Jagir Singh appellant, who forced it out of his hand causing injuries to it. Maya Wanti (P. W. 4), wife of the deceased, was sweeping the shop. Gurdev Singh (P. W. 6) and she raised an alram. Amar Singh deceased was at the time getting ready to have a bath inside the house, part of their shop, and hearing the alarm he came out just wearing a Kachha. He caught the Kirpan of Jagir Singh appellant, but Sajjan Singh appellant gave a thrust with the spear in the right side of the deceased who dropped to the ground and died soon after. The appellants then retired to their house.