RANJIT SINGH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RANJIT Singh, aged about 22/23 years and Dial Singh, aged 17/18 years, were sent up for trial in the Court of Session at Amritsar under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, for having committed the murder of Khurshid, a Christian, aged 20 years, at about 4 P.M. on 11th February 1963. Dial Singh was acquitted of the charge but Ranjit Singh was convicted under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has come up in appeal to this Court against his conviction and sentence.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution version, Khurshid and Ranjit Singh used to work in the Onkar Factory near the shop of Kundan Lal Brij Lal. They stopped in front of that shop on the day of the occurrence and started exchanging hot words. Khurshid asked Ranjit Singh to pay up the debt which he owed to him. Ranjit Singh refused to make any payment. Khurshid repeated his demand two or three times which enraged Ranjit Singh who abused him. It is then alleged that Ranjit Singh took out a knife from the pocket of his trousers and inflicted an injury with it on Khurshid's chest. Khurshid fell down and died soon afterwards. Th? first information report was lodged within almost 10 minutes of the occurrence in the Police Station B -Division, Amritsar, by Puran Singh who was working at the shop of Kundan Lal Brij Lal as carpenter along with his apprentice Hardial Singh. Puran Singh stated that the occurrence had been witnessed by him and Hardial Singh. The post -mortem examination, which was performed on the following day, showed an incised wound in the chest. On dissection, costal cartilage of the fifth rib of the left side was found cut through and through and pericardium was cut in the same manner. The right ventricle of the heart was also cut. It is unnecessary to give the ether details of the injury because it is obvious, and has not been disputed, that after receiving that injury the deceased was bound to succumb to it immediately and it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Puran Singh, who appeared as P.W. 3, supported the version given in the first information report and mentioned Dial Singh having said to Ranjit Singh to pay up the money. Hardial Singh P.W. 4 supported his statement and attributed the infliction of the injury on the deceased to Ranjit Singh.

(3.) MR . R.K. Chhibber has taken us through the evidence but we find no reason to disagree with the appreciation of evidence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The occurrence took place in broad day light and was witnessed by P.Ws. Puran Singh and Hardial Singh who had every reason to be present at the spot and who had no motive or Interest in falsely implicating Ranjit Singh. The first information report was lodged most promptly and the medical evidence supported the prosecution version which received corroboration from the recovery of the knife pursuant to the disclosure statement made by Ranjit Singh. We have, therefore, no manner of doubt that Ranjat Singh was rightly found to have inflicted the fatal injury on the deceased.