PIARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants herein, namely, Piara Singh and Gulzar Singh, have filed this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence recorded against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated January 30, 1987, vide which Piara Singh was sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default whereof, to further undergo RI for three months, under S. 307 of the Penal Code. He was also held guilty under S. 324 read with S. 34, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof, to further undergo RI for a period of two months. Gulzar Singh appellant was held guilty under S. 307 read with S. 34, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default whereof to further undergo RI for three months. He was further held guilty under S. 324, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof, to further undergo RI for two months. The sentences recorded against the appellants herein were, however, ordered to run concurrently. The prosecution story, in brief, needs a necessary mention before the contentions raised by Mr. Jindal, learned counsel for the appellants, are considered by this Court.

(2.) On June 4, 1986 a marriage party had left for Valtoha in the morning from village Kalas. In the marriage party, Kashmir Singh complainant along with Mukhtiar Singh and Jota Singh also went to village Valtoha. Appellants Piara Singh and Gulzar Singh were also members of the marriage party. When the marriage party was at village Valtoha, there was an exchange of hot words between Mukhtiar Singh injured and the appellants over playing of gramophone records. The matter was, however, pacified due to intervention of various persons present in the Barat. The marriage party reached back village Kalas on the same day at about 6/7 p.m. After reaching the village, members of the marriage party started going towards their houses. Complainant Kashmir Singh and Mukhtiar Singh and Jota Singh also started for their houses. When Mukhtiar Singh was going ahead of Jota Singh and Kashmir Singh was at a distance of about ten yards and they were at a distance of two killas from the Haveli of Darshan Singh, Piara Singh appellant herein raised a 'lalkara' exhorting Gulzar Singh to catch hold of Mukhtiar Singh and teach him a lesson for preventing the playing of records. Thereafter, Piara Singh appellant, who was holding a knife in his right hand, gave a knife blow to Mukhtiar Singh from its back side. Gulzar Singh accused also gave a blow to Mukhtiar Singh with the knife which hit him on his back below the shoulder. On alarm being raised by Mukhtiar Singh, Kashmir Singh Jota Singh rushed and saved Mukhtiar Singh from the assailants. The appellants then ran away from the spot with their respective weapons.

(3.) In view of the fact that the injured as also PW 2 Kashmir Singh have deposed in tune with the prosecution version and there is nothing in their cross-examination that might detract from the prosecution version, Mr. Jindal, learned counsel for the appellants, realising that it was not a case for acquittal on any ground whatsoever, confined his arguments only on the nature of offence. His solitary contention, therefore, is that even if the prosecution version is believed in toto, from the medical evidence and other attending circumstances, no case under S. 307, IPC shall be made out against the appellants. The other connected contention of the learned counsel is that applicability of S. 34, IPC is totally ruled out from the facts as given by the prosecution. Mr. Masih, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, has however joined issues to the contentions of Mr. Jindal, noted above.