MOHAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 21.2.1998 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby he convicted Mohan Singh son of Chuhar Singh under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Rattan Singh Ex.PE given to Inspector Sant Singh of P.S. Dakha on 20.1.1994. Rattan Singh stated, that he has six daughters and one son namely Binder alias Baljinder Singh. His son had joined ITBP about 1 -1/2 years back. He was posted at Bhangoo (Ambala) and had come to the village on one month's leave. After the expiry of leave, he had to go back on 21.1.1994. On 21.1.1994 he came to Mullanpur Bazar to purchase household articles. At about 11 a.m. Rattan Singh along with his brother Prem Singh and Binder came from the village on a tempo. They got down at Mullanpur Bus Stand. Mohan Singh son of Chuhar Singh who was at the Bus Stop, shouted a lalkara, saying that today he would teach him (Binder) a lesson, for teasing his daughter. Binder tried to run, but fell down. When he was falling down, he was overpowered by Mohan Singh who started giving him blows with his knife. The occurrence was witnessed by both Rattan Singh and Prem Singh. Injuries were given on the naval, neck, chest, left hand, right wrist, thumb and left flank. Mohan Singh ran away. Both Rattan Singh and Prem Singh lifted Binder and put him in a car and brought him to New Dayanand Hospital, Ludhiana. When they were getting Binder admitted in the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. The cause of grudge is that, about 2 - 1/2 years back, Binder had developed illicit relations with the daughter of Mohan Singh, but his daughter had died. On the basis of this statement, F.I.R. Ex.PE/2 was recorded on 20.1.1994 at 4.05 p.m. Special report was sent to the J.M.I.C., Ludhiana on 21.1.1994 at 6 p.m.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant has argued that though it has come in the statement of the Investigating Officer Sant Singh PW -8 that at the place of occurrence there were shops, but no shopkeeper was examined. Neither the owner of the tempo, nor was any passenger on the tempo examined.