UTTAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UTTAM Singh and two other accused have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated 9.11.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted appellant-Avtar Singh for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Uttam Singh and Hardeep Singh- appellants for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced all of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fined Rs. 1,000/- each, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

(2.) ALL the three appellants along with one Mukhtiar Singh (who was declared as Proclaimed Offender during the period of investigation), were challaned by the police for committing murder of Ram Singh. The prosecution version is that on 20.5.1990 at about 7.00 a.m. Thakur Singh along with Jagtar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Hazara Singh and Ram Singh were going to their fields on a tractor for thrashing wheat. When they reached near the fields of Hardeep Singh son of Gopal Singh, Avtar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh armed with .12 bore double barrel gun, Hardeep Singh armed with a pistol and Uttam Singh had bandolier containing cartridges came from their fields. Uttam Singh raised a lalkara saying that the complainant party was together and none should be permitted to go away. At this, Hazara Singh stopped the tractor immediately so that the complainant party may flee away. Avtar Singh accused then fired at them, though they were able to jump away from the tractor, but the shot fired by Avtar Singh hit Ram Singh in his testicles and Ram Singh fell down on the ground. Pellets of this fire also hit at the legs of Thakar Singh. Other co-accused also started firing with their respective weapons. Hardeep Singh and Mukhtiar Singh also fired towards the complainant party. Ram Singh died at the spot. After causing injuries, all the accused fled away with their respective weapons. Hazara Singh and Mukhtiar Singh (of the complainant party) remained by the side of the dead-body of Ram Singh. Thakar Singh along with Jagtar Singh went to the police station to lodge a report. Sub Inspector Surinder Singh met them near bus stand Janarai, who recorded the statement Ex.PA of Thakar Singh (PW1) and on the basis of which F.I.R. Ex.PA/1 was recorded.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the P.Ws. more particularly eye witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 are interested witnesses and they have falsely implicated the accused. The role attributed to them is totally improbable. The previous animosity between the parties and the fact that the appellants except Avtar Singh were acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction in an earlier case where Narain Singh son of P.W.1 was murdered and the accused except Avtar Singh were tried for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The contention of the learned counsel is that there is definite motive on the part of the complainant party to falsely implicate or include the entire family. The argument is sought to be substantiated by the fact that there is no medical evidence to prove on record that the eye witnesses had suffered any injuries themselves and these eye witnesses ought to be disbelieved in their version and more particularly as far as the involvement of other accused except Avtar Singh is concerned. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that eye witnesses account given by three eye witnesses is true and correct version and is fully corroborated by link evidence. According to the learned counsel for the State, the case is fully established beyond reasonable doubt and there is clinching evidence as far as Avtar Singh is concerned. In regard to other accused, his submission is that there is no reason why these eye witnesses should be disbelieved. According to him, even these eye witnesses were subjected to medical examination and their medico-legal reports along with x- rays were placed on record of the trial Court. In fact it is on that basis that the accused were even charged for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has fairly admitted that medico-legal reports of eye witnesses were not exhibited nor the doctor concerned was examined before the trial Court and consequently these reports have only been marked as A, B, C and D respectively.