SURJIT SINGH SHER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURJIT Singh appellant and his brother Harnek Singh, sons of Sher Singh of village Kurar in the district of Sangrur were tried for the murder of Gurdial Singh of village Khiali. Surjit Singh was charged for offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, while Harnek Singh was charged under that section read with Section 34, Indian, Penal Code. Shri Sukhdev Singh Sidhu, Sessions Judge, Barnala, by his judgment dated 17th August 1966 convicted Surjit Singh, under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sent-enoed him to undergo imprisonment for life. Harnek Singh waa, however, acquitted.

(2.) GURDIAL Singh deceased accompanying Hardial Singh of village Mom reached the house of Sher Singh in village Kurar on 7th, March 1963 for negotiation of the betrothal of the former with the sister of Surjit Singh appellant, Gurdial Singh, who is a licence-holder of double-barrel gun Exhibit P. I was carrying it with him along with Jhola containing 21 live cartridges and licence of the gun. The gun was a loaded one.

(3.) IN the evening Gurdial Singh and Hardial Singh started taking liquor in the outer house of Sher Singh where his cattle are tethered. They were served with hospice and 'moth ki Daal'. While starting to take meal, Gurdial Singh tauntingly remarked that Hardial Singh should not have brought the-former to a house where Moth Ki Daal was served. Hardial Singh replied that in the house of a family of average status such type of meals were served. Thereafter followed an altercation between the two leading to a souffl?. It appears, under the influence at liquor, Gurdial Singh fired a gunshot. Gurdial Singh pressed the trigger again. This time the barrel of the gun burst and its splinters and fragments flew away in different directions. The forearm and hand of Gurdial Singh were injured and radius bone was fractured. It is the case of the prosecution that Surjit Singh and his brother Harnek Singh, both armed with granddame, began inflicting blows to Gurdial Singh on his forehead. As a result of the injuries caused. he fell down and died. The occurrence of causing of injuries by Surjit Singh and Harnek Singh is claimed by the prosecution to have been witnessed by Natha Singh P. W. 5 resident of village Machhike at a distance of fifteen miles from village Eurar. He is the son of the sister of mother of Hardial Singh, He says that he came to village Eurar to join the occasion of the betrothal of Gardial Singh. He states that he saw the occurrence through the chinks of the window of the room in which the appellant and his brother were inflicting injuries. Kehar Singh P. W. 7 resident of Bajidke Kalan says that he new the coumarone through a window. Eehar Singh is brother-in-law of Natha Singh P. W. 5. He was informed by the latter and reached the spot soon after the receipt of the information. It may be straightaway stated here that these witnesses were examined by the police on 5th April 1966 consequent upon a complaint made to Shri M. S. Bawa, Superintendent of Police. There is no mention of their names in the first information report lodged by Arjan Singh, who himself has not appeared as a prosecution witness. It is strange that prosecution have chosen not to produce as a witness the informant of the first information report.