SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.6.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court) vide which the appellant has been convicted under Section 304, Part-I of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, the I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-and in default of payment, he has been further directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 14.6.1992, A.S.I. Harbhajan Singh, who was posted in Police Station, Goindwal Sahib, was standing outside the Commando Shed along with Head Constable Sawinder Singh when at about 12.45 P.M., Constable Rajiv Kumar (since deceased) and Constable Des Raj, who were posted as Gunmen with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, First Commando Unit Goindwal Sahib, came there. The appellant-Surjit Singh, who was also a Constable, abused the deceased and enquired from him as to from where he had come.

(3.) Thereupon, the deceased told that they had come from Gurdwara Goindwal Sahib and questioned the authority of the appellant to ask him in this regard. An exchange of hot words and abuses followed and thereafter, both of them went to the room of Head Constable Paramjit Singh. A.S.I. Harbhajan Singh, H.C Sawinder Singh and Constable Des Raj also followed them. All of them asked the appellant and the deceased not to quarrel, upon which the appellant lifted a knife and gave a blow to the deceased in the chest from the left side. While H.C. Sawinder Singh and others were busy in looking after the deceased, the appellant ran away along with the knife. The deceased was taken to hospital at Tarn Taran where he died. A.S.I. Harbhajan Singh, in the meantime, lodged a report with the Police Station, Goindwal Sahib. After completion of investigation, the appellant was challenged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The trial Court charged him accordingly to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order establish its case against the appellant, examined a number of witnesses including eye witnesses, who were present at the spot,