HET RAM LALLU SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE six appellants being the sons and grandsons of Mangla Ram were brought to trial on charges under Sections 148, 302/149, 302/149, 307/149, 823/149 and 323/149, Indian Penal Code, before the Court of Session at Ferozepur. Brij Lal, appellant was charged in a separate case under Section 27 of the Arms Act for the unlawful use of his licenced gun but both the cases were tried together on the appellants' request in order to avoid any prejudice to them by separate trials. By a curious process of reasoning the learned Sessions Judge convicted Het Ram and banwari Lal appellants only under Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal code, for the murders of Shiv Lal and Gopi Ram deceased respectively and sentenced them to death but held the other four appellants guilty under Section 326 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. He imposed a sentence of 4 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 read with Section 149, Indian Penal code, on three counts on Lalu Ram, Brij Lal and Kanshi Ram appellants whilst balram appellant due to his tender age and on the finding that he acted under the influence of his father was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment on these counts. Separate convictions and sentences were also recorded under section 323/149 Indian Penal Code, and Section 148. All these sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. Brij Lal appellant was, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the convicts appeal and the death sentences of Het Ram and Banwari Lal appellants are also before us for confirmation of the same.

(2.) THE appellants Lalu Ram and Kanshi Ram are brothers. Brij Lal and Banwari Lal are the sons of Kanshi Ram whilst Het Ram and Balram are the sons of Lalu Ram. Shiv Lal and Gopi Ram deceased, both of whom were killed in the incident, were also brothers and the three injured P. Ws. namely, Balwant Ram Jagdish Lal and devi Lall are sons of Shiv Lal, deceased. The motive for the commission of the offence is the rather common place one pertaining to the alignment of an irrigation watercourse The two feuding families of the appellants and the deceased are not land owners in their own right but are tenants of agricultural land. Kanshi Ham appellant held the land of Tek Chand, Lambardar in his cultivating possession whilst his brother Lalu Ham appellant was the tenant of some land owned by Rai sahib Kundan Lal in village Dhaban Kokarian. Gopi Ram and Shiv Lal, the two deceased brothers had been for long in cultivating possession of some other land of Tek Chand, Lambardar. Before the consolidation of holdings in the said village which took place approximately two years prior to the occurrence the watercourse irrigating the land of the complainant family used to run through the land of R. S. Kundan Lal which was in cultivating possession of the appellants. After the consolidation the said watercourse was discontinued and a new watercourse was provided which, however, did not satisfactorily command the fields of the complainants as it ran at a lower level. Shiv Lal deceased is said to have made art application to the Canal Department and another watercourse was provided by the authorities and the same continued to be in use for a period of nearly two years. The prosecution alleges that Tek Chand the landlord of the complainants wanted to evict them from the said land and to give that tenancy to the appellants family which was not agreed to by the complainants. It is alleged, however, that in order to harass them and to pressurise them for vacating the same, the appellants demolished the watercourse, thus obstructing the irrigation of the land of the deceased. It is thus the case of the prosecution (which is stoutly controverted on behalf or the defence) that the matter was reported to the Panchayat in which the appellants and the complainants families were represented and it was decided in the said Panchayat that the original watercourse as it existed before the consolidation of holdings, should be restored and be reconstructed by the complainants. We have adverted in detail to these matters as a plea of private defence of property and person has been taken on behalf of the appellants and it is thus necessary to have the events leading to the incident in a clear perspective.

(3.) THE occurrence took place on Diwali day that is the 1st of November, 1967, at about 3 P. M. Gopi Ram and Shiv Lal deceased along with Balwant Ram, Jagdish lal and Devi Lal P. Ws. had on the said day gone at about 2. 30 P. M. to reconstruct the old watercourse and were doing so when at about 3 P. M. all the six appellants came there armed. Het Ram and Banwari Lal appellants were armed with sailas. Kanshi Ram appellant had a kassia, Balram a kulhari, Lalu Ram a dang whilst Brij Lal appellant was carrying his licenced gun. A challenge is said to have been thrown by the appellants declaring that they would not allow the complainants to construct the watercourse and will further eject them from the land whereupon the deceased and the P. Ws. suspended the work of constructing the watercourse nevertheless Brij Lal appellant is said to have fired two shots in succession accompanied by a threat that anyone who would withdraw from the spot would be shot to death. The deceased and the P. Ws. out of fear are said to have then withdrawn to the path going to village Sardarpur which is close by, but the appellants are said to have followed them up and opened an attack on them which was both sudden and simultaneous. Het Ram appellant is said to have struck two fatal blows to Shiv Lal with a spear in his chest and back whilst Kanshi ram and Balram also inflicted injuries on him with their respective weapons. Banwari Lal appellant similarly is said to have struck the fatal spear blow to Gopi ram on his chest and left arm-pit whilst Kanshi Ram appellant dealt a blow on his head with his kassia. Jagdish Lal P. W. who attempted to intervene with a spade, which he was carrying, was also assaulted with a spear by Het Ram whilst Kanshi ram appellant hit him with a kassia and Balram with a kulhari. Injuries were then caused by the appellants with their weapons to the three prosecution witnesses, namely, Balwant Ram, Devi Lal and Jagdish Lal, out of whom Jagdish Lal and Devi lal who had spades retaliated with their weapons against Brij Lal and Lau Ram appellants. Shiv Lal and Gopi Ram died at the spot and thereafter the appellants are said to have withdrawn from the place of occurrence with their respective weapons towards their homesteads which are not very distant from there. After the incident Bal-want Ram accompanied by Sohan Lal was proceeding to the police station when he met Sub-Inspector Iqbal Singh at the Bus Stand, Dotarianwali, and made a statement. Exhibit P. 17 which forms the basis of the first information report recorded at police station, Abohar, regarding the incident. The Investigating officer forthwith reached the spot and collected the bloodstained earth therefrom, prepared the relevant inquest reports as well as the site plan and completed the other details of the investigation thereat.