GURDEEP SINGH AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants Gurdeep Singh and Tek Chand have been convicted for offence u/s 302 and 302/34 Penal Code respectively by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, Camp Suratgarh dated 17.5.1997. Both of them have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each and in default of payment to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both the appellants have also been convicted for offence u/s 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of payment to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 20.8.1993 at about 12.30 p.m. P.W. 1 Baldev Singh lodged a first information report at Police Station, Suratgarh stating inter-alia that there was a dispute between them and their cousin brother appellant Gurdeep Singh with respect to the land. On the same day, he alongwith his younger brother Gejasingh (deceased) and father P.W. 3 Jogendra Singh had gone to the field for collecting fodder. At about 10 a.m. while they were returning, Gurdeep Singh and one unidentified person carrying pistols in their hands, came from the side of canal. Gurdeep Singh exhorted his companion to kill the enemy. At the same time, Gurdeep Singh fired the pistol hitting the chest of Geja Singh, on account of the fire shot, his. brother fell down. His companion fired from the pistol hitting the knee of Geja Singh. Out of fear, he alongwith his father hide themselves behind the shrub. Appellant Gurdeep Singh and his companion ran away. He also stated that near the spot, Kashi and Phoola were also grazing the cattle. With their help, Geja Singh was brought to the house in a camel-cart, where he succumbed to the injuries. He also gave description of the companion of Gurdeep Singh. On this information, police registered a case for offence u/s 302 read with 34 Penal Code and proceeded with investigation. After usual investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the appellants for offence u/ss. 302, 302/34 Penal Code and Sec. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) The appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 13 witnesses and produced certain documents. The appellants in their statements u/s 313 Crimial P.C. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. They have stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity. The trial court relying on the testimony of the eye witnesses, namely P.W. 1 Baldev Singh, P.W. 3 Jogendra Singh corroborated by the prompt first information report and the medical evidence, found the prosecution case proved and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as noticed above.

(3.) Assailing the conviction, it is contended by Mr. H.S. Kharlia, learned counsel for the appellants that so far as second appellant Tek Chand is concerned, there is no evidence against him worth the name. It is submitted that admittedly, he was not known to the eye witnesses and in spite of that no identification parade was arranged. He has also criticised the evidence of recovery of pistol. As regard first appellant Gurdeep Singh, it is submitted that the statement of P.W. 1 Baldev Singh and P.W. 3 Jogendra Singh is not at all reliable. It is also submitted that both the witnesses have tried to falsely implicate Tek Chand and as such there is no guarantee that they are making true statement with respect to Gurdeep Singh as well. It is also argued that most material witness Raju has not been examined. It is also submitted that the story of camel-cart has been introduced at a later stage. He has also pointed out that there are certain discrepancies with respect to the recovery of the pistol. It is lastly submitted that no blood was found on the clothes, ground, grass etc. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the prosecution case.