AMARJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 9-8-1991, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. l, Sri Ganganagar (Camp Sri Karanpur), by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offences under Section 302, I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and six month, rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the F.I.R. (Ex. P.1), lodged at Police Station, Sri Karanpur on 21-9-1987 at about 11.30 p.m. by Bagha Singh R/o Kharla, is that at about 11.00/11.30 a.m. he was in his cote (Nohra) and was arranging the wood. In the meanwhile he heard the sound of a gun-fire. The ladies in the house raised alarms. He thereafter went towards the Court-yard and saw accused Amarjeet Singh standing in the room of the house and was armed with a 12-bore gun. Accused Amarjeet Singh opened the second fire on his son Bikar Singh, who, on receiving the fire injuries, raised the cries. Accused Amarjeet Singh re-loaded the gun and opened third fire on Bikar Singh. Amarjeet. Singh's sister accused Amat Kaur was armed with a Takua and was instigating accused Amarjeet Singh to fire again. On seeing this, Bagha Singh and other members of the family, viz., his wife Harmendra Kaur, daughter-in-law Jasbir Kaur and daughter Bhuri raised alarms. After killing Bikar Singh, accused Amarjeet Singh and Atam Kaur -left the house. Accused Tarsem Singh was standing out-side the house and enquired from accused Amarjeet Singh and Atam Kaur whether the work had been done or not, whereupon both the accused said that Bikar Singh had been done to death. It was only on the instigation of accused Kishan Singh - the father of the other three accused - that the murder of Bikar Singh, was committed and he had sent the accused along with his licened gun. Bagha Singh alias Bag Singh, Harmindra Kaur, Jasbir Kaur and Miss Bhuri thereafter entered in the room and found Bikar Singh dead. The accused had committed the murder of Bikar Singh who was a student of, B.A., on the allegation that he used to tease accused. Atam Kaur. On this basis of the report, a case under Sections 302, 302/34 and 120B, I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act was registered against accused Amarjeet Singh, Tarsem Singh, Atam Kaur and Kishan Singh. The police,. after necessary investigation, presented the challan against accused Amarjeet Singh and Kumari Atam Kaur but submitted the Final Report against accused Tarsem Singh and Kishan Singh. The Final Report, submitted by the police in favour of Tarsem Singh and Kishan Singh was accepted by the Court and the remaining accused, viz., Amarjeet Singh and Atam Kaur were tried by the learned trial Court for the offences under Sections 302, 302/34, I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The prosecution, in, support of its case, examined nine witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in their defence. The case of the accused, in defence, was that accused Amarjeet Singh was coming from his field, and at, that time he was armed with a gun. In the way he heard the cries of his sister Atam Kaur from the house of Bikar Singh; he went near the outer-door of the house of Bikar Singh and saw Bikar Singh molesting his sister Atam Kaur. He asked Bikar Singh to leave his sister and in order to save her from being further molested, he opened the fire and both the triggers worked together, Thereafter he came to his house along. With his sister. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Amarjeet Singh, as stated but acquitted accused Atam Kaur by giving her the benefit of doubt. It is against this judgement dated 9-8-1991, convicting and sentencing the appellant that he has preferred this appeal.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are not reliable witnesses and they had not seen the occurrence; they have not been believed by the learned trial Court so far as the other three accused are concerned and, therefore, their evidence, also does not inspire confidence so far as the present accused-appellant is concerned and the learned trial Court has not properly considered the evidence produced by the prosecution. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It is further contended that the act was done by the appellant under a grave and sudden provocation when the molesty of his sister Atam Kaur was being out-raged by deceased Bikar Singh and it was only on account of grave and sudden provocation and in order to save his sister from the clutches of the deceased that he opened the are from his D.B.B.L. gun which he was carrying at that time and both the triggers worked together and as such the appellant deserves to be acquitted. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgement passed by the learned trial Court and submitted that the accused-appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced.