GURA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.), Hanumangarh dt. 7.5.2003 convicting them for the offence under Section 302 IPC simplicitor, and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment, so also convicting each of the accused appellant for the offence under Section 201 IPC simplicitor, and sentencing each of them to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default to undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment, and directing both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) NECESSARY facts are that on 27.5.2000 Sukhcharan Singh lodged an oral report at the police station Pilibanga, to the effect that for the last 25 -30 years one Mal Singh Jat Sikh was living in the village, whose house is situate on the outskirts, and Mahendra Kaur was his wife, and there was much difference in the age of the couple. He claimed himself to be a distant relation of Mal Singh. It is then alleged, that the character of Mahendra Kaur was not good, and for the last many days Gura Singh (appellant No. 1) was living with Mahendra Kaur, and was having illicit relation. Mal Singh protested any number of times, and this used to be a cause of dispute between the couple. Mal Singh was alleged to be a simpleton, to whom at times Mahendra Kaur used to belabour. Giving this background it was alleged that some 4 days ago in the night of Tuesday at about 10, when he was going from his house to the field, when he reached in front of the house of Mal Singh, he heard hue and cry from the house of Mal Singh. He also went there, and saw Mahendra Kaur and Gura Singh being there, and Mal Singh was lying on the cot, on his asking, Mahendra Kaur asked him to mind his own business. Then he went to the field, but then, since then he did not see Mal Singh moving around in the village, and Mahendra Kaur also went somewhere away, shutting the house. It was then alleged, that at about 10 in the last evening, one canter (a loading vehicle) came to the house of Mal Singh, which aroused suspicion, whereupon he informed Birbal Ram, Natha Singh, Sahi Ram, Mukhtyar Singh, and Guraditta Singh that Mahendra Kaur and Gura Singh are removing the house hold goods in the night, and he apprehends that Mahedra Kaur and Gura Singh might have killed Mal Singh. Thereupon many persons of the village collected outside the house of Mal Singh, and did not allow Mahendra Kaur to carry the goods, and said, that she will be allowed to take goods on her coming along with Mal Singh. Then, in the morning Mahendra Kaur called him, Natha singh, Birbal, Sahi Ram, Mukhtyar Singh at her house, and told, that she and Gura Singh have killed Mal Singh, they have committed mistake, and they should be pardoned. Thus, it was alleged that the two persons have collectively killed Mal Singh, and have concealed the dead body.

(3.) LEARNED trial court, after so completing the trial, noticed that from the medical evidence i.e. post mortem report it is clear that the deceased died of throttling. It was also found, that from the investigation it is established that Mahendra Kaur got the corpus of Mal Singh recovered from the soak -pit of the latrine, and also got the weapon of offence recovered. Then extra judicial confession was also found proved to sufficiently implicate both the accused persons, in the offence. Then, in para -18 (numbered second time at page -22 in the bottom) has found that both the accused persons killed Mal singh, his dead body was concealed in the soak pit, and came with a canter to take away the household goods, and on the villagers' protesting, they confessed the guilt. All this evidence has remained un -rebutted. Thus, it is established, that some time in the night of 23.5.2000, in the house of Mal Singh, at village Ludana both the accused persons formed a common intention to kill him, and in furtherance thereof Mal Singh was throttled to death, and his dead body was disposed of, and thus the evidence of offence was screened off. With recording this categoric finding, the learned trial court proceeded to convict both the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC simplicitor, and in one sentence observed, that since charges have been framed against the accused persons under Section 302/34 and 201/34, but these charges are only another form of Section 302 and 201 IPC, and therefore, they were found proved.