NARPATSINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Narpat Singh has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, he has been further directed to undergo two months' R.I. by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, by his judgement dated 5-3-1983. Re was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, one month's R.I., by the same judgement. Aggrieved of this, he has come up in appeal.

(2.) The prosecution story, briefly stated is that the fields of the deceased Hingol Singh, Devi. Singh father of the present accused Narpat Singh, Bhoor Singh and Deep Singh are situated near each other and there is a river flowing in between them. Hingol Singh had put an obstruction against the river thereby stopping its flow towards Devi Singh's field and on that account the accused Narpat Singh s/o Devi Singh was annoyed with him. It appears that some 'Panchayat' had also been held in respect of this dispute and the matter was tried to be settled but still Narpat Singh was bearing a grudge against Hingol Singh.

(3.) On 11-7-81, at about 6.45 P.M., Hamir Singh was standing outside his 'dhani', which is near the dhani of Deep Singh, Hingol Singh. He heard a report of gun fire from the eastern side and little later while he was standing near the water reservoir outside his dhani and Deep Singh, Bhoor Singh, Aashu, Wala etc. were also standing nearby, then Loon Singh s/o Deep Singh came running and weeping and told them that Narpat Singh had fired at Hingol Singh and that Hingol Singh had fallen down and further that Durga was sitting by his side. Thereupon, Deep Singh, Bhoor Singh, Aashu and Wala ran towards the site and Hamir Singh also followed them on his mare. When they reached the spot where Hingol Singh was lying injured near the way from Chhapri Nadi and Durga was sitting by his side, they found that Hingol Singh had received injuries from pellets on his right side and hand and was bleeding. On their reaching there, Hingol Singh told them that Narpat Singh, who was hiding near the 'kair' had fired from a twelve bore gun with the intention of killing him and thus he had been injured. On receiving this information Hamir Singh etc. tried to make arrangements for taking him to the hospital and Hamir Singh met Derawar Singh at Police Chowki, Vishala and informed him of this incident. They also tried to contract Police Station, Barmer in order to inform it about this incident but the line was out of order and, therefore, they could not talk to the Police Station. It is also mentioned in the report lodged by Hamir Singh at the police out post that the doctor was also not available at Vishala and no motor car was available there for carrying the deceased and, therefore, he (Hamir Singh) took the tractor of Gulab Singh and came to Barmer and lodged the verbal report which was taken down vide Ex.P.12. In this report he had further stated that Hingol Singh and Loon Singh were coming with the water tank and the 'pakhal' on the camel from Chhapari Nadi towards their dhani when Narpat Singh had fired at Hingol Singh. He also mentioned that Durga had seen Narpat Singh firing the gun and then running away as Durga was coming behind Hingol Singh. He also mentioned further that as there was dispute regarding the flow of water between Hingol Singh and Narpat Singh, Narpat Singh had killed Hingol Singh because Hingol Singh had obstructed the course of water. On this, the police registered a case for offence under Section 307, IPC and started investigations. The Police Constable Darawar Singh had reached the spot immediately after receiving the information at the chowki through Hamir Singh. By that time, Hingol Singh was living. Ram Swaroop, P.W. 18 after registering the case vide Ex.P.12 reached the spot later in the night. By that time, Hingol Singh had breathed his last. After usual investigations and getting the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Hingol Singh carried out, the police put up a challan against the accused and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barmer committed him to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra. The learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 202, I.P.C. and another under Section 27 of the Arms Act against the accused. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses and produced 21 documents. The accused denied the prosecution story but did not examine any witness in his defence. The learned Judge on completion of the trial, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.