NEM SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, Nem Singh, Karan Singh, Kanwal Singh, Sahib Ram, Sheodan Singh and Mukhtar Singh, have been convicted under Section 302, read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. Sheodan Singh has been sentenced to transportation for life, and the others have been condemned to death. The appellants were charged in connection with the murder of one Sham Lai. One Chhidda was charged along with them. Chhidda however has been acquitted in the Sessions Court. The charge against the accused was that about 1 a.m., on the night of 24th-25 July 1933, in the village Tarapur, they attacked Sham Lal and inflicted upon him injuries to which he succumbed seven days later. That Sham Lal on the night in question was the victim of an assault, and that he did sustain injuries which eventually resulted in his death is not in dispute. According to the prosecution case, Sham Lal was attacked by a body of ten or twelve men about 1 o clock in the morning whilst he was asleep on a cot on his ohabutra. The first information report was made by the witness, Kanwal Singh, a cousin of the deceased, at 2-30 on the morning of the 25th. The police station of Gonda, where the report was made is at a distance of one mile from the village of Tarapur where the crime was committed. The first information report is in the following terms: Last night my brother, Sham Lal, was sleeping under the thatch in front of his shop in Tarapur, while I was sleeping on a platform close by. At about 1 a.m. 10-12 men approached the charpai of Sham Lal. Out of them four or five men pressed Sham Lal, while he was asleep, two or three of them inflicted injuries with spears. He has received injuries caused by spears on his head at several places. He has received spear cuts on his left riba etc. I recognised Sahib Ram, Kanwal Singh, Nem Singh, Karan Singh, Sheodan Singh and Mukhtar, Jata of Tarapur. Some of them had spears. I called out to remain steady and not to lose courage. On hearing it some of them ran towards the house and some towards an intervening lane in the village. Rashan Lal, Girwar, Bhudeo Brahman were sleeping there close by. They have also seen them committing assault and running away. Investigation may be made. Sham Lal has received serious injuries on account of which I could not bring him. I heard my statement. It is what has been dictated.

(2.) It will be observed that all the six appellants and no others were named by Kanwal Singh in this report. Further it will be noted that Roshan Lal, Girwar and Bhudeo Brahman were mentioned as witnesses. Roshan Lal and Girwar gave evidence in the Sessions Court against the accused. Bhudeo Brahman was not called as a witness, nor did his name appear in the calendar of Crown witnesses. Further no explanation was tendered to the Court as to why he was not called as a witness. The report of Dr. Asthana, who examined the deceased when he was taken to hospital some time about noon on the 25th, shows that Sham Lal had undoubtedly been the victim of a brutal and determined assault. He sustained in the course of the attack no fewer than nine injuries. All these injuries are described as "cut wounds," with the exception of two, one which is called a contusion, and the other a scratch. Seven of the injuries were on the head or face. One, a cut wound, was on the left armpit, and one, a scratch in the left shoulder. Seven of the wounds are described as simple, one as dangerous, and one as grievous. The grievous injury is described as a cut and fracture of the nose bone. The dangerous injury is described as a cut and fracture of the cranial bone so that the brain matter was exposed.

(3.) Although Sham Lal had sustained these Injuries, he lived for seven-days. The post-mortem examination of his body was performed by the Civil Surgeon of Aligarh, Capt. Kapur. In his report he describes the injuries referred to in Dr. Asthana a report. He certifies death as having been due to fractures of the skull bone and injury to the brain substance caused by some heavy sharp weapon. The prosecution case is that the murder of Sham Lal was perpetrated by the six appellants. In support of their case the prosecution have adduced two dying declarations, one oral and one written, of Sham Lal, himself, the evidence of three or four eyewitnesses, the evidence of two witnesses who say they saw the accused conspiring together shortly before the murder was committed, and the evidence of certain witnesses who testified upon the question of enmity between the deceased and the appellants.