Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 2 February, 2009
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007.
DECIDED ON : 02.02.2009
Ajay Kumar
Appellant.
VERSUS
State of Punjab
Respondent.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate, for
the appellant.
Ms. Manjuri Nehru Kaul, DAG(Punjab)
JORA SINGH,J.
Ajay Kumar son of Shri Megh Raj, Shopkeeper through the instant appeal has impugned the judgment and order dated 25.1.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala, in Sessions Case No. 117- T/FTC/3.8.2004, bearing First Information Report No.102 dated 9.6.1997, under Sections 302/324/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Police Station, Sadar, Rajpura, whereby the appellant-accused Ajay Kumar was convicted under Sections 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., 148 I.P.C. and 324 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and was sentenced as under:- Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 2
1. Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- in default thereof six months RI;
2. Under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code: One year;
and
3. Under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code: Six months and fine of Rs.500/- thereof in default for three months.
All the substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Harjit Singh complainant was the resident of Bir Kauli, Police Station, Sadar, Patiala. On 9.6.1997, he along with Gurmel Singh in Ambassador Car bearing registration No. CH-01-B-1741. was going towards Rajpura, Gurmel Singh was driving the car. At 9 P.M., when they were near the bridge of Ganda Nala of village Jansua, in the meantime, TATA SUMO bearing registration No. HR-01-E-0107 came which was being driven by Manav Uppal. From the TATA SUMO, Hardeep Slingh alias Ladda armed with kirch, Inderjit Singh alias Laddo son of Harchand Singh armed with stick, Mohd Ayub son of Mohd. Yusuf armed with Gandasi, and Ajay Kumar the appellant son of Megh Raj armed with datt had alighted. Three/four other persons were also in the TATA SUMO. Harwinder Singh alias B.O. armed with kirpan, Rajinder Singh alias Bittu armed with dang along with two/three persons had alighted from another car. Gurmel Singh after alighting from the car started running towards back side. Hardeep Singh alias Ladda along with co- accused who had alighted from the TATA SUMO had chased Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 3 Gurmel Singh. Harjit Singh complainant after alighting from the car started running towards the khatans. Hardeep Singh alias Ladda armed with kirch gave seven/eight blows to Gurmel Singh. Other accused had also caused injuries to Gurmel Singh, while he was lying on the ground. Harwinder Singh, Manav Uppal, Rajinder Singh and two/three persons had chased the complainant. Harwinder Singh alias B.O. gave blow to the complainant. Rajinder Singh and Manav Uppal had also given blows to the complainant. Raula was raised. After causing injuries, accused had fled away from the spot with their respective weapons in their vehicles.
While the occurrence was in progress, Mohan Singh came to the spot in his car No. HR-01C-8311. He had noticed Ambassador, one TATA SUMO and a Maruti Car on the spot, after alighting from the car. Mohan Singh had seen the accused, while giving blows to Gurmel Singh. Mohan Singh had heard noise coming from across the bridge of someone requesting not to give beatings, then he had noticed Harjit Singh lying on the ground, Harwinder Singh armed with kirpan, Manav Uppal armed with kirpan and Ajay Dhiman armed with soti, Rajinder Singh armed with a dang and Surinder Lal, who had caused injuries to Harjit Singh.
Few days earlier to the present occurrence, Hardeep Singh alias Ladda had spread a rumor that daughter of Gurmel Singh had eloped Gurmel Singh had filed a private complaint of defamation against Hardeep Singh and others at Rajpura. Hardeep Singh hatched a conspiracy and with the common intention of co- accused had caused injuries to Gurmel Singh and Harjit Singh. Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 4 On receipt of injuries, Gurmel Singh had died on the spot. Statement of Harjit Singh was recorded by Sub Inspector Sukhdev Singh (PW-13) at 9.50 P.M. near bus stand, Jansua.
After making endorsement, statement was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which, formal First Information Report was recorded. Special report was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate on the next day at 6.35 A.M. Sukhdev Singh Inspector along with the party had gone to the spot. After sending Harjit Singh to Hospital, Rajpura, inquest report was prepared. Dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot. Ambassador Car of Gurmel Singh was also taken into police possession vide separate memo. Rough site plan with its correct marginal notes was also prepared. Inderjit Singh alias Laddo, Rupinder Singh, Jasbir Singh, Ajay Kumar and Mukesh were arrested on 13.6.1997, while present near the Railway crossing of Sambhu. TATA SUMO No. HR-01-E-2248 in which the accused were travelling was also taken into police possession. Accused were interrogated. Soti was recovered from the possession of Inderjit Singh. Hockey stick was recovered from the possession of Jasbir Singh. Datar was recovered from the possession of Ajay Kumar and a knife was recovered from the possession of Mukesh.
On June 16, 1997, Investigating Officer had arrested Hardip Singh, Rajinder Singh, Ajay Kumar , Harvinder Singh and Mohd Ayub when they were in a Maruti Car No. HR-01-E-107. Car was taken into police possession. Driving Licence was recovered from Hardip Singh. On June 18,2007, Hardip Singh was interrogated and as per his disclosure statement, Kirch was Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 5 recovered from his residential house which was blood stained and was taken into police possession. Gandasi was also recovered from the possession of Mohd. Ayub. A kirpan was recovered from Harvinder Singh alias B.O. and a stick from Ajay Kumar.
On July 3, 1997, Navin Kumar was arrested and on 10.7.1997, Manav Uppal and Rakesh were arrested. As per disclosure statement suffered by Manav Uppal, a kirpan was recovered from the specified place. A Chhuri was recovered from the possession of Rakesh alias Pinta. During investigation, Surinder alias Bhalla was declared a proclaimed offender. During trial, appellant Ajay Kumar son of Megh Raj was also declared proclaimed offender.
After the completion of investigation, 15 accused were challaned. One was declared proclaimed offender.
As per order of the Magistrate, case was committed to the Court of Session, Patiala, for trial.
Evidence was led by the prosecution. Ultimately, Hardeep Singh alias Laddo, Rajinder Singh, Harvinder Singh Mohd Ayub, Inderjit Singh, Manav Uppal were convicted under Sections 148, 302, 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code while Ayay Kumar, Jasvir Singh, Rupinder Singh alias Happy, Rakesh Kumar, Jagdish Kumar, Mukesh Kumar, Manav Uppal Sharma,Mukesh Kumar and Sunder Lal were acquitted of the charge framed against them.
Against the judgment/ order dated 15.10.2001/ 17.10.2001 an appeal was preferred by Hardeep Singh alias Ladda, Rajinder Singh alias Bittu, Harvinder Singh, Mohd Ayub and Inderjit Singh.
Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 6
Rajinder Singh alias Bittu, Harwinder Singh alias B.O. were also acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 148, 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code but their conviction was maintained under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Appeal filed by Hardeep Singh, Inderjit Singh and Mohd Ayub was dismissed and conviction of Hardeep Singh alias Ladda was upheld under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas Inderjit Singh and Mohd Ayub were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were acquitted of offences punishable under Section 148 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
During trial, appellant Ajay Kumar son of Megh Raj was declared a proclaimed offender. Lateron, the appellant was arrested. Supplementary challan was presented. Case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.
After hearing Public Prosecutor for the State and defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of the documents on the file, appellant-accused was charge sheeted under Sections 148, 302, 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined prosecution witnesses.
PW-3 Harjit Singh Walia was medico-legally examined at A.P.Jain, Civil Hospital, Rajpura by Doctor I.C.Tenaja at 10.15 P.M. on June 9, 1997 and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. An incised wound 7 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep obliquely placed on the left side of parietal region 1 cm away from mid line and 9 cm above the upper and of left Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 7 pinna. Fresh bleeding from the wound was present.
Advised X-ray.
2. An incised wound 5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm on the top of left shoulder joint. The wound was obliquely placed. Fresh bleeding from the wound was present. Advised X.ray.
3. An abrasion with clear margins 9 cm x 0.2 cm obliquely placed brownish in colour present on the back and lateral side of left arm 8 cm above the left elbow joint.
4. A stab wound with clear margins 2.5 cm x 1.5 cms x 6 cms on the left side of lumber region (left flank of abdomen 10 cms above the left anterior superior iliac spine). Fresh bleeding from the wound was present. Advised X.ray and surgical opinion. Injury No.3 was straight away declared to be simple in nature by the Medical Officer but injuries No. 1,2 and 4 were kept under observation. Later on these injuries were also declared simple on the basis of the radiological examination conducted by Dr. Jagmohan Singh (PW6) who found no evidence of any fracture on skull, shoulder, chest or abdomen.
The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Gurmel Singh was conducted by Dr. S.M.Virdi, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Banur, who found the following injuries on the dead body.:-
1. Lacerated wound 7.5 cm x 2.5 cm x bone deep obliquely placed on left parietal Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 8 region starting from 6 cm above and 8 cm behind the tragus of left ear extending upwards and backwards. Underlying soft tissue and muscles were lacerated and bone intact.
2. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm obliquely placed on posterior surface of left arm starting from 7 cm behind and 16 cms below the acremion process extending downwards and outwards on probing and exploration the wound was extending medially and anteriorily and communicating with the injury No.3.
3. Incised wound 2 cm x 1.5 cm obliquely placed on anterior medial side of left arm starting from 3cm. Medial and 13 cm above the medial part of elbow joint.
extending upwards and medially. On probing and exploration the wound was communicating with injury No.4.
4. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 4.5 cm obliquely placed on upper and of posterior fold of left axilla. On probing and exploration wound was directed upwards and backwards.
5. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 12 cm transversely placed 5 cm below the injury No.4 directed medially. On exploration Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 9 underlying muscles cut. On further exploration muscles and soft tissues of chest wall were cut. On further exploration mediastinum was full of blood. On further exploration of chest left ventricle of the heart was punctured.
6. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 4 cm obliquely placed on left flank of abdomen.
26 cm below injury No.5.
7. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 5 cm obliquely placed on left flank of abdomen 5 cm below and behind injury No.6.
8. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 4 cm transversely placed on middle of left buttock.
9. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.0 cm x 3.5 cm obliquely placed 4 cm below injury No.8.
10.Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 4 cm obliquely placed 4 cm above and 6 cm anterior to injury No.9.
11.Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 5 cm obliquely placed 2 cm posterior and 5 cm below the injury No.10.
12.Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 06 cm obliquely placed 10 cm below the injury No.11.
13. Incised wound 4 cm x 1.5 cm x 20cm longitudinally placed on the upper left Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 10 quadrant of abdomen starting from 5 cm lateral and 9 cm downwards the lower and of sternum extending downwards.
On exploration of wound and the abdomen muscles and peritoneum under the wound cut, abdominal cavity full of blood, anterior and posterior wall of stomach in its upper part punctured.
Lower and lateral part of left lobe of liver was also punctured.
14.Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 4 cm placed transversely on the middle part of right buttock.
Cause of death as per opinion of the doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to vital organs, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, individually and collectively. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between post mortem about 24 hours.
PW-1 Harjit Singh is the injured eye witness. He had supported the prosecution story by saying that appellant-accused along with co accused had caused injuries to Gurmel Singh . He was also given injuries by the accused.
PW-2 Kesar Singh stated that on 13.6.2004, he was with the party of Sub Inspector Ram Dayal/ Ajay Kumar was arrested in this case.
PW-4 Mohan Singh stated that on 9.6.1997 he was going from Chandigarh to Ambala in his car with Jagdev Singh Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 11 Sarpanch. At 9 P.M., when they were near Bridge of Ganda Nala in the area of village Jansua., Ambassador car was noticed while standing one side of the road. One TATA SUMO was also found parked in front of the Ambassador car of Gurmel Singh. Maruti Car was also near the Ambassador car. On seeing the vehicle, they had stopped their car. Accused were csighted while giving blows to Gurmel Singh and Harjit Singh. After causing injuries, accused had fled away from the spot with their respective weapons with vehicles. One jeep came and in that jeep, Harjit Singh was sent to Rajpura.
PW-5 ASI Satnam Singh has tendered his affidavit Ex.PW5/A. PW-6 Rupinder Singh Patwari prepared scaled site plan.
PW-7 Head Constable Lakhwinder Singh stated that Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Dayal had deposited motor-cycle along with RC and currency notes with him.
PW-8 Head Constable Jagar Singh stated that on 9.6.1997, he was with the party of Sub Inspector Sukhdev Singh. Dead body was handed over to him for post-mortem examination. After postmortem examination, dead body was handed over to the heirs of the deceased for cremation. The parcels containing belongings of the deceased was produced before Sub Inspector Sukhdev Singh and they were taken into police possession.
PW-9 Assistant Sub Inspector Amrik Singh was with the party of Sub Inspector Sukhdev Singh on 9.6.1997 and on other dates, when the investigation of this case was being conducted by the Investigating Officer.
Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 12
PW-10 Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Dial stated that on 15.6.1997, he was with the party of Sub Inspector Sukhdev Singh while investigating the case in hand.
Statement of PW-11 Rajinder Pal Singh Khera is of formal nature.
PW-12 Assistant Sub Inspector Mange Lal had simply produced the record i.e. original FIR register.
PW-13 Sukhdev Singh now posted as Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda was the Investigating Officer.
PW-14 Mandeep Singh Tehsildar had conducted test identification parade of Manav Uppal, Rakesh Kumar and Naveen Kumar.
PW-15 Head Constable Kashmir Singh stated that FIR No. 60 dated 11.9.1987 was registered at the instance of Gurmel Singh son of Gurdev Singh.
After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the allegations levelled against him. . He denied all the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Defence version of the accused was that he had suffered injury on his right hand on 5.6.1997 at the hands of Vijay Kumar. There was a compromise with Vijay Kumar. Gurmel Singh might have received injuries at the hands of some unknown persons. His dead body was brought by two persons namely Uttam Singh and Kartar Singh to Hospital, then ruqa was sent by the doctors to the Police Station.
Opportunity was given to lead defence and in defence Dr. Vijay Bansal DW1 appeared and stated that on 5.6.1997 he had medico legally examined Ajay Kumar son of Megh Raj and Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 13 found the following injuries on his person:-
1. 2.5 x 0.2 centimeter incised wound on the palmar surface of right hand on the medial side in the middle. In direction slight bleeding was present.
2. incised would 0.7 x 0.2 cm on the right thumb lateral surface. Palmar surfaces, distal phalanx.
3. Redish contusion 10 x 2 cm, on the back of chest left side in the middle. Over the contusion where was 4x1 cm skin abrasion horizontal. X.ray was advised.
4. He complained of pain over right chest. There was no external injuries.
The probable duration of injuries was within six hours. Injuries No. 3 and 4 were kept for X ray, while rest of the injuries were simple. Kind of weapon used for injury Nos. 1 and 2 was sharp and for injuries No. 3 and 4 was blunt.
DW-2 Avinash Chander stated that on 5.6.1997, Vijay Kumar son of Om Parkash had caused injuries to the accused. Avinash Chander was shifted to hospital. There was a compromise.
DW-3 Om Parkash had brought record of Civil Hospital, Ambala, qua MLR of accused.
Defence counsel for the appellant-accused argued that initially, First Information Report was registered against 15 accused. Present appellant was declared proclaimed offender. Out of the remaining accused, Ajay Dhiman, Jasbir Singh alias Jassi, Rupinder Singh alias Happy, Rakesh Kumar alias Painta, Jagdish Kumar, Mukesh Kumar. Naveen Sharma, and Sudner Lal were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Only six accused Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 14 namely, Hardeep Singh alias Lada, Rajinder Singh, Harvinder Singh, Mohd Ayub, Inderjit Singh and Manav Uppal were convicted but the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment Ex.DX on the file had convicted Hardeep Singh alias Lada for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Inderjit Singh and Mohd Ayub were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. Other accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Case of the appellant-accused is not distinguishable from the case of Rajinder Singh and Harvinder Singh in case, appellant-accused was found present at the time of occurrence. Doctor who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Gurmel Singh was not examined. Ruqa on the file shows that Uttam Singh and Kartar Singh had shifted the dead body to hospital but story is doubtful how Uttam Singh and Kartar Singh happened to be on the spot.
Ms. Manjuri Nehru Kaul, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab argued that fifteen accused were named in the First Information Report. Eight accused were acquitted by the trial Court. Appellant-accused was declared a proclaimed offender. As per story, appellant-accused was with Hardeep Singh alias Lada, Inderjit Singh, Mohd. Ayub in the TATA SUMO driven by Hardeep Singh. Hardeep Singh had given seven/eight kirch blows to the deceased. Appellant-accused armed with datt had also given blows to the deceased. Deceased and Harjit Singh injured were in one car. On seeing the accused, Gurmel Singh deceased started running towards one side. Gurmel Singh was chased by Hardeep Singh alias Lada, Inderjit Singh, Mohd Ayub and the present Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 15 appellant. Injured had started running towards the other direction and he was chased by the accused, who had alighted from Maruti Car, accused, who came in TATA SUMO had common intention to commit the crime. So, the present appellant is liable for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
First submission of the learned defence counsel was that accused who were fifteen in number came in two vehicles. Accused had no common intention to commit the crime. Appellant- accused was armed with datt, so at the most, he is liable for the offence punishable under Section 324 or 325 of the Indian Penal Code, but contention of learned defence counsel seems to be not correct one. Gurmel Singh and Harjit Singh in Car No. CH-01-H- 1741 were near the place of occurrence. One TATA SUMO No. HR- 01-E-2248 driven by Hardeep Singh was seen and from that, TATA SUMO Hardeep Singh armed with kirch, Inderjit Singh armed with stick, Mohd Ayub armed with gandasi, Ajay Kumar (appellant) armed with datt had alighted. Three/four more persons were also in that TATA SUMO. On seeing Hardeep Singh and others, Gurmel Singh deceased after alighting from his vehicle started running towards back side. Gurmel Singh was followed by Hardeep Singh and others. Hardeep Singh gave seven/eight kirch blows to Gurmel Singh. Appellant-accused had also given blows to Gurmel Singh. 14 injuries were noted on the person of Gurmel Singh. Harjit Singh had seen the accused running towards back side. He was followed by Harvinder Singh and others. Four injuries were given to Harjit Singh. Occurrence was witnessed by Mohan Singh PW, who came to the spot when the occurrence was still in progress, after arranging vehicle he had sent injured to the Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 16 hospital. So, injured cannot state who had shifted the dead body of Gurmel Singh to hospital. Accused who came in TATA SUMO fully armed had the common intention to commit the crime. So, case of the appellant-accused is distinguishable from the case of accused who came to the spot in Maruti Car No. CH-01E-0107 driven by Manav Uppal. Defence counsel at the time of argument frankly stated that against the judgment of Hon'ble High Court, SLP was filed, but the same was dismissed but in support of this submission, no documentary evidence is there on the file. Appellant-accused armed with datt came to the spot along with co- accused namely Hardeep Singh and others. Appellant-accused had given blows to the deceased. No suggestion to any witness or defence that no injury on the person of deceased was possible with datt. So, the case of the present appellant is similar to the case of Inderjit, who was armed with stick and Mohd Ayub armed with gandasi and were convicted by the trial Court and their conviction was upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment copy of which is Ex.DZ Next submission of the learned defence counsel was that prosecution has failed to examine the Doctor, so in the absence of Doctor, nothing to opine as to how many injuries were noted on the person of deceased and what was the weapon to cause injuries. Secondly, dead body was shifted by Kartar Singh and Uttam Singh, but they were not examined. Submission of learned defence counsel is also without any force. Evidence on the file is to be taken into consideration. Judgment of the lower Court Ex. PX and of the Hon'ble High Court Ex.DZ are on the file. As per Ex.PX and Ex.DZ, 14 injuries were noted on the person of the deceased. Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 17 After the occurrence, injured was shifted to hospital by Mohan Singh. Police came to the spot and prepared inquest report. Dead body was sent to the hospital for post-mortem. No suggestion to the witnesses that dead body was not shifted to the hospital. If story was unnatural, then Uttam Singh and Kartar Singh could easily be produced in defence. Defence version of the appellant- accused was that Vijay Kumar had caused injuries to him on 5.6.1997. There was a compromise. Due to enmity, he was falsely implicated in this case. Gurmel Singh might have received injuries at the hands of some unknown persons. Dead body was brought to Civil Hospital by Uttam Singfh and Kartar Singh. So, without the statements of Uttam Singh and Kartar Singh, story is not to be ignored. Only dispute is whether unknown assailants caused injuries or the appellant-accused with the common intention of Hardeep Singh and others. In case, Vijay Kumar had caused injuries to the appellant-accused, then there was no idea to name the appellant-accused because Vijay Kumar was not related to Gurmel Singh deceased or Harjit Singh injured. Something could be said if Vijay Kumar was the party man of Gurmel Singh and Harjit Singh or he was inimical towards the appellant-accused. No written compromise on the file qua occurrence dated 5.6.1987. Vijay Kumar had caused injury to the appellant-accused then presence of the appellant-accused at the time of occurrence dated 9.6.1997 cannot be doubtful. Nothing on the file that after 5/6/1997 appellant-accused remained admitted in hospital and was not in a position to move. On receipt of injuries at the hands of Vijay Kumar on 5.6.1997,no bar that appellant-accused cannot be present at the time of occurrence and had not caused injuries to Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 18 the deceased. So without enmity amongst the parties, there was no idea to name the appellant-accused. Presence of Harjit Singh was natural at the time of occurrence. When the occurrence was in progress, then Mohan Singh came to the spot and had witnessed the occurrence. Mohan Singh had no enmity with the appellant- accused who is even not related to the deceased/ injured. So, statement of Mohan Singh also inspires confidence.
No other submission was put forward.
In view of all discussed above, we are of the opinion that appellant-accused with the common intention of Hardeep Singh alias Lada, Inderjit Singh, Mohd Ayub had caused injuries to Gurmel Singh deceased. Conviction of the appellant-accused is upheld under Section 302/34 I.P.C. while conviction of the appellant-accused under Sections 302/149, 324/149 and 148 I.P.C. is set aside.
Under Section 302/34 I.P.C., the appellant-accused is to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
With this modification, appeal is found to be without merit.
Dismissed.
( JORA SINGH )
JUDGE
02.02.2009
Anoop ( JASBIR SINGH )
JUDGE
Crl. Appeal No. 415-DB of 2007. 19