SANJIV KHANNA J. - (1.) BY the impugned judgment dated 15.12.1998, Trilok Singh and Atma Singh have been convicted for murder of Harcharan Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short ,,IPC) and under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder Tarsem Singh on 30.11.1990 at about 10:45 pm. Appellant Atma Singh has also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Conviction of Trilok Singh under Section 302 and 307 IPC is by relying upon Section 34 of the IPC. By order on sentence dated 16.12.1998, both the appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/ - under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they have to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 302/34 IPC. For the offence under Section 307 IPC, Trilok Singh has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/ -. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Atma Singh has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of four years under Section 27 of the Arms Act and fine of Rs.1,000/ -, in default of which he is to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
(2.) AT the outset, we record and notice that the third accused Joginder Singh was tried along with two appellants under Section 302/307/34 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, but he has been convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and was released on the period already undergone, i.e., about eight years. He was also directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ - which included Rs.3000/ - to be paid as compensation to the family members of the deceased Harcharan Singh and legal heirs of injured Tarsem Singh as Tarsem Singh had expired by the time the order on sentence was pronounced. The sentences are to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (,,Code for short) has been given. Learned amicus curiae for the appellants states that as per her instructions Joginder Singh has accepted the judgment and order on sentence and no appeal has been filed.
(3.) ON the question of involvement of the two appellants, who are two brothers, we are entirely in agreement with the findings recorded by the Trial Court that they were present at the place of occurrence having gone to Lucky Taxi Stand, Subramaniyam Bharti Marg, New Delhi. Over there, the deceased Harcharan Singh was stabbed 2 -3 times by the appellant Atma Singh on the neck and chest. We are also satisfied with the reasons and findings recorded by the Trial Court that appellant Atma Singh had stabbed Tarsem Singh on his back side. Statements of the four eye witnesses, namely, Kashmir Singh, Tarsem Singh, Amrik Singh and Gurdeep Singh who appeared as PWs 1 to 4 respectively are lucid, clear and categorical. The four witnesses have stated that Atma Singh was present at the spot along with a dagger and had caused injuries with the said dagger to deceased Harcharan Singh and injured Tarsem Singh. PW3 Amrik Singh may not have seen the actual occurrence in which Atma Singh had stabbed and given the three dagger wounds to Harcharan Singh, but this would not, help the appellants as PW3 has stated on hearing commotion and noise, he had rushed outside immediately after the actual stabbing incident. PW2 Tarsem Singh was stabbed by appellant Atma Singh and the injuries caused to him have been proved beyond doubt in terms of the MLC Ex.PW10/F. The said MLC was proved by Dr. D.N. Bhardwaj (PW10) who has stated that PW2 was brought to the hospital with a stab wound on the back left side in the 10th intercostal space in the line scapula, 6 cm from midline. He was examined by Dr. Arun Gupta who opined that the injury were dangerous. The said MLC Ex.PW10/F was recorded at 11:05 pm on 30.11.1990. Details of the stab wound were recorded in the MLC Ex.PW10/F.;