K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. - (1.) The Appellant Balwant Singh, Police Constable No. 822, Police Lines, Ferozepur (Original accused No, 2) was tried for offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and along with him two other Constables (original accused Nos. 1 and 3) were also tried for offence punishable under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. on the basis of a complaint filed by Sohawa Ram, P.W. 5, brother of Pahalwan Ram, one of the deceased in the case. The police, however, challaned the appellant under Section 304-A, I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted all of them. The State of Punjab as well as the complainant filed two separate appeals in the High Court against the order of acquittal. The High Court by a common judgment in the two appeals set aside the order of acquittal of the appellant and convicted him under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The acquittal of the other two accused was confirmed. Hence the present appeals under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 read with Section 379, Cr.P.C.
(2.) The complainants case (supra) is as follows : On 13-9-83 at about 9 P.M. Sohawa Ram, P.W. 5 was present in his house in Village Sanjhrana. He heard an alarm from the side of a nearby flour mill and he went towards that side and found that Pahalwan Ram (deceased No. 1) and Karnail Singh (deceased No. 2) were running towards the flour mill raising alarm of Na Maro, Na Maro. At that time Head Constable Sat Pal, A-1 and Constable Nirmal Singh, A-3 were beating Bhagwan Singh, P.W. 11 in front of the flour mill. Then, according to the complainant, both of them instigated the appellant Balwant Singh to shoot the deceased saying that they had come to help P.W. 11. The appellant immediately fired two shots from his service rifle. The first shot hit deceased No. 1 and the second shot hit deceased No. 2. Both of them fell down and died. It is alleged that the appellant fired another shot but it did not hit anyone. P.W. 10 Mehtab Singh and Bhagwan Ram, a member of the Panchayat also reached the spot and witnessed the occurrence and when P.Ws. 5 and 10 tried to over-power the appellant, Nirmal Singh, A-3 attacked them with a danda and in self-defence P.Ws. 5 and 10 and Bhagwan Ram inflicted injuries on the accused with Sotas. The appellant also received injuries at the hands of the complainant party. P.W. 10 accompanied by the Sarpanch went to the Police Station and lodged a report before S.I. Jagir Singh, P.W. 13, who registered the crime, went to the place of occurrence at 12.45 A.M. on the same night and found the dead bodies of deceased Nos. 1 and 2. He also found the appellant having injuries who gave a report against P.W. 11 and his brother Fauja Singh. The rifle of the appellant was seized. P.W. 13 held the inquest and sent the dead bodies for post-mortem. He also recovered empty rounds from the spot and seized them. The Doctor, P.W. 1, who conducted the post-mortem on the two dead bodies found firearm injuries and he opined that both of them died because of those injuries. P.W. 2, another Doctor, examined the appellant and found 10 injuries on him including an incised injury. On Nirmal Singh, A-3 the same Doctor found 11 injuries. When examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused denied the prosecution version and gave their own version of the occurrence which is as under : "On the day of occurrence Nirmal Singh, H.C. Sat Pal and myself left the police station under the instructions of S.H.O., who had requisitioned our services, for patrolling Fazilka-Abohar Road as there was agitation of farmers relating to short suply of diesel. In the evening, on our way back, we went to Village Sanjhrana as I was to intimate Bhagwan Singh and his brother Fauja Singh against presentation of challans against them in the court on the next day. Santa Singh was also to be intimated about this fact. We first of all went to the house of Santa Singh. After having our meals there when we were going to the house of Bhagwan Singh and Fauja Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Balvinder Singh were seen standing near the flour mill of Madan Lal. Bhagwan Singh was armed with a gandasa at that time. H. C. Sat Pal asked Bhagwan Singh that he should either accompany them to the police station or give some surety for appearance in court on the following day as challan under the Excise Act was to be presented in Court against him and his brother Fauja Singh. Bhagwan Singh refused to accompany to the police station and to give surety. He rather started quarrelling with Sat Pal. We tried to apprehend him as a result of which may turban as well as that of Nirmal Singh fell down on the ground. In the meantime, Fauja Singh, brother of Bhagwan Singh also came there armed with a gandasa. Fauja Singh gave a gandasa blow from its reverse side on the head of Nirmal Singh. Bhagwan Singh wielded his gandasa towards H. C. Sat Pal but he escaped the blow by retracing his steps. I fired one round from my service rifle in the air in order to scare them away but Bhagwan Singh and his companions did not stop assaulting us upon which I fired another shot in the air. Fauja Singh then gave a gandasa blow from its sharp side on my head. Bhagwan Singh then grappled with me. In that process a shot went off from my rifle which hit two persons who were coming towards the place of occurrence in a line, one behind the other. Later on, I came to know the names of those persons as Karnail Singh and Pahalwan Ram. I again operated the bolt of the rifle as a result of which the empty round also fell down. My rifle was snatched by Bhagwan Singh and I was given more injuries by Bhagwan Singh and his companion. In the meantime, Sarpanch also came there. He rescued me from my assailants. He took me to the house of Guaranditta along with my rifle. The S.I. came there and I narrated the whole occurrence to him." In defence they examined D.W. 1, A.S.I. Mukhtiar Singh and D.W. 2, Harnam Singh, Sarpanch. It can therefore be seen that there are two rival versions.
(3.) The version of the complainant party is given by P.Ws. 5 and 11. According to them, three shots were fired by the appellant and the first shot hit deceased No. 1, second shot hit deceased No. 2 and the third shot did not hit anyone and the said shots were fired at the instigation of other two accused and that the appellant was apprehended on the spot and in the scuffle he received injuries at their hands and that Nirmal Singh, A-3 fell down and received some injuries in the process. According to the defence version H.C. Sat Pal, A-1., Constable Nirmal Singh, A-3 and the appellant, A-2 left the police station under the instructions of the S.H.O. on the day of occurrence for patrolling as there was agitation of farmers and they went to Village Sanjhrana to intimate P.W. 11 and his brother Fauja Singh regarding the presentation of challan against them in the court on the next day and when the accused were going to their houses they saw P.W. 11 armed with a gandasa standing near the flour mill. H.C. Sat Pal asked P.W. 11 either to accompany them to the police station or to give some surety for appearance in the court on the following day. He refused to accompany them or to give surety and when they tried to apprehend him, the turbans of A-2 and A-3 fell on the ground. In the meantime, Fauja Singh, brother of P.W. 11 armed with a gandasa also arrived there. He gave gandasa blow from its reverse side on the head of Nirmal Singh, A-3 and P.W. 11 wielded his gandasa towards H.C. Sat Pal but he escaped. At that juncture the appellant fired one round from his service rifle in the air in order to scare them away but P.W. 11 and Fauja Singh did not stop assaulting them upon which the appellant fired another shot in the air and Fauja Singh gave a gandasa blow on the head of the appellant and P.W. 11 grappled with them. In that process a shot went off from the rifle which hit two persons who were coming towards the place of occurrence in a line one behind the other. From these two rival versions it can be seen that the place and time of occurrence are not in dispute and that the shots emanated from the rifle of the appellant resulted in the death of two persons. But the question is which of the versions is true namely whether it was accidental as pleaded by the defence or whether the deaths were caused intentionally as alleged by the complainant;