Fazl Ali, J. - (1.) Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 1974 by special leave has been preferred by the appellant Ram Narain Singh who was tried by the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda who convicted the appellant under .S. 302 I.P.C, and sentenced him to death and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for two years. Ram Narain Singh was also convicted under.S. 307/34 and sentenced to three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 300/-, under S. 449 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years R. I, and a fine of Rs. 300/-. There was a further conviction in so far as Ram Narain Singh is concerned under S. 324/34 I.P.C. under which he was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and under Section 323/34 I.P.C. to six months R. I. All the sentences to run concurrently. The other appellants Jaggar Singh, Hakam Singh and Mal Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 1974 were convicted under S. 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each or in default one year's R.I.each Jaggar Singh was also convicted under section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/-, under Section 449, 1. P. C, to three years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 300, and under Section 324/34 I. P. C. to one year's R. I. Hakam Singh and Mal Singh were also convicted under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years R. I. and a fine of Rupees 300/- each. Hakam Singh was also convicted under S. 324/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to one year s R. I, and under Section 323 I.P.C, and sentenced to six months R.I., while Mal Singh was convicted under S.324 I.P.C. and sentenced to one year's R. I. and under S. 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to six months R. I. All the sentences to run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge has also made a reference to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for confirmation of the death sentence passed on Ram Narain Singh. All the appellants had filed separate appeals before the High Court which were amalgamated and were heard and decided by one judgment. The High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the convictions and sentences passed by the Sessions Judge and on its refusal to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court the appellants came up for special leave to this Court which granted special leave. Jaggar Singh, Hakam Singh and Mal Singh have filed a separate appeal to this Court, in which case also special leave was granted by this court, and as both the appeals arise out of a common judgment, we propose to deal with them by one judgment.
(2.) Put briefly the prosecution case is that the appellant Ram Narain Shah was the Sar-Panch of the Gram Panchayat of village Hassanpur and is alleged to have forcibly taken possession of 10 kilas of land belonging to the Panchayat. Despite several attempts by the Panchayat to dislodge the appellant Ram Narain,Singh from this land nothing of consequence happened as a result of which the members of the Panchayat filed a complaint against Ram Narain Singh before the Deputy Commissioner seeking ejectment of Ram Narain Singh from the land. The deceased Teja Singh and his brother Surjit Singh being members of the said Panchayat took an active part in the campaign for ousting Ram Narain Singh from the Panchayat land which he had forcibly taken possession of. According to the prosecution, the appellant Ram Narain Singh nursed s serious grouse against the deceased and Surjit Singh for their action. It is also alleged that the deceased had threatened Ram Narain Singh some time before the occurrence that if Ram Narain Singh did not surrender the possession voluntarily he will get him dispossessed. The story of the prosecution further discloses that on the date of occurrence i.e. October 2, 1972 the deceased along with his brothers Surjit Singh and Joginder Singh had gone to attend a fair at village Phaphre Bhaike and after spending a day there they were returning to their own village near about the sun-set, when somewhere on the way Teja Singh stayed behind to answer the call of nature while the other two companions, namely, Surjit Singh and Jogindersingh proceeded to their house. Teja Singh also arrived at the house soon thereafter. Within a few minutes of the arrival of Teja Singh in the house, the accused Ram Narain Singh and Jaggar Singh armed with single barrel guns entered the house along with Mal Singh and Hakam Singh who were armed with Gandasas. Mal Singh and Hakam Singh remained at the door of the house, whereas the appellants Ram Narain Singh and Jaggar Singh entered the house. As soon as they entered the house, Jaggar Singh aimed the gun at Surjit Singh P.W, and fired at him. Fortunately the fire missed him. Thereafter Ram Narain Singh fired a shot from his gun which hit Teja Singh on his chest as a result of which he fell down and died on the spot. Thereafter both the accused caught the deceased from his legs and hands and dragged him out of the house at some distance. When Surjit Singh P.W. tried to intervene he was hit by Mal Singh with a Gandasa. Hakam Singh accused also followed suit and inflicted three Gandasa blows on his right leg, right arm and back. Meanwhile Joginder Singh appeared on the scene with a Gandasa in his hand and raised alarm whereupon all the accused ran away from the place of occurrence along with their weapons. The dead body of the deceased Teja Singh was removed to the courtyard of the house and kept there. Surjit Singh P.W. who was one of the injured brothers left the dead body at the spot and proceeded to the police station at Bhikhi through fields and pastures to avoid any confrontation with the accused and lodged the first information report Ext. P.G. at 11-50 P.M. ASI Kuldip Singh prepared an injury statement and got Surjit Sigh admitted into the Civil Dispensary, Bhikhi. The A.S.I. Kuldip Singh reached the place of occurrence at 2-30 A-M, on October 3, 1972 and held inquest on the dead body of Teja Singh. The A.S.I. found blood-stained earth from underneath the dead body of the deceased as also from outside the house. He also took possession of two empty cartridges Exts. P-11 and P-12 which were lying near the entrance door. We might also mention here that the definite case of the prosecution before the Sessions Judge was that while the shot was fired at the deceased Teja Singh by Ram Narain Singh he had kept the right hand flexed on his chest. It was thus stated by the eye-witnesses that at the time of firing, the deceased had put his right hand on his chest. These two additions or embellishments appear to us to have been necessitated in order to bring the evidence of the eye-witnesses in consonance with the evidence of the Doctor as also that of the ballistic expert, and we shall deal with this aspect of the matter a little later. In the course of investigation, Karnail Singh P.W. a distant relation of the deceased produced the accused Ram Narain Singh and others before the A.S.I. along with the rifle and a Jhola containing the cartridges as also the blood-stained gandasa. The police after usual investigations submitted charge-sheets against all the accused persons as a result of which they were committed for trial before the learned Sessions Judge who convicted them as indicated above.
(3.) The defence of the accused was that the prosecution had concocted a false case against the accused due to enmity and with a view to wreak vengeance on the accused Ram Narain Singh for not giving up possession of the Panchayat land. It was further alleged by the defence that all the witnesses examined in this case were inimically disposed towards the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the entire evidence on the record, accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused. The accused then filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed and hence these appeals by special leave.;