Fazl Ali, J. - (1.) Criminal Appeal No. 251of 1971 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 273 and 274 of 1971 arise out of the same trial and a common judgement given by the trial Court and the High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1971filed by Baljit and Sunehra appellants is an appeal under Section 2A of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970) against the judgement of the High Court dated October 21, 1970 which on reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under S. 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The appellants were also convicted under Sections 147 and 323/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to six months and onemonth rigorous imprisonment respectively. Criminal Appeals Nos. 273 and 274of 1971 are appeals by special leave against the same judgement affirming the convictions of the appellants Sumer Chand, Hari Chand, Ranjeet, Murli, Sarjeet, Prakash and Seeta Ram under Section 302/149, I.P.C. sentencing them to imprisonment for life and under Sections 147 and 323/149, I.P.C. to six months and one month rigorous imprisonment respectively. As the correctness of the judgement of the High Court is in question in both the sets of appeals we have been taken through the entire evidence - oral and documentary - in order tofind out if the judgement of the High Court can be sustained.
(2.) The unfortunate occurrence which resulted in the death of Sher Singh is the result of chronic land dispute between the parties for which the complainant's party is entirely to blame. The dispute arose with respect to Chak No.74 comprising 11 bighas which had been allotted to C.W. 2, Kartar Singh during the consolidation of holdings proceedings. In fact Dharam Singh the original owner of the entire properties divided his properties into three Khatas - one in favour of Kartar Singh C.W. 2 the other in favour of Sher Singh the deceased and the third was kept by him for himself. Kartar Singh who was the eldest son appears to be a person of a religious bent of mind and had become a Sadhu and wasmostly absent from the village in connection with the Pathshallas and other institutions established by him. The evidence, however, shows that despite the absence of Kartar Singh he kept himself informed regarding cultivation of the land which, according to Kartar Singh, was done by battidars and sometimes even by his brother Sher Singh. Before the occurrence, the relations between Kartar Singh and his brothers Sher Singh and Jabbar Singh appear to have been quite cordial. In factthe evidence shows that only 20 days before the occurrence Kartar Singh had come to village and had stayed with his brother Sher Singh in order to solve a domestic dispute. The trouble, however, seems to have stated when Kartar Singh decided to sell his land in Chak No.74 to the appellant Summer Chand Kahar. We might mention here that all the other appellants are close relations of Sumer Chand Kahar being members of his family. On March 22, 1966 Kartar Singh executed a registered sale deed of the lands comprising Chak No. 74 in favour of Sumer Chand Kahar and delivered possession to the vendee in his presence. The prosecution case, however, is that as the vendee was not able to take possession of the lands which were being cultivated by Sher Singh and Jabbar Singh, the appellants came variously armed on July 2, 1966 in order to dispossess Sher Singh and Jabbar Singh and to uproot the Chari crop which had been grown by them. The prosecution case is that the party of the accused entered the filed with their ploughs and bullocks and started ploughing down the crops. When Sher Singh came toknow about it he reached the spot and protested to the accused against their highhanded act which resulted in an altercation in the course of whichthe deceased was assaulted by the appellants and sustained as many as 72 injuries. On hearing the alarm P.W. 2 Ghanshaym the son of the deceased and Jabbar Singh his brother rushed to the spot armed with lathis, but they were also beaten away. These two witnesses left on a cycle and lodged the First Information Report at police station Titavi at 9 A.M. The Investigating Officer P.W. 19 visited the spot soon thereafter, prepared an inquest report and after the usual investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the accused on the basis of which the present trial started against the accused resulting in their conviction. The Sessions Judge, however, while convicting the other appellants acquitted Kripa, Baljit an Sunehra mainly on the ground that the prosecution evidence did not show that these three appellants had committed any overt act against the deceased. The appellants who were convicted by the Sessions Judge went up in appealto the High Court and the State filed an appeal to the High Court against the order of the Session Judge acquitting Kripa, Baljit and Sunehra. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants Hari Chand and others and affirmed their convictions and sentences and allowed the appeal of the State by convicting Baljit and Sunehra as indicated above but maintained the acquittal of Kripa.
(3.) The defence was that the accused Sumer Chand had been put in possession of the land in dispute and he was ploughing the land with his bullocks and had actually grown Chari crop. It was further contended by the defence that some of the accused were undoubtedly present at the spot and that Chari crop had not been uprooted, and the appellants having taken a sale deed from Kartar Singh and having been given possession of the land in dispute were ploughing the vacant portion of the land as it was the ploughing season. The prosecution party wanted to forcibly dispossess the appellants which resulted in a mutual altercation in the course of which the deceased received the injuries. Some of the other accused contended that they were not present at the spot at all. In view of the arguments advance before us by the learned counsel for the parties, the case lies within a very narrow compass and it is not necessaryfor us to examine the defence case put forward by some of the appellants that they were not present. The sole question to be determined is as to who was in possession of the land in Chak No.74 and who started the assault.;