Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellants. By a common judgment two appeals and one criminal revision were disposed of. Four persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the I.P.C.). One of them i.e. Gurcharan Singh was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa. State questioned his acquittal. Similarly the complainant, P.W. 7 also filed the revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence of convicted accused persons to death sentence, apart from questioning of acquittal of Gurcharan Singh. By the common judgment, the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the State and the criminal revision filed by the complainant while dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellants also.
(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Sukhdev Singh (P.W. 7) lodged F.I.R. at 5.30 p.m. on 3.11.1994 that on 3.11.1994 at about 4.30 p.m., he was going with his mother Pritam Kaur to visit the house of his fathers sister on the eve of Diwali festival. At that time, his father Amrik Singh (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was going about 10 paces ahead of them on the same foot-way for his domestic work. As soon as deceased reached in front of the house of one Parlhand Singh son of Karnail Singh, then all of a sudden, acquitted accused Gurcharan Singh, armed with gandasi, Hardeep Singh, armed with dattar, Harjinder Singh armed with gandasi and Jaswinder Singh also armed with gandasi, emerged from a street known as schoolwali gali. Acquitted accused Gurcharan Singh raised a lalkara (exhortation) that "Aaj Isko Bach Kar Jane Mat Dena". Soon thereafter, his sons Appellants Harjinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh inflicted gandasi injuries on the deceased with an intention to commit his murder. They gave gandasi blows, which landed on the legs of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road. His turban also went off his head and fell on the ground. Thereafter accused-Appellant Hardeep Singh gave dattar blow, hitting the deceased on his head. He was followed by accused-Appellant Harjinder Singh, who also inflicted a gandasi blow on the head of the deceased. Thereafter, acquitted Respondent Gurcharan Singh and accused-Appellant Jaswinder Singh caused further injuries with gandasi on the arms of the deceased. Complainant Sukhdev Singh and his mother Pritam Kaur raised a hue and cry saying "Mar Dia Mar Dia". After that the deceased was dragged by all the four accused inside the house of accused-Appellant Harjinder Singh. Complainant Sukhdev Singh and his mother Pritam Kaur followed them and raised hue and cry. On hearing their noise all the aforesaid four accused, namely, Gurcharan Singh, Hardeep Singh, Harjinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh, ran away with their weapons towards the village side. The complainant and his mother looked at the deceased who had succumbed to the injuries. The complainant, leaving behind his mother near the dead body at the spot, went to the police post to lodge a report. His statement was recorded by Kartar Singh, Incharge, Police Post, Kariwala, on 3.11.1994 itself. On receipt of ruqa (Ex. PB), a formal F.I.R. (Ex. PB/1) under Section 302/34, I.P.C. was registered by ASI Baljit Singh (P.W. 3) at Police Station, Ding, at 6.50 p.m. He sent a special report through Constable Bhoop Singh (P.W. 5) on the same day to JMIC, Sirsa. A detailed inquest report (Ex. PD/4) was prepared on 3.11.1994 itself by ASI Kartar Singh (P.W. 9). Dr. Narinder Chaudhary (P.W. 4) conducted the post-mortem (Ex. PD) of the deceased on 4.11.1994 at about 10.15 a.m. He found as many as 14 injuries on the dead body. They are as under : 1. A V shape incised wound each limb measuring 8 cms. x 2 cms. x brain deep over the left parietal region 8 cms. away from the pinna of the left ear. On dissection, there was fracture of the left parietal bone. Infiltration was present underlying the injury. 2. An incised wound of 6 cms. x 2 cms. x scalp deep over the top of the scalp. On dissection, infiltration was present and there was no fracture. 3. An incised wound of 8 cms. x 1.5 cm. x muscle deep, anterior and middle third to the right leg. Corresponding cut was present in the kachha. On dissection, underlying bone (tibia) was fractured and infiltration was present. 4. An incised wound of 4 cms. x 1.5 cms. x bone deep. Lateral aspect of the right knee joint. 5. Two abrasions contusions measuring 3 x 2 cms., 2.5 cms. x 2.5 cms. over the anterior aspect of right knee joint. On dissection of injuries No. 4 and 5 right patelar bone was fractured. Infiltration was present. 6. Incised wound 11 cms. in length, anterior posteriorly (through and through) from the root of the right little finger to the root of the right thumb. Underlying bone, muscle tendons vessels and nerves were cut. 7. Incised wound of 6 cms. x 1.5 cms. muscular deep over the posterior and middle to the right fore-arm. Underlying bones were fractured. Infiltration was present. 8. Contusion of 3 cms. x 2 cms. over the top of the left shoulder joint. Infiltration was present underlying the tissue. 9. Two contusions varying in size. Posterior to the left elbow. 10. Contusion of 4 cms. x 2 cms., posterior and middle to the left fore-arm. Underlying bone (ulna) was fractured and infiltration was present. 11. Abrasion contusions, four in number, varying in size, dorsum of the left hand. On dissection infiltration was present. 12. Contusion of 3 cms. x 1 cm. on the left knee joint. 13. Incised wound of 5.5 cms. x 1.5 cms. x bone deep, anterior and middle third to the left leg. Underlying bone was fractured. Infiltration was present. 14. Contusion of 2.5 cms. x 2 cms. over the lower third to the sternum. Infiltration was present under the injury.
(3.) After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Since the accused persons pleaded innocence, the trial was held. As noted above, the Appellants were convicted while Gurcharan Singh was acquitted. Appeal was filed by the State and the present Appellants and the revision was filed by the complainant.;