- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) 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 appellant who was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, i860 (in short the "IPC) along with the appellant, his wife Gurjit Kaur. was tried but she was acquitted by the trial court.
(3.) Prosecution version in nutshell is as follows: Makhan Singh son of Mangal Singh had three sons, namely, Gopal Singh, Joginder Singh and Santokh Singh, the last indicated being the youngest of the trio and-presently appellant before this Court. He retired from the Army in the rank of a Major few years ago and was Amritsar-based thereafter, while his two other brothers, namely, Gopal Singh-and Joginder Singh reside in the village to look after their agricultural holding. Makhan Singh had given his agricultural holding to his three sons in equal shares, though they have a joint account inter se. Initially, there indeed was some problem between them which was sorted out with the intervention of respectables of the village. Appellant Santokh Singh was given land near his tubewell. That land is situated towards the land owned by. Gurdip Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). On 22.6.1996, informant-Gurdial Singh was proceeding towards his tubewell when he spotted the appellant ploughing the land under reference by a " tractor which he had taken on hire from Ladi son of Gurmeet Singh. Gurdip Singh came over there and forbade appellant Santokh Singh from ploughing that land which he claimed to be his. In the light of that conversation, Ladi took away his tractor towards the village. It was followed by a scuffle between Santokh. Singh-appellant and Gurdip Singh. After they had been separated, Gurdip Singh came home, took his tractor to the land and started ploughing it. Gurdial Singh watched Gurdip Singh ploughing while standing on the track. Then, appellant Santokh Singh along with his wife Gurjit Kaur appeared on the scene and told Gurdip Singh to desist from ploughing that land. The appellant, in the meanwhile, took out his pistol and fired a shot at Gurdip Singh, while the latter was in the process of getting down from the tractor. The shot fired by the appellant felled Gurdip Singh on the ground. In the meantime, Satnam Singh, a brother of Gurdip Singh, came from the village and caught hold of the appellant from latter's rear side. In the meantime, Gurdial Singh also raised a raula. Satnam Singh, with a view to disable the appellant from firing another shot, twisted latter's right arm. During the period the arm stood twisted towards his rear side, Santokh Singh kept on firing and one of the shots hit him on the right side of hip bone and the ribs. He, too fell down upon the ground and handed over his pistol to Gurdial Singh. In order to ensure that there was no further blood shed, Gurdial Singh fired shots in the air in order,to ensure that the revolver did not stay loaded. Thereafter, Gurdial Singh and Joginder Singh transported Gurdip Singh to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, where the latter was initially hospitalized. While notifying the offence to the police on 23 6.1996, Gurdial Singh (informant) handed over one .32 bore pistol (which had earlier been given to him by appellant Santokh Singh) and six empty cartridges of :32 bore to the police. Gurdip Singh succumbed to the injuries on 24.6.1996. Investigation was undertaken, and on completion thereof charge-sheet was filed. As accused abjured guilt trial was held. The prosecution presentation is, thus, to the effect that it was the appellant who fired the fatal shot of deceased Gurdip Singh. The prosecution version was testified on oath at the trial by HC Surain Singh (PW 1). Dr. Kulwant Singh (PW 2). Dr. Gurmanjit Rai (PW 3), Gurdial Singh (PW 4), Dr. Vijay Kumar Sethi (PW 5), Joginder Singh (PW 6), Satnam Singh (PW 7), Jagjit Singh Patwari (PW 8), AS1 Jagdev Singh (PW 9), Reserve Inspector Ragllbir Singh (PW 10), HC Baljinder Singh (PW 10A). C. Kashmir Singh (PW 11), ASI Santokh Singh (PW 12), Constable Rajinder Kumar (PW 13) and Constable Dharam Singh (PW 12). The trial court found the accused-appellant guilty while directing acquittal of the co-accused. Trial court laced reliance on the evidence of Gurdial Singh (PW4) who was the eye- witness. Joginder Singh (PW6) reached the spot immediately, after the occurrence and saw the deceased lying on the ground. Satnam Singh (PW7) had witnessed the occurrence and tried to avert further bloodshed by taking the appellant in his grip and by twisting his right arm. It; was his case that while he was trying to do so accused started continued firing. The trial court relied on the :evidence of prosecution version and" as noted above found the accused guilty. It did not accept the plea of the appellant that the accused was acting in the exercise of right of private defence. Before the High Court, the appellant took the plea of right of private defence which was rejected. It did not find any ubstance in the plea that the land in question was in the possession of the appellant.;