DALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of the judgment and order passed by the Designated Court, Gurdaspur, in Sessions Case No. 100 of 1992 (Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1993). The Designated Court convicted both the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.

(2.) WHAT is held by the Designated Court is that on 18.6.90 they along with one Satinder Singh in furtherance of their common intention killed Dharam Singh. At the time of the incident, appellant Daljit Singh was driving a motorcycle and Satinder Singh was the pillion rider. On a signal given by appellant Jaspal Singh, both Daljit Singh and Satinder Singh had gone near the deceased and Satinder Singh had fired two shots from his pistol. The findings regarding involvement of the two appellants were recorded by the Designated Court on the basis of the evidence of two eye -witnesses PW 2 - Balbir Singh and PW 3 - Sulakhan Singh, which received some corroboration from the evidence of PW 4 - Gurdip Singh.

(3.) BALBIR Singh is the son of deceased Dharam Singh. According to him on 18.6.1990 at about 4.45 p.m. he was standing at the chobara of his house and looking towards the Kuhnuwan Road. He could see his father, who was near his workshop, and the appellant Jaspal Singh who was standing near the shop of Dr. Manjit Singh. He has further stated that on Jaspal Singh raising hands, appellant Daljit Singh and Satinder Singh rushed to that place on a motor cycle and Satinder Singh fired two shots at his father. He has also stated that thereafter both these accused sped away towards Shastri Nagar. He, therefore, came down and along with Sulakhan Singh followed them on a scooter. This witness admitted in his cross examination that he had got down from the chobara of his house after about 10 minutes. If really this witness had seen his father being attacked in this manner he would have immediately rushed to the place where his father was lying on the road and tried to find out what actually had happened to his father. The learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the cross -examination of this witness where he has stated that he met Gurdip Singh in the hospital and inquired from him as to how it had all happened and Gurdip Singh had narrated to him the whole incidence. Admittedly, Gurdip Singh was not an eye -witness and, therefore, he could not have narrated the whole incident to this witness. If really Balbir Singh had seen the incident he would not have tried to collect information from a person who had not seen the incident. This circumstance and the conduct of this witness in not rushing to the place where his father was lying create a serious doubt regarding his having seen the incident.