M.R.SHARMA,J. - (1.) BRIJ Mohan alias Binda appellant is said to have caused fatal injuries to Chander Parkash deceased at about 7 p.m. on December 6, 1982, on Khalsa Pur Road, Tarn Taran. The deceased accompanied by his brother Om Parkash PW 10 was proceeding towards the shop of hair-dresser to get his hari cut when he was attacked. The learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide his judgment and order dated May 21, 1983, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded him imprisonment for life. The convict has come up in appeal before us.
(2.) WE have gone through the evidence with the help of the learned counsel. About a year prior to this occurrence, there was some dispute between the deceased and the appellant, which was settled through the good offices of Shri Kishori Lal Agnihotri, Advocate PW 6 and Shri J.K. Sood, Municipal Commissioner, Tarn Taran. It is in the evidence of Om Parkash PW 10 that a day prior to the occurrence the appellant passed in front of the shop of the deceased and looked at him sarcastically and coughed him in a spirit of challenge. On the basis of this evidence, it was rightly inferred by the learned trial Judge that the appellant had some motive to commit this crime.
(3.) ACCORDING to Om Parkash PW 10 when he and his brother were going towards the barber shop the appellant questioned the deceased as to why he had come to his Mohalla, when there was some alteration between two of them, whereafter the appellant gave two knife blows in the left thigh of the deceased and one blow on the left side of his chest below the nipple. To the same effect is the statement of Sanjeev Kumar PW 11. The last mentioned witness, however, admitted in cross-examination, that when the appellant asked the deceased as to why he had come to his Mohalla, the latter replied that he had come to take the doli of his sister. It appears to us that the appellant and the deceased were raw youngmen full of anger having no sense of toleration. We do agree that the appellant had not business to ask the deceased as to why he had come to his Mohalla, but the deceased also gave an irresponsible reply to an otherwise innocuous question. He was perhaps prompted to do so because there was earlier enmity between them and even a day before the occurrence the appellant while passing by his shop had coughed in an insolent manner. It is also in evidence that the appellant and the deceased grappled together when the blows were given to the deceased.;