S.D. Anand, J. - (1.) HARMEL Singh PW1 and Gurtej Singh are real brothers of Gurmel Singh deceased. The last named was the eldest, the next in seniority being Harmel Singh followed by Gurtej Singh. After tethering the cattle on 7.2.1996, Gurmel Singh left for an open site in the fields to be able to answer the call of nature, at about 7 AM. He was closely followed by PW 1 Harmel Singh for that very purpose. Gurmel Singh was in the Panchayat land of which he was a lessee, for purposes of easing himself. At that point of time, the two appellants (Uggar Singh and Harbans Singh (along with the acquitted accused Udey Singh) emerged from the mustard crop field situated nearby.
(2.) THE appellants, who are real brothers inter se, were armed with a Gandhali each. Uggar Singh raised a Lalkara exhorting the other appellant to teach a lesson to Gurmel Singh for getting the water course demarcated. Thereupon, both the appellants gave Gandhali blows on the various parts of body of Gurmel Singh. The appellants fled the spot when Harmel Singh moved to rescue Gurmel Singh. In the meantime, PW 2 Gurtej Singh also reached the spot. The appellants had taken away their weapons of offence while fleeing from the spot. Gurmel Singh succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Harmel Singh left for the police station after leaving Gurtej Singh to guard the dead body. It was enroute that Harmel Singh met the police near the brick kiln of Shadi Ram and made statement Ex.PA, thereby notifying the offence to the police. One year prior to the impugned occurrence, there was a dispute between the parties to the present prosecution. On that count, cross -cases were registered against both the parties. Udey Singh (the acquitted accused) had sustained injuries from the side of one side, while the deceased and his son Sewak Singh had sustained injuries in the course of that very occurrence. Prosecution, in the context of the cross -case and also security proceedings, were pending against both the parties to the present litigation. It is the pendency of that litigation which actuated the appellants to commit the crime, with which they stand charged.
(3.) PW 1 Harmel Singh, PW 2 Gurtej Singh represent the ocular presentation segment, PW 3 Dr. Jugraj Singh had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Gurmel Singh and had found the following injuries on his person: 1. Incised wound 4 cm x 1/2 cm bone deep on left side of forehead, obliquely placed going up and laterally lower end of wound is 2 cms above left eye brow and 7 cms from anterior midline, clotted blood present inside and around the wound. On dissection underlying bone of scull fractured membrane and brain injured. Blood present in cranial cavity. 2. Lacerated wound of 5 cms x 1 -1/2 cms bone deep on right side of forehead obliquely placed lower end of wound is 1 cm lateral to outer vanthus of right eye upper end is 4 cm above eye brow and 4 cm from anterior mid line. Clotted blood present inside and around wound O.D. There is comminuted fracture of underlying skull bone present. Underlying brain membranes and brain matter lacerated. Blood present in cranial cavity. 3. Incised wound of 1 cm x 1/2 cm 1 cm lateral and 1 cm below the outer end of left eye brow. Clotted blood present around and in the wound. O.D. fracture of underlying orbital bone present and left eye was injured. Dr. Jugraj Singh had opined that the death of Gurmel Singh had occurred on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the above injuries and injury No. 3 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further opined that all the injuries found on the dead body were ante mortem in character.;