- (1.) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment dt. 28. 3. 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 23/98, and therefore, both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) BY the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has convicted the appellants Avtar Singh for the offence under Sec. 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo three months Rigorous imprisonment, Harbans Singh and Jarnail Singh have been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302/34 I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. Both the sentences of Harbans Singh have been ordered to run concurrently. Brief facts of the case are that on 9. 11. 1997 at about 1. 30 P. M. the informant Rajveer Kaur (the widow of the deceased) got her statement recorded Ex. P-1 to the Incharge, Out Post, Jetsar P. S. Vijay Nagar Dist. Sri Ganganagar deposing that Harbans Singh and his son Avtar Singh had given beating to her husband some 2-2 1/2 months back. However, subsequently that matter was compromised. She then gave out that this morning at about 10. 30- 11 A. M. her husband and one Satpal Pandit (P. W. 2) went from the house while she remained at the house. At about 1 p. m. one Ved Prakash informed her that her husband has been given beating, and inflicted injuries in the field of Harbans Singh whereupon she rushed to the field of Harbans Singh. On way she met Satpal Pandit running towards her to inform that when he along with the deceased were going to the Station Bugiya, at about 12. 30 when they reached to the field of Harbans Singh some altercation took place between Avtar Singh and them. Thereafter Avtar Singh started giving beating to the deceased Nishan Singh with Fatti (iron rod) of the tractor's lift. In the meanwhile Avtar Singh's father Harbans Singh and nephew (Bhanja) of Harbans Singh also came who also gave beating to the deceased, the witness was threatened whereupon he ran away. According to the informant some 5 minutes back when she reached the spot she found her husband injured lying on the way leading to Murabba of harbans Singh. Victim was found unconscious, and was having bleeding injuries. According to her the three persons have caused injuries. On this report the A. S. I. went to the site and found the victim lying injured. On this report a case under Sec. 307/34 I. P. C. was registered and the victim was forwarded for treatment to the Government Hospital, Vijay Nagar. At about 3. 15 P. M. the victim expired and thereupon the case was converted into 302/34 I. P. C. and formal F. I. R. No. 329 was recorded. After completing the investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the accused Avtar Singh and Harbans Singh for the offence under Sec. 302, 323/34 I. P. C. However, on 10. 2. 98 the complainant submitted a protest petition requesting for taking cognçance against Jarnail Singh whereupon the learned Magistrate took cognçance against all the accused person, procured the attendance of Jarnail Singh by arrest warrant, and thereafter committed the case along with there accused persons to the Court of Sessions. The learned trial Court framed charges against Avtar Singh @ Jagtar Singh for the offence under Sec. 302, 323/34 I. P. C. , against the accused harbans Singh, and Jarnail Singh framed charges under Sec. 302/34 and 323/34 I. P. C. The accused persons denied the charges, and claimed trial. During trial the prosecution examined 11 witnesses, and tendered 29 documents in evidence. The accused persons in their statement u/sec. 313 Cr. P. C. denied the guilt. The accused Avtar Singh took the stand that on the date of incident when he was ploughing his field by his tractor, in the noon, the deceased came and stood in front of his tractor whereupon he stooped the tractor, and caught hold of the accused by neck, and expressed to kill him. When he tried the release, both of them fell down. It was also given out that the deceased fell on the disk (Taviya) attached behind the tractor, then the deceased got up and gave fist blows on the mouth and nose as a result of which his one tooth gave way, and he started bleeding from mouth. According to the accused when the deceased again got up to hold the accused by neck, the accused picked up the iron rod fitted above the disks, and gave one blow to the deceased whereupon the deceased toppled, and fell in the field. It is thereafter that the accused went with his tractor. The other two accused persons were said to have been not present. It was also stated that his field does not fall enroute Bugiya Railway Station nor was it time for the train. It was also given out that buses passes through mid of the village for Jetsar. Jarnail Singh took the stand that he is not the nephew of harbans Singh, nor the caused any injury. According to him some two months back only he had come to village for work as manual labour, and since for the last about few days he was working at the field of Harbans Singh therefore he has been implicated. Accused Harbans Singh, however, took a stand of denial, and has stated that the accused have been falsely implicated. Six documents were tendered in the evidence on the side of the defence.
(3.) THE learned trial Court after hearing the arguments and appreciating the record convicted and sentenced the accused persons as above. Being aggrieved Appeal No. 148/2000 has been filed on behalf of Avtar Singh @ Jagtar Singh, and Harbans Singh while Appeal No. 149/2000 has separately been filed by the accused Jarnail Singh. This Court vide order dt. 25. 5. 2000 suspended the sentence of accused Jarnail Singh while the other two accused persons Avtar Singh and Harbans Singh are in custody, Avtar Singh since beginning while Harbans Singh was on bail pending trial, and is in custody after conviction. Assailing the impugned conviction, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Court below has erred in placing reliance on the statement of P. W. 2 Satpal. Manifold criticism was levelled against the reliability of Satpal, e. g. if he was the eye-witness then he should have accompanied the victim to the hospital, should have lodged the first report, and should have himself and gone to hospital for treatment of his injuries but nothing of this sort has been done. similarly it is contended that the story propounded by Satpal, is not corroborated from the things found on the site in Ex. P-5, inasmuch as, according to him the incident took placed on the way, while the accident is found in Ex. P-5 to have occurred in the field. According to the learned counsel the witness is falsely implicating Jarnail Singh who had never come on the scene and even the Investigating Agency had not found any offence to have been committed by him, no recovery of Kasiya was effected from Jarnail Singh. It is also contended that the description of incident as given by Satpal is not correct, inasmuch as he has improved upon the story by introducing the theory of Avtar Singh inflicting injury with hammer to Nishan Singh. Similarly the witness has disowned Nishan Singh having caused the injuries to Avtar Singh. ;