- (1.) This is an appeal filed by Chand Singh against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar dated 21-4-1972 by which the appellant was convicted under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
(2.) The incident that led to the arrest and the prosecution of the appellant may be briefly stated as follows : Jaswant Rai deceased was a Patwari in 56 F circle while Nand Singh PW 1 was doing the work of Patwari in circle 58 and 61F. On 17-7-1971 Nandsingh P.W.1. came to Karanpur Tehsil and deposited the amount of land revenue which he collected from his circle 61F. After depositing the amount Nandsingh proceeded on bicycle from Karanpur to his circle 58F for collecting land revenue. In the way near Palusar-ki-kothi, he met Jaswant Rai deceased who was coming on bicycle from 54F after collecting land revenue and was going to his circle head quarters at 56F. Jaswant Rai deceased asked Nandsingh P. W. 1 to accompany him to 56F and to stay there in the night. Nand Singh P. W. 1 readily agreed and went along with the deceased. When both of them reached 57F near a school Chand Singh appellant met them and asked Jaswant Rai to stay at his house and dine with him in the night. At the instance of Chand Singh Jaswant Rai and Nand Singh went to his house and saw Raisingh accused (who has been acquitted by the trial court) sitting there drinking wine. Raisingh saluted Jaswant Rai deceased by uttering words "Sat Shri Akal." The deceased then asked Raisingh whether he would not go to 56F. Raisingh replied meat was going to be prepared and that he would go to 56F after eating cooked meat. Then at the instance of Rai Singh, Jaswantrai deceased, Chand Singh and Nand Singh stayed there and began to drink wine together with Raisingh. They consumed a large quantity of the liquor and ate cooked meat upto 10 or 10-15 P. M. While they were drinking and eating meat Raisingh all of a sudden abused Jaswant Rai deceased and told him that he had eaten the whole of the cooked meat. Raisingh then picked up one Glota (wooden pestle) which was lying nearby and began to beat Jaswant Rai deceased with it. Raisingh inflicted multiple injuries on the body of Jaswant Rai. Then Chand Singh appellant snatched wooden pestle (Glota) from the hand of Raisingh and started beating Jaswant Rai. He also struck multiple blows on the body of Chand Singh. Nandsingh P. W. 1 tried to rescue the deceased but Raisingh threatened to beat him also. Out of fear Nandsingh picked up his cycle and ran away from there. He reached Karanpur at 6 or 6.15 A.M. after travelling a distance of 13 or 14 miles in the dark night, and immediately went to the house of the Tehsildar for giving him the information about the incident. The Tehsildar was not available at his house as he had gone for a walk. Nandsingh P. W. 1 then went to the house of Teksingh Patwari who used to live in Karanpur in those days and related to him the whole of the incident. Teksingh called for Pyarelal and Rishiraj to his house. Nandsingh P. W. 1 informed them also about the occurrence. Then all of them went to the house of Tehsildar and related to him the whole of the incident. The Tehsildar Shri Nandlal Dhawan went to the place of occurrence in a jeep car along with Nandsingh, Tejsingh, Pyarelal and Rishiraj and saw Jaswantrai lying dead on a cot in the house of Chand Singh appellant. The Tehsildar directed Nandsingh to go to the Police Station Gajsingh pura for making a written report of the incident. Nandsingh lodged a report in writing with Santram H. C. at Police Station Gajsinghpura. On the basis of the report a criminal case under section 302 read with section 34 IPC was registered and the usual investigation was taken up by Shambusingh P.W. 10 who after some time had returned to Police Station from Punjab. Shambusingh rushed to the spot and inspected the site and the dead body of Jaswantrai He prepared Panchnama on the body and took blood stained earth into his possession from three places. He prepared a site plan and seized blood stained 'kachha' of deceased which was lying near the cot. He found three pieces of wooden pestle (Glota) also having stains of blood on them. He took them also into his possession. Then he seized one cycle, one pair of shoes and one Busta containing revenue papers belonging to the deceased, Shambusingh S. H. O. then called Dr. Prithviraj Bansal to perform post mortem examination over the dead body of Jaswantrai at the spot. Dr. Prithviraj Bansal conducted the autopsy on the dead body the very day on 18-7-71 and found as many as 16 injuries on it. The cause of death in tile opinion of the doctor was shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries on the vital organ i. e. left lung and multiple subcutaneous haemorrhage on account of multiple bruises all over the body. On dissection of the dead body the doctor found the following:- "Fracture of fourth, fifth and sixth ribs of left side of chest at the angle of costo-condral joints piercing left lung's tissues left plurae ruptured at multiple region. "Left lung shows multiple laceration wounds measuring from 3x2 cm. 2x2 cm.. 4x2 cm. and multiple punctured wounds over the anterior surface of the left lungs tissues. Fracture of the tibia and fibula at the upper ⅓". The doctor opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The S. H. O nested the appellant and Raisingh co-accused and recovered one wooden pestle (Glota) from behind a Ker tree standing by the side of a water channel near Abadi area of village Molasar Khuni at the instance of Raisingh and in consequence of his information recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act. On completion of investigation Shambusingh S H. O. filed a charge-sheet against the appellant and Raisingh co-accused under section 302 read with section 34 I. P. C. a the court of Munsif Magistrate Sriganganagar. The learned Magistrate held an inquiry preparatory to commitment and upon finding a prima facie case exclusively triable by the court of Session, committed the appellant and Raisingh co-accused for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. The appellant and Raisingh. concussed were tried by the Sessions Judge Sriganganagar who upon evidence found the appellant alone guilty of the charge under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. Raisingh co-accused was found not guilty and therefore was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, Chand Singh has come up in appeal to this Court.
(3.) We have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. Balwant Roy Arora, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. S. Acharya Public Prosecutor for the State. Firstly it has been contended by Mr. Arora that the trial Judge committed a grave error in convicting Chand Singh appellant under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. specially when he had disbelieved the testimony of solitary eyewitness Shri Nandsingh P. W. 1 and observed while acquitting Raisingh-co-accused that the presnce of the said eyewitness at the time and place of occurrence was highly doubtful. It was further urged that if the evidence of the single eye witness Shri Nandsingh goes away and is held incredible the other evidence relating to the appellant's extra-judicial confession before Kartarsingh is per in sufficient to sustain a conviction for the offence of murder. Mr. N. S. Acharya, on the other hand, strenuously urged before us that the evidence of Nandsingh P. W. 1 though not believable by the trial Judge against Raisingh co-accused, is worthy of credence against the appellant and there is no reason to discard it so far as it proves the complicity of the appellant in the commission of the crime. Mr. N, S. Acharya put forward another contention that if the evidence of Nandsingh P.W. 1 is totally discarded, there is reliable evidence of Kartar Singh in proof of the extra-judicial confession which was made by the appellant before the witness soon after the murder of Jaswantrai deceased. According to the Public Prosecutor the dead body of Jaswantrai was found lying on a cot in the house of the appellant and the appellant could not afford reasonable explanation for the injuries which led to the death of the former at his house.;