SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I., A.N. RAY AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
State of Rajasthan, Appellant
Versus
Kartar Singh, Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 114 and 115 of 1969, D/- 18-3-1970.
(In Cri. Appeal No. 114 of 1969)
(In Cri. Appeal No. 115 of 1969)
Advocates appeared
Gurjant Singh, Appellant v. State of Rajasthan, Respondent.
K. Baldev Mehta, Advocate, for Appellant; 1306
S. P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate (Mr. S. K. Basaria, Advocate), for Respondent.
Cr. A. No. 115/69:
E. Udayanathanam, Advocate, for Appellant;
K. Baldev Mehta, Advocate, for Respondent.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302/34 - Evidence Act - Section 145 – Offence of Murder - Appeal against acquittal - Filed by special leave -Case arises from an incident which took place on night - It involved murder of no less than 7 persons and injuries to two others - Murdered persons were s fathers step-mother Phinno and five children born to from Phinno - Two other step-brothers were grievously wounded but escaped with their lives - Cause of this miniature massacre was purchase of land by in names of his second wife Phinno and two of her sons - This annoyed and his son since step-mother and step-brothers were being favoured - Some of the members of family were asleep and some were awake - At about 11 p. m. and his father went to house and called went to the door, opened it and enquired why they had come at such an odd hour – Held, It is clear from evidence that had come together - They were both armed and both went away together - Pistol was in fact fired and at site of offence a live cartridge was found which matched with pistol and other live cartridges dug out from ground as result of a statement made – Court believe statement that he saw these two go away together, as indeed he must have, after assault on family had been made - Court are satisfied that case stood proved against him as well - He was awarded a sentence of death by learned Sessions Judge but, Court think, that as his part in seven murders was secondary, it would be sufficient if sentence of life imprisonment is imposed upon him therefore convicted under Section 302/34, I. P. C. and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life - Appeal against acquittal of one of accused allowed and appeal against conviction of another accused dismissed.
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. : This judgment will govern the disposal of Criminal Appeals Nos. 114 and 115 of 1969. They have been filed by special leave granted by this Court. Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 1969 has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of Kartar Singh and Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1969 has been filed by Gurjant Singh, son of Kartar Singh who has been convicted under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to death. Previously the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar had convicted Kartar Singh also under Section 302/34, I. P. C. and sentenced him to death. Both Kartar Singh and Gurjant Singh were also convicted for some minor offences and sentenced to diverse periods of imprisonment but we are not concerned with them here, though the conviction and sentences of Gurjant Singh on the minor offences were confirmed but Kartar Singh was acquitted.
2. The case arises from an incident which took place on the night between the 8th and 9th February, 1967 at 11p.m.at Mauza Ramsara in District Ganganagar. It involved the murder of no less than 7 persons and injuries to two others. The murdered persons were Kartar Singh s father Dayal Singh, Kartar Singh s step-mother Phinno and five children born to Dayal Singh from Phinno. Two other step-brothers of Kartar Singh were grievously wounded but escaped with their lives. The cause of this miniature massacre was the purchase of land by Dayal Singh in the names of his second wife Phinno and two of her sons. This annoyed Kartar Singh and his son Gurjant Singh since the step-mother and the step-brothers were being favoured. The family had migrated from the West Punjab and settled down first at Simrewala. Later it shifted to village Ramsara. Dayal Singh sold the land at Simrewala and purchased some other at Ramsara in the names of his second wife Phinno and two of her sons. Kartar Singh also sold his land in village Simrewala and went to village Jasana, 2 to 2 1/2 miles from village Ramsara. On the night in question Dayal Singh was talking to his daughter Mst. Kartar Kaur from his first wife, who had gone to her father s house that very day. Some of the members of the family were asleep and some were awake. At about 11 p. m. Gurjant Singh and his father Kartar Singh went to the house of Dayal Singh and called Dayal Singh. Dayal Singh went to the door, opened it and enquired why they had come at such an odd hour. He was told that they had been attacked by some Nayaks and had come to the house for taking shelter. Kartar Singh was armed with a pistol and Gurjant Singh with a sword. As soon as they entered the house, Gurjant Singh started striking Dayal Singh with his sword. Dayal Singh emerged into the Chowk . Mohinder Singh, his adult son, then grappled with Gurjant Singh. Gurjant Singh also wounded Mohinder Singh and Kartar Singh fired his pistol which made Mohinder Singh release Gurjant Singh. Mohinder Singh then made his escape with his full sister Kartar Kaur. Meanwhile Mst. Phinno had arrived and she was also attacked by Gurjant Singh. It is not necessary to go over the ground. Suffice it to say that one after the other the seven inmates of the house - six step relations of Gurjant Singh and Kartar Singh and Dayal Singh himself were killed. One boy-another step-brother of Kartar Singh-was seriously wounded but survived.
3. Mohinder Singh then went to the house of Fazal Deen (P. W. 2) and reported the matter to him and asked for help. Fazal Deen sent his son Balu Khan with Mohinder Singh and himself started to get ready. They first went to the house of Premaram carpenter and with Premaram they went to the house of Gurdeep Singh (P. W. 1). Then they proceeded to the house of Dayal Singh and found the seven bodies and the wounded boy lying there. Many other persons arrived on the scene. Balu Khan was asked to go and report the matter to the police. He went in search of his mare but Samandar Singh (P. W. 6) told him that he had seen Kartar Singh and Gurjant Singh going away on
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.