Judgment

BHARGAVA, J. - This appeal by special leave has been filed by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of the respondent Tarlok Singh by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for which he had been convicted by the Court of Session Tarlok Singh was charged with the murder of one Smt. Ishar Kaur.

2. It is necessary to give briefly the facts, as alleged by the prosecution, leading up to this appeal. Fauja Singh was the son of one Lehna Singh. He pre-deceased his father and left behind his window Ishar Kaur and two young children Gurbachan Singh and Harnam Kaur. Lehna Singh had a daughter Smt. Paro who was married to Gulab Singh in another village. On the death of Fauja Singh. Lehna Singh asked his daughter Smt. Paro and his son-in-law Gulab Singh to come to his village Alampur to look after the young children of Fauja Singh. When Smt. Paro and Gulab Singh came and started living with Lehna Singh. Lehna Singh gave some land on a 100-year lease lo his son-in-law. Tarlok Singh appellant is the son of Smt. Paro and Gulab Singh. As time passed, relations between Tarlok Singh and Gurbachan Singh. who had grown up, became very much strained. These differences arose primarily because of the property of Lehna Singh. Lehna Singh, in his lifetime, gifted a part of his property in favour of Gurbachan Singh which was resented by Smt. Paro, who actually brought a suit to challenge the validity of the gift. Lehna Singh also made a will in favour of Gurbachan Singh which was also challenged. At the same time, Lehna Singh sold a part of the land to Gulab Singh and Gurbachan Singh filed a suit for pre-emption of that land and obtained a decree in his favour. After the death of Lehna Singh. Gurbachan Singh applied for mutation of names in respect of the lands left to him by his grandfather, including the land which was under lease with Gulab Singh. His name was mutated in the revenue records and the appeal filed by Gulab Singh was dismissed. This litigation led in illfeelings between Tarlok Singh and Gurbachan Singh.

3. On the date of the incident, which took place on 21st October, 1966, Gurbachan Singh had gone to Jullundur to bring his wife from the house of her parents. Harnam Kaur was at that time staying with her mother, having come there at the request of Gurbachan Singh to keep her company while he was away. On the 21st October, at about 10 a. m. Tarlok Singh name to the house of Ishar Kaur accompanied by Ram Lal. He was carrying a sword while Ram Lal had a Dang . This Ram Lal is said to be a friend of Tarlok Singh. Tarlok Singh asked Ishar Kaur that he was going to irrigate his land from the tousle of Gurbachan Singh. Ishar Kaur told Tarlok Singh that he had no right to do so and she would not allow him to take water from her tubewell. Tarlok Singh and Ram Lal then told Ishar Kaur that they would irrigate the land in spite of her protest and they would see how any one could stop then. After giving this challenge, Tarlok Singh and Ram Lal both proceeded towards the tubewell. They were followed by Ishar Kaur and in turn. Harnam Kaur followed her mother, because she apprehended that her mother might be harmed by Tarlok Singh and Ram Lal. On reaching the tubule. Tarlok Singh put on the switch and Ishar Kaur promptly switched it off. Ram Lal, who was at some distance in a field, then gave a challenge and told Tarlok Singh that he should not be deterred from killing lshar Kaur as he had Ram Lal s backing who would bear the consequences. Tarlok Singh then dragged Ishar Kaur outside the room of the tubewell unsheathed his sword and gave her a blow which she tried to parry with her right forearm. Thereafter, he gave another blow on her neck which felled her on the ground. A few more blows were given after Ishar Kaur had fallen down. Tarlok Singh and Ram Lal then ran away carrying their weapons withthem. Harnam Kaur then approached her mother and found her lying dead. One Kar