Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J. :- This appeal by the State, by special leave, is against the judgment dated September 7, 1971 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 1971 and Murder Reference No. 32 of 1971. Respondents 1 and 2 are brothers and similarly Respondents 3 to 6 are also brothers. The six respondents along with another Darshan Singh, son of Ishar Singh, were tried for offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, acquitted the 7th accused, Darshan Singh, son of Ishar Singh. Joginder Singh, the 1st respondent, was convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to death. Respondents 2 to 6 were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 and sentenced to life imprisonment. All the six respondents were convicted under S. 148 and sentenced to one year s rigorous imprisonment. Further they were also convicted and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment under Ss. 323, 324 read with S. 149 and Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences of imprisonment were directed by the Trial Court to run concurrently.

2. There was no appeal by the State against the acquittal of the 7th accused. All the respondents challenged their conviction and the sentences awarded in Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 1971 before the High Court. As the 1st respondent had been sentenced to death, there was also the Murder Reference No. 32 of 1971 by the learned Sessions Judge to the High Court for confirmation. The High Court accepted their appeal and acquitted all the respondents. The Murder Reference was rejected. The State has come up in appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court.

3. Mr. A. N. Mulla, learned counsel for the State, has very strenuously attacked the reasoning and finding of the High Court. According to him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge in a very well-considered judgment had convicted the respondents. But, on the other hand, the High Court without a proper consideration of the evidence has acquitted the respondents without any justification.

4. Therefore, the point is whether the order of acquittal passed by the High Court is justified in the circumstances of this case.

5. The case for the prosecution was briefly as follows :

6. On the evening of May 22, 1970, the deceased, Gurdip Singh, with his two brothers, PWs. 3 and 4, was sitting in his haveli in the village Maan. At about 7 or 8.00 P.M., he went to his fields, which were at a distance of about 150 yards to answer calls of nature. The respondents along with the 7th accused, armed with dang and kirpans, suddenly emerged from the bushes nearly and inflicted very serious injuries on Gurdip Singh. In particular, the 1st respondent, Joginder Singh, gave a cut on the neck of Gurdip Singh with a sword. Even after Gurdip Singh fell down, all the seven accused mercilessly beat him with the weapons they had. Gurdip Singh died on the spot. This incident was witnessed by PW 1, the son of the deceased, as well as PWs 3 and 4. PWs. 3 and 4 rushed to help their brother, and they also received injuries at the hands of all the accused. All the accused ran away with their weapons. P.Ws. 5 and 6 saw the accused running away in a body. The first information report was given by P.W. 1 at about 10.30 P.M. at the police station, Kathu Nagal, which was at a distance of about one mile from the village. P.W. 15 took up investigation. In the meanwhile, P.Ws. 3 and 4 had gone to the V. J. Hospital at Amritsar, which was about 12 miles away from the village. The doctor, P.W. 2, treated these witnesses for their injuries. P.W. 2 also performed the postmortem on the deceased. On the basis of information furnished by respondents 2 and 5, blood-stained kirpans were recovered. The postmortem examination revealed that the deceased had sustained about 34 injuries. According to the doctor, PW 2, injuries Nos. 1, 3 and 6 were individually sufficient in the or