Ajmer Singh vs State Of Punjab - 1976 Supreme(SC) 511

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1976 Supreme(SC) 511

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI, A.C. GUPTA AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ.
Ajmer Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 1976,
D/- 16-12-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Jagjit Singh, Sr. Advocate (Mr. Sundershan Lal, Aneja, Advocate with him); for Appellants; Mr. O. P. Sharma and Miss Kusum Choudhary, Advocates, for Respondent.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code – Section 302/324/149 – Injuries - Possession and recovered - Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment – Offence of murder - investigating officer took some empties in his possession and recovered some bandanas and spears at instance of appellants - Police traced out who were said to be holders of guns used by Ajmer Singh and them also for abetting the commission of the offences - In all persons were committed for trial to Court of Session - Public prosecutor did not place reliance on the recoveries of the spears and guns, and conceded that they did not inspire confidence - Trial court found that no case had been made out against and acquitted them - It gave benefit of doubt to accused and acquitted them of all charges - Remaining eight accused have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid - They have therefore come up in appeal to this Court – Held, When he was confronted with that serious discrepancy, all that could state was that it was incorrect that he had not ascribed the infliction of any injury to any accused except four accused mentioned above - It is therefore apparent that he did not find it possible to give a satisfactory explanation of the discrepancy - This infirmity in statement was not noticed by trial court or the High Court - As it is of great importance, and as the High Court has itself taken the view that it would be safe to rely on evidence – Court do not find it possible to take the view on the basis of own statement, that it would be safe to uphold the conviction of appellants - Benefit of doubt has already been given to accused and we are inclined to think that are also entitled to the benefit of doubt - An attempt was made to argue that we should disbelieve the first information report Ex. P. A. because, according to it could not possible be made at police station when the incident took place at 5 p. m. It has been argued that that report is in such details and is so consistent with the allegations of the prosecution that it must have been drawn up after the police had reached the place of occurrence and made some investigation. It will be sufficient to say that the High Court has rightly rejected the argument for the reason that if the Investigating Officer had done what has been imputed to him by counsel for the appellants, he would have come to know from Mehar Singh that the injury on his chest had been inflicted by accused by a spear, and not by a gun-shot fired by and first information report would not have ascribed the injury to un fir - It would thus appear that there can be no doubt whatsoever about the participation of appellants Ajmer Singh in the crime. As has been stated had a strong motive and went armed with a gun to the place of concurrence along with his associates. His associate Ajmer Singh also went armed with a gun, while appellant armed himself with a spear - Criminal acts were thus done by all three of them in pursuance of a pre-arranged plan - It was their plan to go and attack and commit the murder of those found on the field of Smt. Siri Kaur and to take forcible possession thereof - Order accordingly

Judgment

SHINGHAL, J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated October 24, 1975, upholding the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Patiala dated October 28, 1974. The High Court has thereby upheld the conviction of appellant Ajmer Singh of an offence under Sec. 302, I. P. C. for committing the murder of Dev Singh, and has confirmed the sentence of death. It has also upheld the conviction of the other appellants, Mehar Singh, Bachan Singh, Chanan Singh, Jarnail Singh, Ujagar Singh, Sardara Singh and Surjit Singh for an offence under Section 302/149. I. P. C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life for Dev Singhs murder. Ajmer Singh, Mehar Singh, Bachan Singh, Chanan Singh, Jarnal Singh, Ujagar Singh, Sardra Singh and Surjit Singh have been convicted of offence under Section 302/149, I. P. C. for committing the murder of Nikka Singh and Gurdev Singh, and they have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for those offences also. Ujagar Singh has been convicted of an offence under Section 307, I. P. C. for attempting to commit the murder of Mehar Singh P. W. 4, and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years while the remaining seven appellants have been convicted under S. 307/149, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. Appellant Chanan Singh has been convicted of an offence under Section 324, I. P. C. for causing injury with an incised weapon to Mehar Singh P. W. 4, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and the other seven appellants have been convicted under Section 324/149, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months. All the eight appellants have been convicted of an offence under Sec. 148, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences, except the sentence of death awarded to Ajmar Singh, have been ordered to run concurrently. Anup Singh, Niranjan Singh, Jogender Singh, Amar Singh and Balla Singh, who were the other accused in the case, have been acquitted.

2. The unfortunate incident, which resulted in the death of Nikka Singh, Dev Singh and Gurdev Singh on October 21, 1972, at about 5 p. m., was the result of enmity and litigation regarding the land of one Sampuran Singh of village Selampur. We shall refer to it when we examine the argument of the counsel for the appellants to an question of possession of Sampuran Singhs land on the date of the incident. It has been alleged by the prosecution that Nikka Singh (deceased) and Amar Singh, father of Dev Singh (deceased), were married to the sisters of Sampuran Singh and that after Sampuran Singhs death they, along with their brother Mehar Singh P. W. 4, started living at Salempur with Sampuran Singhs daughter Smt. Siri Kaur P. W. 10 and looked after the cultivation of the land of Sampuran Singh which had been inherited by Smt. Siri Kaur and was being cultivated by her tenants Bachan Singh, Sunder Singh and Nikka Singh. It has further been alleged by the prosecution that on October 21, 1972, at about 5 p. m., Nikks Singh (deceased), Dev Singh (deceased), Mehar Singh P. W. 4 and Balbir Singh P. W. 5 (son of Nikka Singh deceased) were cutting fooder from Smt. Siri Kaurs field. Gurdev Singh (deceased) and his brother Banch Singh P. W. 3. were cutting fodder in Gurdev Singhs field nearby. Appellants Chanan Singh and Jarnail Singh armed with spears, and appellants Mehar Singh, Bachan Singh, Surjit and Sardara Singh armed with gandasas came from the side of the well of Amar Singh, to the place of occurrence, and raised a lilkara warning Nikka Singh, and others that they would not be spared. Nikka Singh, Dev Singh, Mehar Singh and Balbir Singh thereupon left the field and ran towards the village. They were however confronted by appellants Ajmer Singh and Ujagar Singh who were armed with guns, and Jogender Singh, Amar Singh and Ralla Singh who were armed with gandasas, and came from the other side. The gun with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document