Judgment

JUDGMENT - The sole appellant Tarjinder Singh (original accused No. 1) along with his wife Sawaranjit Kaur (A-2) were convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 307 read with S. 34 of Indian Penal Code and Ss. 27/54/59 of Arms Act by the Designated Court. A-2 was acquitted and the appellant before us is convicted under S. 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and is also convicted under S. 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and under S. 27 of Arms Act read with Sec. 6(1) of T.A.D.A. Act to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. The appellant preferred an appeal under S. 19 of the T.A.D.A. Act. Since this is a regular appeal, we have gone through the record carefully and have perused the evidence of material witnesses.

2. The prosecution case is as follows:

The appellant Tarjinder Singh is the husband of Sawaranjit Kaur (A-2). The two brothers Bakhtawar Singh and Darshan Singh owned 20 killas of land at Bahbalpur and the land of both the brothers was located adjacent to each other. Bakhtawar Singh had three sons, namely, Anmol Singh (deceased), Daijit Singh (PW 3) and Davander Singh. Darshan Singh had five sons. They were living in their respective houses with their family members. About six months prior to the date of occurrence, electricity connection of tube-well of Daljit Singh and his brothers had been disconnected. Three months prior to the date of occurrence Daljit Singh and his brothers had raised a cotton crop. Due to heavy rains, their land was flooded. The appellant started draining water out of his field to the field of Daljit Singh and others. This led to a quarrel. On the date of occurrence, namely, 11-10-1986 at about 6.30 a.m. the appellant who was holding a Kassi (an agriculture tool) came to the field and told Anmol Singh and others that he would not permit the water to enter their field because he had not been allowed to drain out the water from his field when there were floods. The accused accordingly diverted the flow of water, upon which PW 3 and the deceased caught hold of the Kassi of accused and diverted the flow of water back to their field. The accused then started dismantling the water-course and there was an exchange of hot words. On hearing the noise PW 9, mother of Daljit Singh, also reached the spot. The accused ran towards the straw berry tree which was nearby and picked up his licensed gun and belt containing cartridges which were lying with A-2. It is alleged that A-2 instigated. Thereupon the appellant fired at Daljit Singh causing injuries to him as well as PW 9. The deceased was ahead of them. Thereupon the appellant shot at the deceased who fell down and again shot at the deceased at his back. The deceased died and the report was given. Inquest was held over the dead body. The body was sent for post-mortem. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem found a number of gun-shot injuries and opined that the deceased died because of these injuries. The same doctor examined PW 3 and others and also found various injuries on them. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid. The accused denied the offence.

3. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs 3 and 9 and the Designated Court accepting the same accordingly convicted the appellant but acquitted A-2 in this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that PWs 3 and 9 are interested witnesses and they have not come out with whole truth particularly with regard to the origin of the occurrence. Therefore, their evidence is to be discarded. We see no force in this submission. It must be remembered that they are all related to each other and the incident took place because of the dispute in diverting the water. The presence of these witnesses is not consequently disputed at all. Their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence as well as other circumstantial ev