Case: Jarnail Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab

The prosecution case is as follows2. Milkha Singh is one of the deceased in the case. His paternal aunt was the wife of Phuman Singh. When the deceased Milkha Singh was young he lost his father about 15 years prior to the present occurrence. On compassionate grounds Phuman Singh used to help Milkha Singh in managing the properties. This went on smoothly for some time. It is alleged that Phuman Singh, his sons and their close relations became greedy and dishonestly ousted the deceased, Milkha Singh, his mother and his grandmother from the land as well as from theThe deceased Milkha Singh shifted to the village of hisand began residing there. He launched proceedings against Phuman Singh and his three sons Jarnail Singh,2 and Amrik Singh,and succeeded in getting order of eviction. On some of the lands crops were standing, in respect of which on 18th January, 1976 the deceased Milkha Singh paid compensation and got the possession of the vacant land. On this the accused party was aggrieved against Milkha Singh, theOn 24th January, 1976 the deceased Milkha Singh went to his field at abouta.m. At the relevant time Assa Singh, P.W. 5, Gurdial Singh, P.W. 4, Kanaj Singh, P.W. 7, Bakhtawar Singh and Jaswant Singh, another deceased in the case, were in the company of the deceased Milkha Singh for harvesting the wheat crop. It is alleged that the three accused3) sons of Phuman Singh and his other relationsvariously armed came on the scene.Jarnail Singh who was armed with a rifle hurled a lalkara at Milkha Singh the deceased and his companions and simultaneously fired a shot hitting Milkha Singh on his left leg.Amrik Singh fired a similar shot from his rifle which caused an injury on the left leg of Milkha Singh as a result of which he fell down. On this Jaswant Singh, the other deceased requested the accused not to fire.Jarnail Singh fired another shot from his rifle hitting Jaswant Singh on his left shoulder as a result of which Jaswant Singh died on the spot. P.W. 5 Assa Singh and P.W. 7 Kanaj Singh who had also rifles used them in theirwhile firing shots towards the accused. The accused again returned the fire. After this the accused went to thebelonging to Milkha Singh, the deceased. From there again they fired some shots towards complainant Gurdial Singh, P.W. 4 and others. P.W. 4 carried the injured Milkha, Singh to his house where his mother andwere present. P.W. 4 after apprising them about the occurrence left for the Police Station and lodged a report at abouta.m. which was recorded by A.S.I. Ajit Singh, P.W. 14. He registered the crime, took a posse of constables and went to the spot along with P.W. 4 and reached the same at abouta.m. He found that the accused were still busy firing shots from theof Milkha Singh. P.W. 13 divided the police contingent into three segments and surrounded the accused and after some exchange of fire arrested the accused and seized the weapons. At the time of arrest he found that accused Kulwant Singhwas having some marks of injuries and he was sent for medical examination. P.W. 14 found the dead body of Jaswant Singh lying in the field. He prepared the necessary panchnama and seized number of empty cartridges. The dead body of Jaswant Singh was despatched forP.W. 3 the Doctor, examined Milkha Singh the deceased at abouta.m. at the Primary Health Centre, Sirhali. He found the pulse and blood pressure weak and referred the injured Milkha Singh to the General Hospital, Amritsar. P.W. 3 also examined Kulwant Singh,and found two lacerated wounds caused byand he was also referred to the General Hospital, Amritsar. He also examinedand on his person he found two abrasions and two contusions which were the result of a blunt weapon. Likewise he found some injuries onAmrik Singh which were all abrasions and simple in nature. Milkha Singh died later. P.W. 2 conducted the6. He found four lacerated wounds and opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of those injuries which were caused byAfter completion of the investigation thewas laid. The accused pleaded not guilty.however, stated that Kulwant Singh,law and used to visit his village and a day prior to the present occurrencecame to his7 was having his rifle issued by the Home Guards Department.further stated that he and his father were in possession of thesince they had built it. He and Amrik Singh,slept outside the(behak) whereas Kulwant Singh,slept at the roof of thewith his rifle. At about 6/7 a.m. Jaswant Singh armed withand Milkha Singh armed with rifle came there and asked him and Amrik Singh,to vacate theand they began to be labour him and Amrik Singh,with the butts of the1 raised an alarm.then stood up and pointed his rifle against them. Thereupon the two deceased persons took positions and began to fire towards Kulwant Singh,with their respective weapons and thence. The two deceased persons received injuries andalso received injuries. Jaswant Singh died on the spot and injured Milkha Singh was removed. The police came and detained him in the1 further stated that he filed an appeal against the order of ejectment passed by the S.D.O. Taran Taran. But he has never been dispossessed and no possession was delivered to anybody of the land in his possession and police sided with the opposite party and fabricated a false case against him. The same statement was adopted by Amrik Singh,7 and otherFrom the above it can be seen that the place and time of occurrence are not in dispute. The presence of appellants and the witnesses cannot also be in doubt. The only question that arises for consideration is as to who were the aggressors. The trial court after considering the orders passed by the civil court and the other circumstances held that the accused were the aggressors. The trial court, however, acquitted accused Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 but convictedJarnail Singh for committing the murder of Jaswant Singh and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. It also convictedJarnail Singh andAmrik Singh under Ss. 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life.were convicted under Ss. 302/34, IPC in respect of both the murders on the ground that they were present during the first part of the occurrence and they were sentenced to imprisonment for life. All of them were also convicted under Ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act as mentioned above. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by them confirming the findings of the trial court

Reasoning:
8. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, we find it difficult to accept this contention. Both the courts below have rightly held that the accused already having won the appeal, tried to take law into their own hands in order to oust Milkha Singh, the deceased by show and use of force and take forcible possession of the land. The evidence of theamply establishes the same. Regarding the injuries found on the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 7, P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7 have consistently deposed that P.Ws. 5 and 7 inshot at the accused and caused those injuries. There is absolutely no doubt about this aspect of the prosecution case. The presence of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 7 is not in dispute and their participation in the occurrence also cannot be I doubted. So far as Balbir Singh,is concerned, in our view, his case is on the same footing as rest of the acquitted accused. No doubt the prosecution witnesses have stated that he was armed with aand was present in the company of the other accused. But he did not cause any injury to anybody nor there is cogent evidence to show that he used theOut of the three main witnesses, only P.W. 4 deposed that Balbir Singh,also fired shots but he also deposed that Nirmal Singh, acquitted accused also fired from hisand in general way he has stated that the accused fired more shots from the roof top of the behaklater. P.Ws. 5 and 7, however, did not say that Balbir Singh,fired. The learned trial Judge convicted him on the sole ground that he was later arrested at the scene of occurrence and at that time he was found in the possession ofIn this context, we have to bear in mind that, according to the prosecution, when the police arrived, the firing was going on and several people were present. This was the second part of the occurrence and according to the prosecution during this part there was an exchange of fire between the police party and the people gathered there. Regarding the second part of the occurrence, the courts below were not prepared to accept this story. That being the case, the case of Balbir Singh,is not in any way different from that of the acquitted accused because according to the prosecution itself, some of the acquitted persons, also were armed withThey were acquitted on the ground that their participation was not proved. Applying the same test, we think it is not safe to convict Balbir Singh,