Joginder Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Nehra, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 280DB of 1992 Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab and Criminal Appeal No. 271DB of 1992 Jasbir Singh and another v. State of Punjab are directed against the judgment dated 21.5.1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar by which Joginder Singh, Jasbir Singh and Partap Singh have been convicted as under :

Name of the accused offence Sentence

Joginder Singh U/s 302 IPC Imprisonment for litre and to pay fine of Rs. 500/. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for one month.

U/s 324 IPC R.I. for 2 years and the fine of Rs. 100/. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one month.

Jasbir Singh U/s 302/34 IPC. Imprisonment for litre and to pay fine of Rs. 100/. In default of fine, to undergo further R.I. for one month.

U/s 324 IPC R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for onemonth.

Partap Singh U/s 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one month.

U/s 324/34 IPC R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 100/. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one month.

All the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Both the appeals will be decided by this single judgment.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :

Faqir Singh had two sons Jaspal Singh and Kulwant Singh besides a daughter Manjit Kaur. Kulwant Singh was married. Fatherinlaw of Faqir Singh died about 45 years prior to the occurrence. Sister of Joginder Singh accused was married to Faqir Singh complainant. Kartar Kaur was motherinlaw of Faqir Singh. Her leg was fractured, therefore, she was shifted to the house of Faqir Singh where his wife looked after her, because, Joginder Singh accused and other family members did not look after Kartar kaur. Kartar Kaur died on 11.5.1989. A few days prior to her death, Kartar Kaur was forcibly taken away by Joginder Singh from the house of the complainant. Joginder Singh got executed a will from her in his favour and in favour of his son Jasbir Singh to which the complainant party objected. On 27.5.89, at about 8.30 p.m. Faqir Singh alongwith his son Kulwant Singh, Dalip Singh and Sewa Singh was present in chowk near the house of Dalip Singh. They were talking to one another. Dalip Singh PW is the brother of Kartar Kaur mother of Joginder Singh. Partap Singh accused came there and started abusing saying that they wanted to take forcible possession of the house but he would not allow them to do so. Dalip Singh enquired from him as to why he was abusing. In reply, Partap Singh said that he was not abusing him, rather he was abusing Faqir Singh and Sewa Singh. Simultaneously, Jasbir Singh and Joginder Singh accused came there. Jasbir Singh was armed with kirpan. Joginder Singh took out knife from left side of his dub and inflicted knife blow on the left flank of Kulwant Singh and another knife blow on his back. On receipt of injury Kulwant Singh tried to run away but Partap Singh accused raised lalkara exhorting his coaccused to catch hold of him and finish him. Jasbir Singh accused picked up his kirpan and inflicted kirpan blow thrustwise hitting Kulwant Singh on his back. On receipt of the injuries he fell down. Sewa Singh grappled with Joginder Singh accused in order to snatch knife so that he may not inflict any other injury to any other person and in that scuffle, Sewa Singh received knife blow on his left shoulder at the hands of Joginder Singh accused. Jasbir Singh accused went near Sewa Singh and attacked him with kirpan hitting him on his head. Joginder Singh accused received minor injuries while grappling with Sewa Singh. After causing the injuries the accused ran away carrying with them their respective weapons.

Kulwant Singh was removed to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar but on the same night at about 3.00 a.m. he succumbed to the injuries. Faqir Singh made his statement before the police in the hospital which is Ex.PE recorded by ASI Partap Singh. Partap Singh ASI made his endorsement Ex.PE/1 thereon, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex.PE/2 was recorded by Shiv Dev Singh ASI. Partap Singh ASI visited the place of occurrence. After completion of investigation, the accused were challaned.

Dr. Satish Sood (PW1), Dr. Ashok Chawla (PW2), Dr. Jaspal Singh (PW3), Faqir Singh (PW4), Dr. Iqbal Singh (PW5), Dalip Singh Draftsman (PW6), Prehlad Singh Chadha (PW7), Narinderpal Singh HC (PW8), Rattan Lal constable (PW9), Paramjit Singh (PW10), Sewa Singh (PW11), Dalip Singh (PW12), Gurmej Singh (PW13), ASI Partap Singh (PW14), Amar Nath Ahlmad (PW15), Guru Dutt Process Server (PW16) were examined by the prosecution besides tendering into evidence report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PAA and report of the Sorologist Ex.PBB.

Dr. Iqbal Singh (PW5) on 27.5.1989, at about 11.15 p.m. conducted the medicolegal examination of Kulwant Singh and found the following injuries on his person :

Stab wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm on the posterior and lateral upper 1/3rd of the left back. The underlying muscles and the peritoneum was cut and the omentum was coming out of it. Oozing of blood was present from the wound.

Stab wound 2.75 cm x 0.75 cm on the lower and posterior 1/3rd of the left side of chest adjacent to midline. Advised Surgeon''s opinion.

Stab wound 2.5 cm x 0.75 cm on the posterior and lower 1/3rd of chest, adjacent to midline. Advised Surgeon''s opinion.

Patient complained of numbness and inability to move the both lower limbs. Advised Surgeon''s opinion.

The clothes i.e. the shirt and banian, had corresponding cuts and the same were signed and handed over to the police. A note was made that any additional injury if intimated by the Surgeon would be intimated later on. At the time of admission the patient was in shock and was having cold sweat. He was semiconscious. Injury No. 1 was declared dangerous to life while injuries No. 2, 3 and 4 were kept under Surgeon''s opinion and the probable duration for all the injuries was within six hours and the kind of weapon used for injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 was sharp in nature. Ex.PF is the correct carbon copy of the M.L.R.

Dr. Ashok Chawla, Surgical Specialist (PW2) on the night intervening 27/28.5.1989 performed the operation on the person of Kulwant Singh. When Kulwant Singh was admitted to the hospital, the patient was in shock and semiconscious. The operation notes given by him are as under :

On Laparotomy splenic flexure of the colon and the spleen was found injured on its outer aspect. Colonic wound was stitched in two layers. Splenoraphy was done. There was no active bleeding in the peritoneum cavity when it was closed but the patient''s condition was not satisfactory. Regular tharocotomy was planned. Tharocotomy through the lower wound was done and chest tube was put in. More than a litre of blood came out of chest cavity. Chest too was connected with water seal. Wound closed and sealed. As condition of the patient was unsatisfactory, operation was completed at 1.45 a.m. on 28.5.89. The patient died at 2.50 a.m. on 28.5.89.

PW1, Dr. Satish Sood conducted the post mortem examination of Kulwant Singh on 28.5.89 and found the following injuries on his person :

Wound dressed with adhesive plaster on abdomen. On removing the dressing there was a stitched surgical wound measuring 19 cms in length, 1/2" lateral left from umbilicus, vertical in direction, 1/2" of the stitched wound was above and 1/2" of the stitched wound was below the umbilicus.

On dissection the anterior abdominal wall was found stitched in layers.

A stitched wound measuring 20 cms in length on left lateral aspect of abdomen and chest, starting 41/2" above the iliac crest extending upwards and posteriorly.

On dissection the posterior part of the wound was extending towards spleen through abdominal wall. Lower half of the spleen found stitched. On further dissection spleen was seen cut through and through by an incised punctured wound measuring 2.5 cm x 0.4 cm and corresponding colon was also found stitched in layers.

A rubber corrogated drain was fixed to abdomen through a surgical wound 1" lateral to lateral end of injury No. 2.

Incised punctured wound measuring 2.75 cm x 0.75 cm on posterior aspect of upper margin of lower 1/3rd of left side of chest, 2" lateral to the mid spinal margin.

Incised stab wound measuring 2.5 cm x 0.75 cm on posterior aspect of left side of chest, 1" lateral to injury No. 4.

On dissection of injuries No. 4 and 5, the thoracic cavity of left side was found full of blood and blood clot. The posterior aspect of lower lobe of left lung was seen cut through and through by incised stab wound measuring 2 cm x 0.4 cm, On probing this wound corresponded with injury No. 4. On probing injury No. 5, it was bone deep.

An abrasion measuring 1/4" x 1/4" on right ankle.

On examination of the throax, walls, ribs and cartilages right side was normal, left side has already been described.

On dissection of the abdomen, walls and peritoneum have been described above. Stomach was empty and healthy. Small intestines were normal, healthy, containing chyms and gases. Large intestines was healthy and contained gases and faecal matter. Spleen has already been described. Urinary bladder was healthy and empty. Other organs were healthy.

According to the doctor, cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to injuries No. 2 and 4 which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. According to him all the injuries were ante mortem. Ex.PA is the carbon copy of the post mortem report.

Faqir Singh (PW4) father of the deceased has given detailed statement in respect of his relationship with the accused and the motive behind the occurrence, as summarised above. He has fully narrated the manner in which the occurrence took place on 27.5.89 at 8.00 p.m. He finds corroboration from the statement of Sewa Singh (PW11) and Dalip Singh (PW12). Sewa Singh is the stamped witness as he is also one of the injured. He had intervened as Joginder Singh accused had inflicted two knife blows one on the back of Kulwant Singh and the other on his left flank. Dalip Singh (PW12) had also stated the manner in which the accused had caused injuries to Kulwant Singh and Sewa Singh.

Dr. Iqbal Singh (PW5) besides examining Kulwant Singh as above, on 27.5.89 had medically examined Sewa Singh on 28.5.89 and found the following injuries on his person :

Incised wound 3.5. cm x 1 cm on the middle left parietal region of head. The hair was cut and loose. Advised Xray.

A linear scratch mark 7 cms on the anterior of the left shoulder joint.

Injury No. 1 was kept under Xray opinion while injury No. 2 was declared simple in nature. Ex.PG is the carbon copy of the Medicolegal report.

On 28.5.89 at 2.15 a.m. Dr. Iqbal Singh had also examined Joginder Singh son of Sardar Singh accused and found the following injuries on his person :

Linear incised wound 8 cms on the right palm and hand.

Swelling with reddishness 4 cms x 3 cms on the left side of the forehead. Advised Xray.

Incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm semicircular above the left eyebrow on forehead. Advised Xray.

A stab wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the outer and lower half of the left upper arm. Advised Xray.

A linear scratch mark 0.5 cm horizontal on the middle and outer of left upper arm.

Abrasion 3 cms x 1 cm above the anterior of right knee joint.

An abrasion 3 cms x 1 cm below the right knee joint.

Stab wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the posterior of chest left above the scapular region. The cut on the shirt was marked and signed. Advised X ray.

Diffused swelling on left parietal region.

Swelling of the right wrist joint.

Tenderness present. Advised Xray. Injuries No. 10, 2, 3, 4 and 8 were kept under Xray opinion while others were declared simple in nature and the probable duration for all the injuries was within eight hours. Kind of weapon used was sharp in nature for injuries No. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8 and blunt for others. Ex.PH is the carbon copy of the M.L.R. On receipt of the Xray report from the Radiologist, he declared injuries on the person of Sewa Singh as simple in nature vide his report Ex.PJ/I on the police request Ex.PJ. He further stated that vest Ex.P.7 and bushirt Ex.P8 are the same which were removed from the person of Kulwant Singh and handed over to the police. They bear the corresponding cuts. According to him possibility of injury No. 1 on the person of Kulwant Singh having been caused by knife Ex.P9 cannot be ruled out. On 28.5.89 at 9.30 a.m. he sent ruqa Ex.PK intimating the police that Sewa Singh injured was admitted in the hospital at 9.10 p.m. on 27.5.89. He stated that in the M.L.R. Ex.PG he had inadvertently mentioned the time of arrival at 7.00 a.m. on 28.5.89. According to him injuries on the person of Joginder Singh could be caused in scuffle, being simple in nature and injury No. 1 on the person of Sewa Singh with kirpan blow could not be ruled out. In crossexamination he stated that according to M.L.R. prepared by him in respect of Sewa Singh he had arrived in the hospital on 28.5.89 at 7.00 a.m. and that as per bed head ticket relating to Sewa Singh he was admitted in the hospital on 28.5.89 at 8.00 a.m. He further stated that as per outdoor ticket attached with the bed head ticket of Sewa Singh, he reached hospital on 28.5.89 and that that chit is Ex.DA and Ex.DA/1 is the photostat copy of the same (Ex.DA was returned to the witness). He further stated that Joginder Singh accused reached hospital on 27.5.89 at 10.55 p.m. and that outdoor slip of Joginder Singh is Sr. No. 2915 while that of Sewa Singh is 2916. He denied the suggestion that Sewa Singh reached hospital on 28.5.89 at 7.00 a.m. and his arrival earlier in Ex.PK has been ante dated to oblige the police.

On 28.5.89 ASI Partap Singh (PW14) on the receipt of the Medicolegal report of Kulwant Singh visited the hospital for recording the statement of the injured and moved application Ex.PO but the doctor vide his endorsement Ex.PO/1 declared him unfit to make statement. He recorded the statement of Faqir Singh which is Ex.PE and after making his endorsement thereon got formal F.I.R. recorded. He also recorded the statement of Dalip Singh. Then he visited the place of occurrence. Since, it had grown dark, therefore, Faqir Chand HC was directed to guard the place of occurrence. He searched for the accused during the night but they were not available. On the following morning, he visited the place of occurrence, inspected the spot and lifted bloodstained earth which was put in a tin sealed with the seal of mark PS and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PQ, attested by Gurbachan Singh. He also received chit Ex.PR from the police station that Kulwant Singh had succumbed to the injuries. He went to the hospital, prepared inquest proceedings Ex.PB in the presence of Inder Singh and Ujagar Singh, and dead body was handed over to the constables for the purpose of getting post mortem examination done. He had also received M.L.Rs of Sewa Singh and Joginder Singh and moved applications before the doctor to get his opinion and the doctor vide his endorsements Ex.PS/1 and Ex.PT/1 made on the applications declared Sewa Singh and Joginder Singh fit to make statements. He recorded their statements. He again conducted raid at the houses of the accused but they were not available. He prepared site plan Ex.PU. After the post mortem examination was over the constables produced the papers and clothes of Kulwant Singh deceased i.e. pant Ex.P.11, underwear Ex.P.12 which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PV attested by Paramjit and Jagtar Singh. On reaching the police station, MHC produced before him bushirt Ex.P.13, of Joginder Singh. Vest Ex.P.7 and Bushirt Ex.P.8 of Kulwant Singh were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PX and that of Joginder Singh were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PY. The case property was deposited with seals in tact with the MHC on the same day.

On 30.5.1989, While ASI Partap Singh was present in Sodal Nagar in connection with investigation of this case, Partap Singh and Jasbir Singh accused were produced before him by Mohinder Singh Municipal Commissioner of Preet Nagar, Jalandhar. They were taken into custody and interrogated. On 31.5.1989 when he was present at Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar in connection with investigation of this case, Sital Singh produced Joginder Singh before him and he was taken into custody.

On 1.6.89, on interrogation, Jasbir Singh accused disclosed having kept concealed kirpan on the backside of cots in his residential house and offered to get the same recovered vide disclosure statement Ex.PN signed by him and attested by Gurmej Singh and Harjit Singh. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, the accused led the police party to the stated place wherefrom he produced kirpan Ex.P.10. Its rough sketch Ex.PN/1 was prepared and the kirpan was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PN/2 after preparing its sealed parcel. Ex.PN/3 depicts the place of recovery.

On 2.6.1989 Joginder Singh accused suffered disclosure statement having kept concealed knife in the deserted brick kiln of Hind Pal situated on Bye pass and offered to get the same recovered vide disclosure statement Ex.PZ signed by him and attested by Sital Singh and others. In pursuance of his disclosure statement he led the police party to the stated place wherefrom he produced knife Ex.P9. Its rough sketch Ex.PZ/1 was prepared and after preparing its sealed parcel it was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PZ/2. On 16.6.89 he recorded the statement of Rattan Singh, and Narinderpal Singh MHC and that of draftsman on 18.6.69.

Substance of the accusation was put to the accused. Joginder Singh stated as under :

"I am innocent. The last rites of my mother Kartar Kaur were performed on 23.5.89. Faqir Singh, his son Kulwant Singh and Sewa Singh learnt on that day that my mother had disposed of her property in my favour and my son Jasbir Singh through a sale deed and a will which was (not) liked by them. On 27.5.89, in the evening, I was present at my house in Sodal Nagar. Sewa Singh and Kulwant Singh since deceased came in front of my house and at that time, Sewa Singh was armed with Hathia and Kulwant Singh with a dagger. Both of them challanged that I would be taught a lesson for depriving them of the share of the property owned by my mother Kartar Kaur by getting executed a will from her. I told them with folded hands that Smt. Kartar Kaur had of her free will given her property to me and to my son; Kulwant Singh and Sewa Singh attacked me and caused injuries on different parts of my body. Sewa Singh used the hathia from his sharp and wrong side whereas Kulwant Singh gave injuries with dagger. I was wearing the small kirpan and used it to defend myself. Kulwant Singh and Sewa Singh suffered injuries in the said incident, while I was defending myself. Dalip Singh and Faqir Singh PWs were not there. My coaccused Jasbir Singh and Partap Singh were also not there. Kartar Kaur my mother was never looked after by my sisters or Faqir Singh, and Kulwant Singh during her life time. She was living with me all the time, and out of love and affection she had given her property to me and to my son."

Jasbir Singh and Partap Singh stated that they were innocent, that they had been falsely implicated in the case and that they were not present at the time of alleged occurrence.

Admittedly, certain improvements have come in the statements of the witnesses recorded in the Court as compared to their previous statements, as lengthy crossexamination was conducted upon the witnesses. ASI Partap Singh (PW14) in his crossexamination stated that he correctly recorded the statement Ex.PE of Faqir Singh without any addition or omission. Similarly, he stated that he correctly recorded the statements Ex.DC and DD of Sewa Singh and Dalip Singh respectively. He had further stated that Faqir Singh and Dalip Singh had not taken him to the place where Kulwant Singh was lying. He further stated that even after having met Dalip Singh on the main gate, he had not gone to the place where injured was lying. He admitted to be correct that there is overwriting at portion encircled red on Ex.PO at Ex.PO/2, and denied the suggestion that he had changed the time according to his convenience. This fact was put to him in order to bring out contradiction in the statements of witnesses, because Faqir Singh PW had stated that the police had reached the hospital at 2.00 or 2.30 a.m; that none of them had gone to inform the police; that after purchasing the medicines when he alongwith Dalip Singh was going inside the hospital they met ASI Partap Singh on the main gate of the hospital; that the ASI enquired about Kulwant Singh as he had been informed about the injuries received by Kulwant Singh with knife; that he accompanied the police officials to the place where Kulwant Singh was lying admitted and that Kulwant Singh had already been taken to the operation theatre. Similarly, Dalip Singh PW stated in crossexamination that in fact they were standing on the main gate of the hospital when they had accompanied the police officials to the place where Kulwant Singh was lying admitted and that his statement was recorded by the police after the police had visited Kulwant Singh. The prosecution witnesses were specifically confronted with specific portions of their statements to which they have given answers and explanations. Some of the facts have been admitted having not been stated. The witnesses are not expected to make parrotlike statements. Certain variations are likely to occur in their statements. Therefore, the minor omissions or additions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses would not entitle the accused to be given the benefit of doubt.

Certain evidence had been led in respect of certain litigation in respect of property of Kartar Kaur besides sale deed having been executed by Kartar Kaur on 28.4.89 in favour of Joginder Singh son of Sardar Singh and Jasbir Singh son of Joginder Singh i.e. the accused for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/ which fact is proved by Prehlad Singh Chadha (PW7), Ex.PM is the copy of the sale deed. Likewise Amar Nath Ahlmad of the Court of Mr. P.S. Bajaj, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar (PW15) was examined, who produced the file in suit No. 582/91 regarding Balbir Kaur v. Joginder Singh suit for declaration. An application under JUDGMENT 39 Rules 1 and 2 the Civil Procedure Code was also filed and notice returnable for 7.8.89 was issued. For the service of the notice, summons was entrusted to Guru Dutt Process Server (PW16) and he stated that he had gone to the house of Joginder Singh for his service but he refused to accept the service, and he made detailed report thereon. These facts certainly lend indication to one thing that the accused had grievances against the complainant party over the property belonging to Kartar Kaur, mother of accused Joginder Singh and motherinlaw of Faqir Singh complainant.

Mr. H.S. Sandhu, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the injuries suffered by Joginder Singh, have not been explained in the FIR or at the stage of inquest proceedings, therefore, the prosecution story needs to be ignored. In support of his argument, he has relied upon Lakshmi Singh & others v. State of Bihar, 1976 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 671 wherein it has been held as under :

"However, there may be cases where the nonexplanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not effect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and credit worthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries."

On this point Mr. Sandhu also placed reliance on Mitter Sein and others v. The State of U.P., 1976 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 190. On the point of self defence, Mr. Sandhu has placed reliance on Bhagwan Swaroop v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1992(1) Recent Criminal Reports 489 . The facts of this case are entirely different. In that case, the complainant party was giving lathi blows to the father of the accused and the accused fired gun shots to save his father. Thus, fire was held justified. In the present case in hand, the accused party was the aggressor. The complainant party was abused and on the objection raised by them, the accused namely Joginder Singh and Jasbir Singh opened the attack one by one. The injuries on the person of Joginder Singh accused have been explained by all the witnesses and they had not concealed anything.

On the point of applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Mehbub Shah v. Emperor, A.I.R. (32) 1945 Privy Council 118 wherein it was held that for common intention there must be prearranged plan; that to convict the accused of an offence by application of Section 34 it should be proved that criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the prearranged plan and that care must be taken not to confuse same or similar intention with common intention. The way all the accused had emerged in the street clearly indicates that they had a pre arranged plan. The time of occurrence is 8.00 p.m. Partap Singh was present in the street and he was abusing and when Dalip Singh objected to it and enquired as to why he was abusing, he replied that he was abusing Faqir Singh and Sewa Singh and not him. Jasbir Singh armed with kirpan alongwith Joginder Singh came there together. Joginder Singh immediately took out knife from his left side dub and inflicted knife blow on the left flank of Kulwant Singh. He gave another knife blow on his back and when Kulwant Singh tried to run away, Jasbir Singh picked up kirpan and inflicted kirpan blow on the back of Kulwant Singh. After the receipt of kirpan blow from Jasbir Singh, Kulwant Singh fell down. It is thus, clear that Joginder Singh and Jasbir Singh had common intention to kill Kulwant Singh.

Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that no offence under Section 302 IPC is made out against the appellants and at the most applicability of exception 4 to Section 300 would come into play and in support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on Gian Singh & others v. State of Punjab, 1972 P.L.R. 974. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find no force in this contention. In the present case, there was no sudden quarrel. In the present case, due to civil litigation, Joginder Singh and Jasbir Singh had grievance against the complainant party. Both of them had attacked one by one. Therefore, there is common intention to cause harm to Kulwant Singh. Jasbir Singh armed with kirpan alongwith Joginder Singh came to the place of occurrence from their houses. Joginder Singh immediately took out knife from his left side dub and inflicted knife blow on the left flank of Kulwant Singh. He gave another knife blow on his back and when Kulwant Singh tried to run away, Jasbir Singh inflicted kirpan blow on his back. Therefore, offence under Section 302 IPC is made out against Joginder Singh and offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Jasbir Singh.

Mr. Sandhu was contended that there is tendency to implicate some persons in addition to the actual assailant by attributing to those persons an exhortation to the assailant to assault the victim. Mr. Sandhu has further contended that the evidence adduced at the trial in respect of Partap Singh is that he raised only lalkara. He further contended that when Kulwant Singh deceased was running to save his life, he was not stopped by Partap Singh appellant to facilitate Jasbir Singh to cause another blow to Kulwant Singh. He further contended that Partap Singh appellant also did not grapple with Kulwant Singh or Sewa Singh PWs. Mr. Sandhu Further contended that Partap Singh is entitled to be acquitted. In support of his argument, he has relied upon State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh and others, 1992(2) RCR 184 . We find force in this argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. Faqir Singh alongwith Kulwant Singh was present in the chowk near the house of Dalip Singh PW. Sewa Singh PW was also present and they were talking to each other. Partap Singh, according to the prosecution case, came there alone and he started abusing. Dalip Singh enquired from him as to why he was abusing. In reply, Partap Singh said that he was abusing Faqir Singh and Sewa Singh. Simultaneously, Jasbir Singh and Joginder Singh accused came there. Jasbir Singh was armed with kirpan and Joginder Singh took out his knife from his left side of dub and inflicted knife blow in the left flank of Kulwant Singh and another blow on his back. On the receipt of injury, Kulwant Singh tried to run away. According to the prosecution Partap Singh raised lalkara. Partap Singh did not try to catch hold of Kulwant Singh when he was trying to run away to save his life. Partap Singh also did not grapple with Sewa Singh when Sewa Singh was trying to grapple with Joginder Singh accused in order to snatch his knife. In view of the above circumstances, Partap Singh cannot be held guilty for the offences under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code Sections 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

In view of the above discussion, Cr.A.No. 280 DB of 1992 filed by Joginder Singh is dismissed. Crl.A.No. 271 DB of 1992 is dismissed qua Jasbir Singh appellant but it is allowed qua Partap Singhappellant and Partap Singh appellant is acquitted of the charges.