Manjit Singh @ Toti vs State of Punjab

S.S. Kang, J.

Manjit Singh alias Toti has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated October 4, 1983, passed by Shri M.L. Merechea, Sessions Judge Amritsar, whereby he has convicted him under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

The facts given rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are that Kahan Singh, Assa Singh and Makhan Singh, are brothers. They live and cultivate the land separately. Manjit Singh alias Toti, appellant, and Avtar Singh are sons of Kahan Singh. Previously, Assa Singh and Kahan Singh owned the tubewell jointly. There used to be disputes over the irrigation of the land and regarding payment of bills. On the intervention of the village respectables, the parties reached a settlement, which was reduced into writing. Accordingly to this settlement, the Kotha of the tubewell and the bore fell to the share of Kahan Singh. The electric motor and the connection went to the share of Assa Singh. The latter installed a new tubewell. As a result thereof Kahan Singh used to purchase water from Assa Singh. Occasionally he used to withhold the payment. Assa Singh stopped giving water to Kahan Singh a few days prior to the occurrence, which took placed on May 15, 1983. On that day, Assa Singh along with his son Surta Singh left their house for tubewell. It was 445 p.m. The tubewell of Bachan Kaur falls on the way. She also accompanied Assa Singh, because she wanted to have a round of her garden, which was on the side of Assa Singh''s tubewell. When they wee passing through the garden of Tarlok Singh, Assa Singh started taking water from the handpump installed near the Smadh of Baba Zindgiwalla. Surta Singh and Bachan Kaur proceeded ahead. They both had covered a distance of 10 Karams. At that time Kahan Singh and Avtar Singh, accused, armed with daters and Manjit Singh, accusedappellant, armed with a barchha emerged there. Kahan Singh asked his companions to surround Surta Singh and he be taught a lesson for stopping the supply of water. Surta Singh tried to slip away. Avtar Singh obstructed Surta Singh and exhorted Manjit Singh to attack. On this, Manjit Singh gave a barchha blow thrust wise in the left side of the chest of Surta Singh. On receipt of this injury, Surta Singh fell down and died at the spot Makhan Singh and Balkar Singh were attracted to the scene of occurrence. On the noise raised by them, the assailants ran away with their respective weapons. Assa Singh went to the police station to lodge the Singh was recorded by Hukam Singh, Assistant SubInspector of Police Station Sultanwind. Hukam Singh accompanied Assa Singh to the spot. Balkar Singh and Makhan Singh were guarding the dead body. Hukam Singh prepared the inquest report and send the dead body for postmortem examination. He also took into possession the blood stained earth form the spot. Manjit Singh was arrested. He in consequence of his disclosure statement led to the recovery of a barchha (Exhibit P10), which was taken into possession by the police.

The immediate motive for the attack was that Assa Singh had stopped giving further supply of water to Kahan Singh, accused, a few days prior to the present occurrence.

The learned trial Judge extended benefit of doubt to Kahan Singh and Avtar Singh and acquitted them. He, however, convicted and sentenced Manjit Singh, as mention in the opening part of the judgment.

Assa Singh and Bachan Kaur have made consistent statement regarding the infliction of injury by the appellant to Surta Singh. No contradiction infirmity has been pointed out in their statement. The evidence or recovery of barchha is also not shaken in crossexamination. The prosecution evidence convincingly establishes that Manjit Singh alias Toti caused a barchha blow to Surta Singh, resulting his immediate death. The question then arises as to what is the offence committed Surta Singh and Manjit Singh are first cousins. There was no serious enmity between the parties. The dispute regarding tubewell had been amicably settled. Manjit Singh had thus no intention to cause the death of his cousin Surta Singh.

The occurrence had taken place all of a sudden. Manjit Singh is a village rustic aged about suggest that the intended to cause the very injury which he caused or he intended to cause an injury, which is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. Only one blow had been hurled at the victim and that unfortunately landed on his chest. The appellant is thus guilty of committing culpable homicide, not amounting to murder.

Consequently, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and instead convict him under section 304, Part 1, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two years. The entire amount of fine, if realised, shall be paid to the legal heirs of Surta Singh deceased. The conviction and sentence u/s 25 Arms Act is maintained.

JUDGMENT accodingly.