Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2239 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2006-05-18

MEHTAB S.GILL, T.P.S.MANN

body2006
Judgment MEHTAB S. GILL, J. 1. We will be deciding Criminal Appeal Nos.601-DB of 2004, 611-DB of 2004 and 795-DB of 2004, as they arise out of the same judgment/order. 2. Learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide judgment/order dated 20.5.2004/22.5.2004 convicted Mohinder Singh, Nachhatar Singh son of bachan Singh, Jaspal Singh son of Joginder Singh, Sukhpal Singh son of joginder Singh, Baldev Singh son of Malhan Singh and Nachhatar Singh son of Mal Singh under Sections 302, 323, 427, 148 and 120-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo various terms. They were directed to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to undergo further RI for one year. Mohinder singh was further convicted under Sec.27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo further RI for six months. 3. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement ex. PW21/a given by Paramjit Singh to Inspector Harcharan Singh on 19.3.1999 at 10.15 P. M. at Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, ludhiana (hereinafter called DMC Ludhiana ). Paramjit Singh stated that he is an agriculturist by profession. About one year back, Major Singh son of bachan Singh, Jat, resident of Issapur Landa was murdered for which he (Paramjit Singh), his father Jeon Singh and his brother Sukhwinder Singh were challaned. Paramjit Singh was bailed out after some time in that case, whereas Jeon Singh and Sukhwinder Singh were still confined in the sangrur Jail. On 19.3.1999 Paramjit Singh along with his son Kulwinder singh (aged about 6 years), his nephew Jagdev Singh (aged about 10 years), his relative Bikkar Singh son of Jora Singh and Mewa Singh son of Madho singh were going to Sangrur Jail to visit his father and brother in a Maruti car No. HR-06a-0970. After meeting his father and brother, all of them were coming back to their village Issapur Landa. At about 1.30 P. M. when they were about 1 kilometer ahead of village Ghanauri Kalan while Bikkar singh was sitting by his side and Mewa Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Jagdev singh were sitting on the rear seat, a truck bearing No. HNH 9775 driven by sukhpal Singh was seen coming from the side of village Katron. On seeing their car, Sukhpal Singh hit the truck against their car on which the car dashed against a Kikkar tree and stopped. On seeing their car, Sukhpal Singh hit the truck against their car on which the car dashed against a Kikkar tree and stopped. Mohinder Singh armed with a dbbl gun, Nachhattar Singh son of Bachan Singh armed with an iron rod, jaspal Singh armed with an iron rod, Sukhpal Singh armed with an iron rod, baldev Singh armed with an iron rod and two other unknown persons also armed with iron rods, who could not be recognized came out of the truck. Mohinder Singh raised a lalkara saying "let us take revenge for the murder of their brother Major Singh and also they should be taught a lesson for pursuing the case". Mohinder Singh and Sukhpal Singh took Paramjit singh out of the car, while the other persons took out Bikkar Singh and mewa Singh and dragged them to a wheat field nearby. Nachhattar Singh gave a blow of his iron rod to Bikkar Singh which hit on his face. Jaspal singh gave a blow of his iron rod to Mewa Singh which hit on his head. Mohinder Singh also gave blows with the butt of his gun. Nachhattar Singh and Baldev Singh continued giving blows with their iron rods on the head and face of Bikkar Singh. Jaspal Singh and the other two unknown persons continued giving blows with their respective rods on the head and face of mewa Singh. Sukhpal Singh with his iron rod hit Paramjit Singh on the forehead. Mohinder Singh gave a blow of the butt of his gun on the right side of the chest of Paramjit Singh. As Bikkar Singh, Mewa Singh and paramjit Singh had fallen down, the appellants left them to be dead and mohinder Singh said that now the children should also die. All of them then gave blows with their respective weapons to Kulwinder Singh and jagdev Singh, who were sitting on the rear seat of the car. The car was then damaged by hitting the truck against it. In the meantime, Inderjit Singh, resident of Ghanauri Kalan came there. On seeing him, all the persons mentioned above ran away to the fields, leaving the truck at the place of occurrence. Inderjit Singh attended to them and found that Bikkar Singh and Mewa Singh had already died. He stopped a tempo and took them to civil Hospital, Dhuri. In the meantime, Inderjit Singh, resident of Ghanauri Kalan came there. On seeing him, all the persons mentioned above ran away to the fields, leaving the truck at the place of occurrence. Inderjit Singh attended to them and found that Bikkar Singh and Mewa Singh had already died. He stopped a tempo and took them to civil Hospital, Dhuri. The injured then were referred to Dayanand Medical college and Hospital, Ludhiana. On the basis of this statement, FIR ex. PW21/c was registered in Police Station Sherpur on 20.3.1999 at 12.50 a. M. The special report reached JMIC Dhuri on 20.3.1999 at 5 A. M. 4. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box dr. Vijay Jindal as PW1, Dr. Ashok Raswant as PW2, Dr. Ashwarya Mehra as pw3, Dr. Ravinder Pal Singh as PW4, Dr. Amit Sharma as PW5, Balbir singh as PW6, H. C. Bakshish Singh as PW7, Constable Jasbir Singh as pw8, Paramjit Singh as PW9, Bahadur Singh as PW10, Naresh Gupta as pw11, Jagdev Singh as PW12, Kewal Singh as PW13, Subhash Chand as pw14, Constable Gurcharan Singh as PW15, ASI Amrik Singh as PW16, asi Iqbal Singh as PW17, ASI Baldev Singh as PW18, H. C. Ajit Singh as pw19, Bahadur Singh as PW20, H. C. Balwinder Singh as PW21, Krishan lal as PW22, Kulwant Singh as PW23, Inspector Harcharan Singh as pw24, Constable Jagdish Singh as PW25, Mahavir Parshad as PW26, Avtar singh as PW27, Inspector Darshan Singh as PW28, Dr. Ghanendra Mishra as PW29 and Surjit Singh Ahlmad as PW30. Mr. A. S. Jattana, learned counsel for appellants Mohinder Singh, jaspal Singh, and Sukhpal Singh has argued that there is a delay in lodging the FIR. This delay was utilized to falsely implicate the appellants. In fact it is a case of an accident, which was later on converted into a homicidal case and the charge of murder was falsely foisted on the appellants. The occurrence had taken place at 1.30 P. M. on 19.3.1999. Statement ex. PW21/a of Paramjit Singh was recorded at 10.15 P. M. at Dayanand medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana (in short "d. M. C. Ludhiana" ). FIR ex. PW21/c was recorded at 12.50 A. M. on 20.3.1999 and the special report reached the JMIC Ludhiana on the same day at 5 A. M. Distance between police Station Sherpur and JMIC Dhuri is 15 Kms. FIR ex. PW21/c was recorded at 12.50 A. M. on 20.3.1999 and the special report reached the JMIC Ludhiana on the same day at 5 A. M. Distance between police Station Sherpur and JMIC Dhuri is 15 Kms. Distance between the place of occurrence and Police Station Sherpur is 5 to 7 Kms. Paramjit singh PW9 in his testimony before the Court has stated that, he along with other injured persons went to Civil Hospital, Dhuri. It is thereafter that they were referred at 4 P. M. on 19.3.1999 to DMC Ludhiana. The Investigating officer Harcharan Singh Inspector PW24, has in his testimony before the court stated, that he received the information at 4 P. M. on 19.3.1999 He went to Civil Hospital, Dhuri where he could not find any one from the complainant party. It is thereafter he went to DMC Ludhiana and recorded the statement of Paramjit Singh at 10.15 P. M. Ruqqa Ex. PF was sent by dr. V. K. Jindal PW1 at 2.15 P. M. Bahadur Singh PW10 the photographer had reached the place of occurrence at 2.30 P. M. on 19.3.1999 and when he reached there, the police was present. It is clear from this, that the investigating Officer Harcharan Singh Inspector PW24 was not telling the truth. In fact he had come to know about the accident between 1.30 P. M. to 3 P. M. The Investigating Officer Harcharan Singh PW24 along with paramjit Singh PW9 and the complainant party were discussing as to who to falsely implicate in this accident. Statement of Paramjit Singh PW9 or that of Inderjit Singh could have been recorded much before 10.15 P. M. on 19.3.1999. Recording of the statement of the complainant was deliberately delayed so that a false story could be built up. Dr. V. K. Jindal PW1 has stated that Paramjit Singh PW9 was fully conscious throughout. In ruqqa ex. PL, it has been mentioned that Paramjit Singh PW9 was admitted in dmc Ludhiana on 19.3.1999 at 10 P. M. Similarly, in ruqqa Ex. PN sent to police Station Sherpur on 20.3.1999 by the S. M. O. ,d. M. C. , Ludhiana, it has been mentioned that Jagdev Singh PW12 has been admitted in the hospital, in an injured condition and it is intimated that he was fit to make a statement. The delay in fact in recording the statements Ex. PN sent to police Station Sherpur on 20.3.1999 by the S. M. O. ,d. M. C. , Ludhiana, it has been mentioned that Jagdev Singh PW12 has been admitted in the hospital, in an injured condition and it is intimated that he was fit to make a statement. The delay in fact in recording the statements Ex. PW21/a of paramjit Singh PW9, Jagdev Singh PW12 and Inderjit Singh was done only to build up a false case. A number of prosecution witnesses i. e. H. C. Bakshish Singh PW7, Bahadur Singh PW10 the photographer, dr. V. K. Jindal PW1 in Ex. PF, Amrik Singh ASI PW16, Dr. Amit Sharma pw5 in ruqqa Ex. PU and Dr. Ashwarya Mehra PW3, have all stated that it was a case of accident. 5. Dr. V. K. JINDAL PW1 in his testimony has stated that deceased mewa Singh and Bikkar Singh as per the police papers had died at 4.30 p. M. on 19.3.1999. In PMR Ex. PF,it has also been mentioned that Bikkar singh had died at 4.30 P. M. This has been contradicted by Paramjit Singh pw9 and Jagdev Singh PW12, who have stated in their testimony before the court that both Mewa Singh and Bikkar Singh died at the spot. In DDR no.40 Ex. DA, the name of the deceased is not mentioned, name of the appellants is not mentioned and weapons of offence are also not mentioned. DDR in fact gives a blank account of the occurrence, for the sole reason that it was actually a case of accident. The motive for falsely implicating the appellants is very strong. After the accident had taken place the complainant party in connivance with the police built up a story to falsely implicate the appellants. The houses of the appellants and the complainant party are opposite to each other. Paramjit Singh PW9 was on bail for the last six months. No untoward incident took place during this period. Appellants could have eliminated Paramjit Singh PW9, who was their main target, very easily as they could watch his movement day in and day out. Deceased bikkar Singh was a senior member of the Akali Party. He was very close to mr. Gobind Singh Kanjla, who was a Minister in the Government. It is on the influence of Gobind Singh Kanjla that the investigating agency moved in a direction to implicate the appellants. Deceased bikkar Singh was a senior member of the Akali Party. He was very close to mr. Gobind Singh Kanjla, who was a Minister in the Government. It is on the influence of Gobind Singh Kanjla that the investigating agency moved in a direction to implicate the appellants. The Investigating Officer harcharan Singh Inspector PW24 deliberately converted a case of accident between a truck and car into that of murder. 6. Mr. ARIHANT Jain, learned counsel for Baldev Singh appellant adopting the arguments of Shri A. S. Jattana, Advocate has argued that appellant Baldev Singh has been falsely implicated, as he is the son-in-law of appellant Mohinder Singh. No recovery of iron rod has been made from him. Recovery of iron rods have allegedly been made from appellants jaspal Singh and Nachhattar Singh only. 7. Mr. GAUTAM Dutt, learned counsel for appellant Nachhattar singh son of Bachan Singh, adopted the arguments of Shri A. S. Jattana, advocate and pleaded that appellant has been falsely implicated. Mr. Vinod Ghai, learned counsel for appellant Nachhattar Singh son of Mal Singh adopted the arguments put forth by Shri A. S. Jattana, advocate. He further added that appellant Nachhattar Singh son of Mal singh has not been named in the FIR. Inspector Harcharan Singh PW24 in his testimony before the Court has stated that appellant Nachhatar Singh son of Mal Singh was named by one Bachan Singh of Ghanauri Kalan. Appellant Nachhattar Singh was interrogated, but nothing was recovered from him. Bachan Singh, the person, who had named Nachhattar Singh in the conspiracy, was not produced. The other witnesses, who deposed against appellant Nachhattar Singh, is Bahadur Singh PW20. He has stated about the conspiracy, but this witness is a police tout. He has a number of cases pending against him. In number of cases, he has been convicted and in some acquitted. Bahadur Singh PW20 is an unreliable witness. He has stated that he had come from a distance of 55 Kms. for the construction of the house of appellant Nachhattar Singh son of Mal Singh. It is strange that this witness was ready to travel 110 Kms. to go to the house of Nachhatar Singh. Bahadur Singh PW20 identified the appellant in Court. This identification did not have any value, as he has stated that he had seen the appellant in court earlier. Nachhattar Singh in his statement under Sec.313 Cr. It is strange that this witness was ready to travel 110 Kms. to go to the house of Nachhatar Singh. Bahadur Singh PW20 identified the appellant in Court. This identification did not have any value, as he has stated that he had seen the appellant in court earlier. Nachhattar Singh in his statement under Sec.313 Cr. PC has stated that he had a truck attached with the union at Dhanaula. Appellant Sukhpal Singh was his driver. Sukhpal Singh had taken the truck in his absence from the truck union. It is on the next date of occurrence that appellant Sukhpal Singh had told him that the truck had met with an accident. 8. Learned counsel for the State has argued that it is not a case of accident, but that of homicide amounting to murder. The injuries on the person of Paramjit Singh PW9, Jagdev Singh PW12, deceased Mewa Singh, bikkar Singh and Kulwinder Singh are all lacerated wounds. The dimension of these injuries is about 1 inch each. In the case of an accident, apart from lacerated wounds, there would have been other injuries like contusions, abrasions and incised. Paramjit Singh PW9, deceased Bikkar singh and deceased Mewa Singh were taken out of the maruti car. Paramjit Singh PW9 was inflicted injuries. Mewa Singh and Bikkar Singh were taken nearby in the wheat fields and were inflicted injuries there with iron rods and the butt of the DBBL gun. 9. Dr. V. K. JINDAL PW1 has categorically stated in his testimony before the Court that he had on his own written in ruqqa Ex. PF regarding the accident. He did not enquire from any one nor he was told about any accident having taken place. He did not even consult Paramjit Singh PW9 as to how the injuries were inflicted. It is thereafter, that the other doctors also wrote it by mistake as being a case of accident. Dr. Ashwarya Mehra pw3 has stated that Paramjit Singh PW9 was conscious, but he at no stage stated that an accident had taken place. Dr. Amit Sharma PW5 has stated that the word accident has been encircled by mistake. 10. Learned counsel for the State has further argued that there is an aggravating circumstance in awarding death sentence to the appellants for the murder of Kulwinder Singh, a six years old child. Dr. Amit Sharma PW5 has stated that the word accident has been encircled by mistake. 10. Learned counsel for the State has further argued that there is an aggravating circumstance in awarding death sentence to the appellants for the murder of Kulwinder Singh, a six years old child. Appellants first tried to crush the maruti car of the complainant. As they were not successful in doing so they took them one by one out and inflicted injuries on their heads with iron rods. After committing the murders of Mewa Singh and Bikkar singh and injuring Paramjit Singh PW9, thinking them to be dead, they attacked Kulwinder Singh (six years old) and Jagdev Singh PW12 (13 years old ). The nature of injuries inflicted on these children are brutal and all are on the head region. Jagdev Singh PW12 was luckily saved. Appellants did not have any enmity with deceased Kulwinder Singh, a small child. Their enmity was with Mewa Singh, Bikkar Singh and injured Paramjit Singh PW9. There is no delay in the lodging of FIR Ex. PW21/c. The time taken from 1.30 P. M. on 19.3.1999 when the occurrence had taken place and the FIR being recorded at 12.15 A. M. on 20.3.1999, is only 11 hours. First Paramjit Singh PW9 and Jagdev Singh PW12 went to the Civil hospital, Dhuri. They were referred to DMC Ludhiana. The Investigating officer Harcharan Singh Inspector PW24, on reaching the Civil Hospital, dhuri learnt that Paramjit Singh PW9 and Jagdev Singh PW12 have been referred to DMC Ludhiana. Thereafter he went to DMC Ludhiana and recorded statement Ex. PW21/a of Paramjit Singh PW9 at 10.15 P. M. Special report reached the JMIC Dhuri on 20.3.1999 at 5 A. M. Recording of statement Ex. PW21/a, FIR Ex. PW21/c and the special report reaching the JMIC Dhuri was all being done at night time. There is no delay in lodging of the FIR. Three deaths had taken place. After recording of the statement Ex. PW21/a of Paramjit Singh PW9, the Investigating Officer harcharan Singh Inspector PW24 had to take care of the bodies of Mewa singh, Bikkar Singh and Kulwinder Singh also. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Three deaths had taken place. After recording of the statement Ex. PW21/a of Paramjit Singh PW9, the Investigating Officer harcharan Singh Inspector PW24 had to take care of the bodies of Mewa singh, Bikkar Singh and Kulwinder Singh also. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants is that it is a case of accident, which has been converted into a case of murder on the influence of a Minister in the Government at that time. Paramjit Singh PW9 in his testimony before the Court has stated that major Singh son of Bachan Singh, a close relative of appellants Mohinder singh, Nachhattar Singh, Jaspal Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Baldev Singh, was murdered. In that case, the father of Paramjit Singh PW9 and his brother Sukhwinder Singh were challaned. Paramjit Singh PW9 was on bail and both his father and brother were in the jail at Sangrur. He along with deceased Mewa Singh, Bikkar Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Jagdev Singh pw12 went to Sangrur Jail to meet his father and brother. While they were coming back, a truck bearing No. HNH/9775, which was being driven by appellant Sukhpal Singh came from the opposite side and deliberately hit the maruti car in order to crush it. Their maruti car struck the kikkar tree. Appellant Mohinder Singh was armed with a.12 bore gun. Nachhattar singh, Sukhpal Singh, Jaspal Singh and Baldev Singh were armed with iron rods. Appellants Mohinder Singh and Sukhpal Singh dragged Paramjit singh PW9 out of the maruti car. The other appellants dragged Mewa Singh and Bikkar Singh out from the maruti car. They were taken to the wheat fields where they were inflicted injuries with the butt of the gun and iron rods. On presuming that they had died, appellants then attacked Kulwinder singh and Jagdev Singh PW12. Thereafter Mohinder Singh told Sukhpal singh to drive the truck 2/3 times into the maruti car, so that the maruti car got damaged and that it looked like an accident had taken place. Inderjit singh came there and raised an alarm. Inderjit Singh took care of them. Mewa Singh and Bikkar Singh died at the spot. Inderjit Singh took paramjit Singh PW9, Kulwinder Singh and Jagdev Singh PW12 to Civil hospital, Dhuri in a tempo. Inderjit singh came there and raised an alarm. Inderjit Singh took care of them. Mewa Singh and Bikkar Singh died at the spot. Inderjit Singh took paramjit Singh PW9, Kulwinder Singh and Jagdev Singh PW12 to Civil hospital, Dhuri in a tempo. All three were then referred to DMC Ludhiana. Police came to DMC Ludhiana at 10 P. M. and statement Ex. PW21/a of paramjit Singh PW9 was recorded by the police at 10.15 P. M. Occurrence had taken place at 1.30 P. M. on 19.3.1999. Two persons i. e. Mewa Singh and Bikkar Singh were lying dead in the fields near the Maruti Car. The first and foremost concern of Inderjit Singh at that time was to save the lives of Paramjit Singh PW9, Kulwinder Singh and Jagdev Singh PW12. Dr. V. K. Jindal PW1, who examined Paramjit Singh PW9, Kulwinder Singh and Jagdev Singh PW12 at 2.30 P. M. on 19.3.1999, has stated that he sent ruqqa Ex. PF regarding arrival of the injured in the hospital on 19.3.1999 at 2.15 P. M. After examining them, he referred them to DMC Ludhiana. The investigating Officer Harcharan Singh Inspector PW24 has stated that on receiving information, he reached Civil Hospital, Dhuri and came to know that Paramjit Singh PW9 had been referred to DMC Ludhiana. He went to dmc Ludhiana and recorded statement Ex. PW21/a of Paramjit Singh PW9 at 10.15 P. M. FIR Ex. PW21/c was recorded at 12.15 AM on 20.3.1999 at police Station Sherpur and special report reached JMIC Dhuri on the same day at 5 A. M. We cannot overlook this fact that the Investigating Officer harcharan Singh Inspector PW24 had to visit the place of occurrence. There were two dead bodies lying out there. He had to record the statement of paramjit Singh PW9 in DMC Ludhiana. All this was being done at night time. Distance between Police Station Sherpur and the place of occurrence is 5 to 6 Kms. Distance between Police Station Sherpur and DMC Ludhiana is not less than 100 Kms. All this distance had to be covered and it is thereafter that FIR Ex. PW21/c was recorded. In fact there is no delay in lodging the FIR. It is prompt and by 5 A. M. on 20.3.1999 the special report had reached the safe hands of the JMIC Dhuri. 12. All this distance had to be covered and it is thereafter that FIR Ex. PW21/c was recorded. In fact there is no delay in lodging the FIR. It is prompt and by 5 A. M. on 20.3.1999 the special report had reached the safe hands of the JMIC Dhuri. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued vehemently that it is a case of accident. After scrutinizing these documents (rukkas sent by the doctors) and statements of Dr. V. K. Jindal PW1, Dr. Ashok Raswant pw2, Dr. Ashwarya Mehra PW3, Dr. Ravinder Pal Singh PW4 and Dr. Amit sharma PW5, it comes out that the word accident was inadvertently written at the first instance by Dr. V. K. Jindal PW1. It is thereafter that the other doctors mechanically, without inquiring or asking the injured, put the word accident on the rukkas. Dr. V. K. Jindal PW1 in his testimony before the court has categorically stated that it is correct that in the ruqqa Ex. PF the word accident is mentioned but these injuries are also taken as medico legal injuries. He has further stated that accidental injuries/medico legal injuries has been mentioned without inquiring from any relative or the person present there. At the time of sending ruqqa, he did not inquire about the injuries from any one. Ruqqa Ex. PF was recorded by him on his own accord without consulting Paramjit Singh PW9. He has further opined that it is incorrect that all the injuries on all the persons were result of accident. Similarly Dr. Ashwarya Mehra PW3 has stated, that as per the information supplied to him it was a case of accidental injuries. This was incorporated in ruqqa Ex. PL. This related to injuries on the person of Paramjit Singh pw9. Paramjit Singh PW9 was conscious at the time of admission. Dr. Ashwarya Mehra PW3 has not stated that he had inquired from Paramjit singh PW9 regarding as to how he had received those injuries though normally they inquired from the patient. 13. The injuries on the person of Paramjit Singh PW9, Jagdev singh PW12 and deceased Mewa Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Bikkar sikngh are all lacerated wounds on the head region. In cases of accident, such like injuries do not occur only in the head region. The victim will have different type of injuries all over his body. 13. The injuries on the person of Paramjit Singh PW9, Jagdev singh PW12 and deceased Mewa Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Bikkar sikngh are all lacerated wounds on the head region. In cases of accident, such like injuries do not occur only in the head region. The victim will have different type of injuries all over his body. Some will be the lacerated, some contusions and some abrasions. While going through the MLRs of Paramjit singh PW9 and Jagdev Singh PW12, the injuries were similar to that of mewa Singh, Bikkar Singh and Kulwinder Singh. All had lacerated wounds. Injuries on the person of Paramjit Singh PW9, Kulwinder Singh, Jagdev singh PW12, Mewa Singh and Bikkar Singh are reproduced as under:- Injuries of Paramjit Singh PW9 1. Lacerated wound 6 inches x 1 inch into scalp deep starting from middle of forehead near the hair line, extending laterally towards right side of scalp. Fresh bleeding was present, local tenderness and swelling was also present. Kept under observation and advised x-ray.2. Patient complaint of pain right side of chest. On examination no external mark of injury was present. Advised x-ray. Injuries of deceased Kulwinder Singh 1. Lacerated wound 3 inches x 1 inch x bone deep over right side of forehead extending medially upward from lateral canthus of right eye. A depressed fracture of frontudder bone was seen. Fresh bleeding, cerebrospinal fluid leek was present.2. Lacerated wound 3 inches x 1 inch x bone deep in the left temporal region. A fracture of left temporal bone seen. Fresh bleeding was present.3. Lacerated wound 3 inches x 1 inch x scalp deep over the middle of forehead extending laterally upward from the root of the nose. Fresh bleeding present. Advised xray.4. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp deep about 1 cm above the injury no.1.5. Lacerated wound 4 cms x 1 cm x 0.5 cm over the palmer surface of left hand on the radial side.6. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.4 cm x.0.5 cm over the right side of face, one cm below the lower eyelid.7. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 4 cm x 0.5 cm over the left side of face. One cm below the left lower eyelid.8. Unnatural mobility of right forearm was present in the lower half. Advised x-ray. Injuries of Jagdev Singh PW12 1. Diffuse swelling over the posterior aspect of right hand. Advised x-ray.2. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 4 cm x 0.5 cm over the left side of face. One cm below the left lower eyelid.8. Unnatural mobility of right forearm was present in the lower half. Advised x-ray. Injuries of Jagdev Singh PW12 1. Diffuse swelling over the posterior aspect of right hand. Advised x-ray.2. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over the left side of face.1 cm below the left lower eyelid.3. Lacerated wound 6 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep over the left occipital region. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised x-ray.4. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1.2 cm x bone deep over the right occipital area. Advised x-ray. Injuries of deceased Mewa Singh 1. Lacerated wound 8 inch x 1 inch x bone deep over the right side of scalp, extending vertically upwards from the upper part of right ear pinna. On further dissection, depressed communited fracture of underlying bone was seen and bone fragments were lying in the wound. Right cerebral hemisphere was lacerated and there was haemotoma formation on the right side of crenial cavity.2. Lacerated wound 6 inches x one inch x bone deep over the right occipital region, about the behind the right ear pinna. On further dissection underlying bone was fractured and cerebral hemisphere was lacerated.3. Blood clots were in right nostril was present and there was present broken tooths (inciser canines) in the right upper jaw. Surrounding tissue was lacerated.4. Lacerated wound 4 inches x 1 inch x bone deep in the right temporal region, about 2 cm interior to injury no.1 and on further dissection, underlying bone was fractured and right cerebral hemisphere was fractured. Injuries of deceased Bikkar Singh 1. Lacerated wound 5.5 inches x 2 inches x 2.5 inches over the right forehead, right eye wall and right side of face. On further dissection, there was found fracture of frontal bone, right maxilla and right eye was completely damages. Right cerebral hemisphere was lacerated. There was haemotoma formation on the right side of cronial cavity.2. Lacerated wound 6 inches x 1.5 inches x bone deep over the temporal right region about 10 cm above the right ear pinna on further dissection underlying bone was fractured and right cerebral hemisphere was lacerated.3. Right cerebral hemisphere was lacerated. There was haemotoma formation on the right side of cronial cavity.2. Lacerated wound 6 inches x 1.5 inches x bone deep over the temporal right region about 10 cm above the right ear pinna on further dissection underlying bone was fractured and right cerebral hemisphere was lacerated.3. Lacerated wound 5 inches x 1 inch x bone deep over the right side of scalp about 2.5 cm above and anterior to right ear pinna. On further dissection underlying bone was fractured and right cerebral hemisphere was lacerated. 14. Dr. V. K. JINDAL PW1 has opined that the injuries on the person of the injured and deceased were possible by iron rods Ex. P12 and Ex. P13. He has further stated that in accident cases such type of injuries can be abrasions and bruises along with lacerations. Dr. Amit Sharma PW5 has in his testimony stated that he sent information Ex. PU regarding admission of jagdev Singh PW12 to Police Station Division No.3 Ludhiana. In Ex. PU the word accidental has been encircled. Medico legal word has not been encircled and it was by mistake. In Ex. PT regarding information of kulwinder Singh being sent to the police station, the word accidental was encircled, but was also due to mistake. The word accidental was scored off and the word medico legal was encircled. It is clear from the evidence of the doctors and injuries on the person of the deceased that they were given by iron rods. They were all hit on the head region so that their lives could be easily extinguished. Photographs Ex. PW8/1 to Ex. PW8/27 also show, that it is not a case of accident. But by hitting the truck in the Maruti car, the appellants have tried to mislead the investigating agency. The Maruti car has been completely smashed by hitting the truck against it several times. 15. Learned counsel for the State has argued that penalty of death should be awarded to the appellants. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that a running feud was going on between both the parties. Major Singh son of bachan Singh, a close relative of appellants Mohinder Singh, Sukhpal singh, Nachhattar Singh, Jaspal Singh and Baldev Singh, was murdered by paramjit Singh PW9 along with his father and brother. Paramjit Singh PW9 was on bail and his father and brother were in custody. Major Singh son of bachan Singh, a close relative of appellants Mohinder Singh, Sukhpal singh, Nachhattar Singh, Jaspal Singh and Baldev Singh, was murdered by paramjit Singh PW9 along with his father and brother. Paramjit Singh PW9 was on bail and his father and brother were in custody. It was due to this grudge that the appellants attacked the complainant party. Though two small children Jagdev Singh PW12, who was lucky to survive the attack and kulwinder Singh deceased were attacked. This act on the part of the appellants is highly deplorable. The little children did not have any enmity with the appellants. These children also became victims of the feud going on between the appellants and the complainant party. We cannot put the case in the category of rarest of the rare case. Appeal of the State on this count is dismissed. 16. Learned counsel for appellant Nachhattar Singh son of Mal singh has argued that the appellant is innocent. Bachan Singh the witness regarding conspiracy was not produced by the prosecution. Bahadur Singh pw20 the other witness is wholly unreliable. He has stated that he was working as a mason and had gone to the house of Jagar Singh to collect the labour charges. He has stated that appellants, told him that they were going to take revenge for the murder of Major Singh. Appellant Nachhattar Singh demanded Rs.2 lacs for the purpose of his truck being used. This witness in his cross-examination has admitted that a number of cases are pending against him under the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sherpur and police Station Dhillon. He has further stated that his village Raikot is at a distance of about 50 to 52 Kms from the village of the complainant. No mason will travel going and coming more than 100 Kms. to do a job. This witness is not reliable. In his statement under Sec.313 Cr. PC appellant nachhattar Singh son of Mal Singh has stated that appellant Sukhpal Singh was his driver, had taken his truck. A possible version has been given by this appellant, which we cannot overlook. Appeal No.611-DB of 2004 of nachhattar Singh son of Mal Singh is allowed. Appellant Nachhattar Singh son of Mal Singh is acquitted of all the charges framed against him.18. A possible version has been given by this appellant, which we cannot overlook. Appeal No.611-DB of 2004 of nachhattar Singh son of Mal Singh is allowed. Appellant Nachhattar Singh son of Mal Singh is acquitted of all the charges framed against him.18. Appeal No.601-DB of 2004 of Mohinder Singh son of Bachan singh, Nachhattar Singh son of Bachan Singh, Jaspal Singh son of Joginder singh, Sukhpal Singh son of Joginder Singh and Baldev Singh son of malhan Singh is dismissed as per the reasons already spelt out above. This case does not fall in the category of "rarest of rare case". So, Criminal appeal No.795-DB of 2004 filed by the State is also dismissed.