Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appellant found guilty of offence of murder beyond reasonable doubts - held, appellant rightly convicted under section 302. - indian penal code, 1890 sections 300,149 & 307: [dr. arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] murder -unlawful assembly -common object -incident taking place out of election rivalry -accused had set up his candidate - on polling day accused initially dissuading voters from voting for rival candidate - subsequently resorting to rowdism to disturb poll - on being asked by deceased not to do so accused exhorting other accused to teach him lesson - accused taking out hidden pistol and firing at deceased causing fatal injury - other accused not assaulting deceased but causing simple injuries to others - other accused never knew that accused was armed held, common object of assembly was not to commit murder. conviction of accused alone for murder is proper. alteration of conviction of other accused from sections 307,149 to sections 323,149 is also proper. - the conviction has been built on circumstantial evidence which the trial court as well as the high court have considered sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant......m.p. thakkar, j.1. the appellant has been found guilty of the murder of his uncle hardit singh. the conviction has been built on circumstantial evidence which the trial court as well as the high court have considered sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant. the evidence of p.w. 4 des raj who was working in his field at about 5 or 5.30 p.m. shows he had seen the deceased going on a cycle towards burj raika with a 'jhola'. he had witnessed appellant, buta singh and avtar singh having a quarrel with the deceased. the appellant had a kirpan with him at that time. the evidence of p.w. 5 jagdev singh shows that at about 7.00 p.m. when he was returning to his home from his fields he had seen appellant gian singh armed with a kirpan and holding a cycle in his hand. when pw 4 saw the appellant he had no cycle. when pw 5 saw him later on, he had a cycle. there is also evidence regarding the recovery made at the instance of the appellant. the cycle which has been proved to be the cycle belonging to the deceased was recovered in the wake of the disclosure statement made by the appellant. a kirpan, a shirt, a pajama and a small stick were also recovered at the