M.L. Jain, J.
1. The case of the accused is that Dayanand Rana and his friend Sardool Singh used to write love letters to the daughter of their neighbour Lajpatrai Bansal and throw them in the staircase. One such letter fell into the hands of Padam Singh who gave it to the girl. She complained to her father who along with Ramgopal Rana father of Dayanand Rana went to the house of Padam Singh and reprimanded him. It is further their case that Dayanand and Sardool Singh threatened to deal with him. On the other hand, the case of the complainant is that Padam Singh used to tease the said girl to which Dayanand and his friend objected and this annoyed the accused persons. Whatever be the truth but it is certain that the parties were at loggerheads over this matter.
2. On 17-2-1980 Padam Singh accused appellant lodged a report with the Police Station Ashok Vihar at about 12.45 p.m. that Rana and one Sikh whose name he did not know gave him a beating. At the same time, the police received information that one Sardool Singh was admitted in a seriously injured condition in the Hindu Rao Hospital. Sardool Singh was even found unable to make any statement. Investigation showed that Sardool Singh had come to the house of his friend Rana and he had come out to see him off. At that time Padam Singh and his brother Tika Ram began to abuse Daya Nand Rana. Sardool Singh told Padam Singh that he was doing so for no reason. Tika Ram then said that since Sardool Singhwas a well-wisher of Dayanand, he will be dealt with first. Sardool Singh was then secured by Tika Ram and Padam Singh took out a Gupti from its sheeth and inflicted four injuries to Sardool Singh with it. The accused thereafter ran away from the scene. After investigation and trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted Padam Singh and Tika Ram under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and he also convicted Padam Singh under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Hence, this appeal.
3. Having heard the learned counsel and perusing the record, it is quite apparent that the victim Sardool Singh was attacked by Padam Singh without any rhyme or reason and if he had not been operated in time, the injuries would have certainly resulted in his death. He wanted to be clever by reporting the matter to the police first in time but truth could not be suppressed. thereforee, the appellant Padam Singh has been rightly convicted and there is no scope to interfere with these findings.
4. In respect of Tika Ram, his counsel pointed out that the involvement of Tika Ram was doubtful. The prosecution case was that all the four injuries to Sardool Singh were caused by Gupti by Padam Singh, while the witnesses Dayanand and Sardool Singh both alleged that two of the injuries were caused by Tika Ram and two were caused by Padam Singh. The learned trial Judge held that it was an improvement made by the witnesses. If that be so, then it is clearly established that the witnesses were not telling the truth and the involvement of Tika Ram in the murderous intention of his brother is extremely doubtful. It will not be appropriate to convict him only on the basis of exhortation or the alleged securing by him of Sardool Singh with Rana standing by. The appellant Tika Ram is entitled to the benefit of doubt. But the case against Padam Singh is proved beyond any manner of reasonable doubt and called for a severe sentence but looking to the circumstance that he was newly married the learned Addl. Sessions Judge awarded him only 31/2 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and for two years under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and directed that both the sentences will run concurrently. The sentences cannot be considered harsh from any point of view and call for no reduction.
5. I, thereforee, direct that the appeal of Tika Ram is accepted and his conviction and sentences are set aside. The appeal of Padam Singh is dismissed.