SHISHU PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been instituted against the judgment dated 27.10.2004 and order dated 30.10.2004 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, in Sessions case no. 11 of 05.03.2003/25.10.2001 whereby all the appellants were charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and appellant Harpal Singh was charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act also. All the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 read with Section 120-B IPC. Appellant Harpal Singh was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences of appellant Harpal Singh were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 06.07.2001 PW Inspector Jai Singh (then Sub Inspector) accompanied by PW ASI Ishwar Singh besides other police officials were patrolling the area. PW Rajeev Mohan Rai met him. He got his statement Ex.PH recorded to the effect that he was resident of Model Town, Ambala City. He was working as Medical Representative. He along with his brother, parents and children resided together. At the time of partition of the country, his father was a freedom fighter. Since 1947, Mehtab Singh was friend of his father. He used to reside at village Dukheri. He was also a freedom fighter. His uncle Mehtab Singh was unmarried. He owned about 11 acres of land besides other property at village Dukheri. He was fed up from his family members. He was residing with them since 1995. He used to offer prayers in the morning as well as in the evening. A few days back, Mehtab Singh had won a civil suit. He had gone to effect munadi in village Dukheri on 04.07.2001. On the previous evening, i.e. on 05.07.2001 at about 8.45/9.00 P.M., there was a lunar eclipse. The family members were performing pooja. There was a knock at the door. Two young boys enquired about Mehtab Singh. Mehtab Singh came out. He did not know those boys. The boys told that they were sent by Mukesh. Mehtab Singh asked them to see him on the next day. On the date of occurrence at about 9.00 A.M. those two boys again came to their house. They enquired about Mehtab Singh. Their father M.M. Rai was also present. His father enquired as to from where they had come. They told that they had come from Paniala (U.P.). Mehtab Singh did not meet them. Mehtab Singh left the place by stating that he had some work in the Court and thereafter he had to meet someone in the jail and thereafter he was free. At about 3.00 P.M. an information was received that somebody had shot dead Mehtab Singh near house of A.L. Malik situated in Model Town. Rajeev Mohan Rai accompanied by his brother Sanjeev and other family members reached the spot. Many people gathered at the spot. PW SI Jai Singh made endorsement Ex.PH/2 on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PH/1 was recorded by ASI Suraj Bhan. Police party reached the spot. Inquest report was prepared. Blood stained earth and pellets found near dead body were lifted and converted into parcels and sealed with seal 'JS'. These were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PM. The body was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem was conducted. The articles recovered from the spot were deposited with MHC. Accused were arrested. They made disclosure statements. Investigation was completed. Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) The prosecution examined a number of witnesses. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of prosecution. The appellants examined three witnesses in their defence. The appellants were convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.