BALJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been instituted against the judgment and order dated 14.09.2004 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, in Sessions Case no.48 of 2002/2004 whereby the appellants were charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 / 34 Indian Penal Code (in short ' IPC '). The appellants were convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that PW-3 Kuldip Singh had lodged the report with SI Sowaran Singh on 25.06.2002 to the effect that his father Bur Singh had retired from service in 1989. He was running a shop of motor repair at Bus Stand Sohal. Bur Singh used to sleep on the first floor of the shop. On 24.06.2002 he went to see his father in the evening at about 8.00 P.M. Thereafter he went to sleep at his tubewell. On the next morning, he went to the shop of his father Bur Singh along with his bedding to place it on the first floor. He found the door of the chobara open. It was dark inside. The feet of his father were naked. He asked his father why he had not come to take bath on the tubewell. Thereafter, he removed blanket from the face of his father. He found his body in a pool of blood. There were injuries on the face, neck and chest. There was one electric bulb in the chobara. The electric bulb was removed and placed on the floor. He informed his brother Hardip Singh and uncle Charan Singh. Police visited the spot. Inquest report Ex.PC was prepared. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The police took into possession one electric bulb after getting the finger prints developed from SI Karanjit Singh, Finger Print Expert. These were made into parcel and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SS'. The parcels were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PQ. Rough site plan Ex.PR was prepared. He recorded statements of witnesses. On 26.06.2002 he recorded the statement of Salwinder Singh PW wherein he deposed that on 24.06.2002 he heard the conversation between the accused. According to him, Baljinder Singh said to Balwinder Singh that now Bur Singh will repair motors in heaven and now Balwinder Singh would have good work. He stopped his bicycle and asked what they were doing. The accused told him that they were planning to take liquor. On 16.07.2002 ASI Talwinder Kumar had taken the moulds of both the accused in the Court and had taken the mobile into possession vide memo Ex.PH. Specimen fingerprints of the accused were also taken by ASI Talwinder Kumar. Specimen fingerprints are Ex.PJ and Ex.PK. 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 produced one witnesse in support of their case. The appellants were convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence the appeal.