PAWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid appeal is instituted against the judgment dtd. 8/12/2009 and order dtd. 14/12/2009, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, in Session Case Nos. 38 and 39 of 2007. Appellants Pawan, Mukesh @ Kera and Pardeep were charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC and Sec. 25 / 27 of the Arms Act. The appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 each under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. Appellants Pardeep and Mukesh were further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 each under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for fifteen days. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that PW2 Hawa Singh lodged the report, Ex.PB, to the effect that he had three sons. The name of eldest son was Suresh. Suresh was followed by Ramesh and Naresh. They were residing separately. The complainant and his wife were residing with Naresh. On the night prior to 18/8/2006, the complainant was present at the house of Naresh at about 10.45 P.M. when Suresh and his son Rajesh came there. Suresh informed the complainant that at around 9.30/ 10.00 P.M., accused Pardeep son of Ran Singh along with two other young boys had come to his house on motorcycle. When Rajesh asked him, who were they, accused Pardeep told that they were his Khasams. Accused Pardeep along with two other boys sat on a cot lying in open place behind the house. Suresh also sat with them. He talked with accused Pardeep about his sister Rimpy. Suresh saw a pistol in the hands of accused Pardeep due to which Suresh and his son on the excuse of drinking water went away from there. He reached to the complainant. The complainant made a telephonic call to the police but it could not be connected. The complainant along with his son Suresh, grandson Rajesh and son Naresh started together for leaving Suresh and Rajesh to their house. He was carrying a torch in his hands. Suresh was ahead of all of them. When they reached near the turning point of Phirni, one motorcycle came from the front side. The motorcycle was being driven by accused Pardeep and two persons were sitting as pillion riders. Accused Pardeep exhorted that Suresh had come and take care of him. Suresh turned back and started running and while running, his shoe was left at the place. Accused Pardeep was carrying a pistol. He got down from the motorcycle. He started chasing Suresh. The complainant and his son Naresh and grandson Rajesh also started running behind them. When Suresh reached near the house of Ran Singh son of Chandgi, accused Pardeep fired two shots from his pistol. The bullets hit son of the complainant, Suresh. He fell down. Pistol of accused Pardeep fell down at the spot. He along with other two accused managed to flee on the motorcycle. Suresh died at the spot. Police reached the spot. The rough site plan was prepared. Post-mortem examination was got conducted. The cause of death was haemorrhage and shock as a result of fire arm injury. The injury was ante-mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in the normal course of life. Blood stained earth was lifted from the place of occurrence. One country made pistol of .315'' bore was taken into possession, which was lying near the dead-body of Suresh. The accused were arrested. They made disclosure statements, Ex.PM, Ex.PJ and Ex.PN. Investigation was completed and challan was put up after completion of all the codal formalities.

(3.) The prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the accused were also recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. According to them, they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. They examined two witnesses in their defence. They were convicted and sentenced, as noticed above. Hence, the present appeal.