RAJBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by appellant Rajbir Singh complainant the son of deceased Om Parkash against the judgment dated 19.12.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide which respondents No.2 to 5 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short).

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this prosecution are that on 25.09.2004 Om Parkash the father of complainant/appellant Rajbir Singh had gone to attend a 'Rally' at Fatehabad and had returned at 07:30 p.m. After having his dinner he went to sleep on a cot in the courtyard near the western gate of their house. The complainant had gone to their poultry farm in their field and slept there. On 26.09.2004 at 07:00 a.m., his parental uncle came to the field and informed him that his father has been murdered. When he returned to the house he saw that his father was having injuries on the right side of his head, forehead and injury marks on the back side of the neck as well as on his private parts. Surjeet Singh informed the complainant that his father's dead body was lying in 'Hathi Park' and they had brought it under impression that he had suffered the heart attack. When he checked the pocket of his father he found a piece of paper which contained a writing that "Har Singh son of Basti Ram Jodhpuria, Jai Narain son of Hari Singh Jodhpuria, Mukesh Kumar son of Gian Parkash Bansudhar, Umesh Chander son of Gian Parkash Bansudhar had together got him killed and they were responsible for his death". It is further alleged that in the previous plan, Hari Singh was the Sarpanch and he had given the village pond on lease to Mukesh Kumar for fishery for a period of five years and Hari Singh's son was a partner with Mukesh. The lease had expired on 28.08.2004. On 24.09.2004 Jai Narain, Hari Singh, Mukesh and Umesh were removing fishes from the pond. On receiving information deceased asked them to stop and a verbal altercation had taken place. The aforesaid persons threatened to teach a lesson to his father. He had brought his father back to his house. This incident was witnessed by Raja Ram son of Devi Lal, his parental uncle along with Kanshi Ram son of Chet Ram and the complainant was fully convinced that aforesaid persons had induced his father to go to 'Hathi Park' where they had murdered him. On the complaint made by appellant Rajbir Ex.PB the present case was registered. The postmortem examination was got conducted on the dead body of Om Parkash. After conducting the investigation, the police filed the cancellation report but the complainant filed the protest petition, on the basis of which cognizance was taken and respondents No.2 to 5 were summoned vide order dated 14.08.2010. On procuring their presence the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial vide order dated 05.07.2012. Respondents No.2 to 5 were charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses.