HATTI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We will be deciding both Criminal Appeal Nos.156-DB of 2001 and 156-DB of 2001 (Arms Act) as they arise out of a common judgment/order. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar dated 5.2.2001/7.2.2001, whereby he convicted the appellant Hatti Singh under Sections 302, 364 and 201 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo various terms of sentences.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PH of Rajbir Singh given to Nihal Singh SI/SHO, Police Station Narnaund on 23.7.1995 at 3.30 P.M. in Police Station Narnaund. Rajbir Singh has stated, that he is an agriculturist by profession. He has three brothers. Umed is the eldest and rest are younger to him. All the brothers live separately. Umed had two Maruti vans. He used to park them at Taxi Stand, Hansi, so that he could let them out on hire basis. On 11.7.1995 Umed came to the Taxi Stand at Hansi on a Maruti Van, bearing registration No.DDA/3665. Till 23.7.1995, Umed had not come back with the van. On 22.7.1995 Rajbir Singh came to know that a Maruti van was found abandoned on the road leading from village Bass to Puthi. The engine of the van was lying on the ground, which had been taken into possession by the police of Police Station Narnaund. Rajbir Singh went to the police station and found that the van was that of his brother Umed. There was blood inside the van. The blood was covered with soil. No proof regarding his brother could be found. Rajbir Singh suspected that some unknown persons, had taken away his brother Umed Singh, with the intention to kill him. The appearance of his brother Umed was as follows:- Wheatish colour, stout body, height approximately 5' -6", aged 35 years, wearing pants and shirt of blue colour with white strips and he is putting a small beard. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PH/1 was recorded on 23.7.1995 at 3.30 P.M. and the special report reached the J.M.I.C. Hansi on 23.7.1995 at 5.30 P.M. Prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box HC Puran Singh as PW1, C.Satyawan as PW2, C.Jagbir Singh as PW3, C.Naresh Kumar as PW4, Photographer Raj Kumar as PW5, Patwari Suraj Mal as PW6, Asstt.Constable Sham Sunder as PW7, C.Dalbir Singh as PW8, complainant Rajbir as PW9, Ram Kishan as PW10, Balwan Singh as PW11, Dr.Basant Lal Sirohiwal as PW12, Jai Singh as PW13, SI Madan Lal as PW14, Davinder Singh as PW15, ASI Ishwar Singh as PW16, ASI Prem Chand as PW17, ASI Santa Singh as PW18, HC Ved Singh as PW19 and SI Nihal Singh as PW20.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that two last seen witnesses i.e. Ram Kishan PW10 and Balwan Singh PW11 are not truthful witnesses and cannot be relied upon. Ram Kishan PW10 could not give the taxi number and as to the reason why he went to Haridwar and came back after two weeks. Ram Kishan PW10 kept quiet for two weeks without reporting the matter to any relative. No test identification parade was held. Appellant has been identified in Court only. Balwan Singh PW11 is a relative of the deceased. He has stated that he had taken a lift in the taxi. He gave his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC on 26.7.1995. No explanation has been given by this witness as to why he also kept quiet for a number of days. In the inquest report, the colour of the shirt has been given as green colour having red and blue strips, while in FIR Ex.PH/1, the colour of the shirt has been given as blue with white strips. Both these witnesses kept quiet for a number of days, though there must have been a hue and cry of the disappearance of Umed Singh. Jai Singh PW13 has not identified the body of the deceased properly.