ISHAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been filed by the appellants, namely, Isham Singh, Hem Raj and Satish Kumar against their conviction under Sections 302/364/201/34 IPC in FIR No.2 dated 02.01.1996 registered at Police Station Pundri. The sentence awarded to the appellants is as under:-

(2.) As per the prosecution Hari Ram approached the police on 02.01.1996 and made a statement that on 31.12.1995, while he and his son Kanwar Bhan (the deceased) were working in their fields, he noticed that appellant Isham Singh-who was their neighbour, was also working in the adjoining fields. The deceased asked him to go to the village and at the same time, in his presence appellant Isham Singh told the deceased to accompany him to Pundri to get fuel for his motor cycle. Throughout the night the deceased did not come home and on the next date i.e. on 01.01.1996, the complainant accosted appellant Isham Singh who had first made a blanket denial saying that he had no idea where the deceased was. At that time Sat Pal PW-8, who happened to have seen the accused and the deceased on the motor cycle confronted appellant Isham Singh and told him that he had met them and even spoken to them. Thereafter Isham Singh retracted and said that they had gone together but he had dropped the deceased at village Jeetgarh Gamri and that thereafter he had no knowledge where the deceased had gone. The complainant accompanied by Sat Pal went to village Jeetgarh Gamri, but came to know that appellant Isham Singh and his son had not come to village Jeetgarh Gamri. It was then that the complainant started entertaining suspicion against appellant Isham Singh thinking that appellant Isham Singh had abducted his son for some nefarious purpose and that is why he made the report on 02.01.1996. The further case of the prosecution was that on 05.01.1996 the uncle (mother's brother of the deceased) was going to the police station Pundri in connection with the efforts to trace out the missing person and he met the SHO, who informed him that they were looking for the appellant Isham Singh. When they were going there they saw appellant Isham Singh and Hem Raj (who happens to be his brother-in-law) (coming on a motor cycle) near village Habri. They were stopped and separately interrogated and both independently made their disclosure statements regarding the location of the dead body near a ditch adjoining the canal near the Picholi head on the boundary of Gagsina village. Pursuant to that disclosure, the dead body was recovered. One strange fact which was noticed at that time was that the eye sockets of the deceased were empty and his eyeballs had been removed. Thereafter appellant Satish Kumar was apprehended and on his disclosure some burnt clothes and ash and a metal hook of the pant were recovered from the fields of appellant Isham Singh. When the post-mortem was conducted it was discovered that even the kidneys of the deceased, were removed.

(3.) Charges were framed against accused-appellants Isham Singh and Hem Raj under Sections 302/364/34 IPC, whereas charge under Section 201 IPC was framed against accused-appellant Satish Kumar.