(1.) This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 18.03.2011 and order dated 23.03.2011 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, in Sessions Trial no.32 dated 03.09.2009 whereby the appellants were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 450, 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and under Sections 27 and 25 of the Arms Act. They have been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each, for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They have also been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each, for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. They have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each, for offence punishable under Section 450 read with Section 34 IPC. They have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, for offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. They have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months, for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar along with other officials were present in a government vehicle at village Dingsara on 10.03.2009. He received a wireless message that one Chhotu Ram of village Bodiwali was murdered while Raj Kumar son of Ram Sarup was admitted in Pahawa Hospital, Fatehabad, with fire arm injuries. Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar reached at the house of Chhotu Ram. Complainant Sudhir Kumar son of Chhotu Ram got recorded his statement to the police to the effect that at about 1.00 P.M. he, his father Chhotu Ram and Raj Kumar son of Ram Sarup were sitting in their house. In the meantime, accused Parhlad armed with a pistol, Pardeep alias Dholu armed with pistol and Sandeep alias Poppiya entered their room. Parhlad exhorted that murderer of his brother has been found today and saying so, he fired a shot towards his father with the pistol. Pardeep also fired a shot towards Raj Kumar. He ran away from the spot. When he came back, he found the dead body of his father lying in the street in front of their house with fire arm injuries on his stomach, chest and head. Thereafter, he raised alarm. The motive behind the incident was that murder of Bansi, brother of accused Prahlad had taken place for which he and his father were challaned. Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar inspected the spot. Inquest proceedings were completed. He lifted one cartridge of 8 mm and one fired cartridge from Chabutra, one fired cartridge from near the dead body, one broken sulfi made of mud and bead string from nearby the dead body. One fired bullet was also recovered from below the dead body and blood stained earth was also lifted from near the head of deceased Chhotu Ram. All these articles were converted into parcels. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar reached Pahwa Hospital, Fatehabad. He sought opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of injured Raj Kumar on which the doctor declared Raj Kumar unfit to make the statement. Dr.Manmohan Pahwa had handed over to him two sealed parcels containing shirt and fired cartridges which were also taken into possession. Accused were arrested. Accused got recovered the pistols. During investigation, Sandeep was found innocent. Investigation was completed. Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.
(3.) The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of prosecution. They had examined two witnesses in support of their case. The appellants were convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence the appeal.