GURDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated April 21, 1987 by which he has convicted the accused-appellant Gurdeep Singh under Section 302, I. P. C. and Section 27, Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively and the accused-appellant Mithu Singh under Section 302, read with Section 34 and 114, I. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, for committing the murder of Bohar Singh. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) ON March 2, 1986 at 1. 05 A. M. Amar Singh P. W. 1 lodged F. I. R. Ex. p/1 in the Police Station, Sadul Shahar (Sri Ganganagar ). It runs as under : ****** It was registered under Sections 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and 27, Arms Act. The Investigating Officer Budha Ram P. W. 8 prepared site plan Ex. P/2, site inspection memo Ex. P/2a, memo of the dead body of Bohar Singh Ex. P/3a and Panchayatnama Ex. P/4a, cloths of the deceased were taken through recovery memo Ex. P/6, the post-mortem examination was got conducted and the report Ex. P/5 was obtained. ON March 3, 1986, the accused-appellants Mithu Singh and Gurdeep Singh were arrested, they gave information Ex. P/10 and P/ll respectively for the recovery of Gandasa Article 3 and Pistol Article 1 and same were recovered through recovery memoes Exs. P/12 and P/13 respectively. Blood stained cloths, pistol and cartridge were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur and their reports Ex. P/15, P/16 and P/17 were received. Challan was filed in the court of the Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar against the accused-appellants who committed them to the court of Sessions.

(3.) THE first question for consideration in this case is whether there was light at the place of occurrence at the time of the occurrence. It is correct that the FIR Ex. P/1 is silent on this point. Site Plan Ex. P/2 and site inspection memo Ex. P/2a were prepared in the morning of March 2, 1986. THEy show two light posts near the place of occurrence. Amar Singh P. W. I Gurjant Singh P. W. 2 and Boga Singh P. W. 4 have deposed that there was light near the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. THE accused appellants do-not say that these light-posts have wrongly been shown in the site plan Ex. P/2. THEre is also no suggestion in the cross-examination of these eye witnesses on this point. In defence, Hanuman D. W. I has been produced. He has deposed that during these days he was running a wheat grinding machine with electricity and during the night intervening 1st and 2. 03. 1986, there was no electricity. Sri Parekh Junior Engineer was also called in defence to prove this fact but he was not examined despite his appearance before the trial on the date for which he was summoned.