On their way, one Suresh accused A3 is supposed to have joined them.
On this pretext, they accompanied Chander Bhan to Hisar.
157DB of 2002, 273DB of 2002, 920SB of 2002, 751DBA of 2002 and Crl.
It may be numbered that Zile Singh produced all the accused before the Police and thereafter the accused identified the place of occurrence.
Extrajudicial companyfession recorded before Zile Singh on 25.12.1994.
The case was investigated by I.O. Bhim Singh PW15, who reached the spot of the alleged occurrence as per the narration of accused A2.
Thereafter, A1 and A2 took injured Chander Bhan to the City Civil Hospital, Hisar for treatment.
273 DB, 157DB, 920SB respectively before the High Court.
733 of 1994 was registered against Maha Singh losing candidate and one Darya under Sections 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred as IPC for brevity and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Accordingly, FIR was filed before the police being FIR No.
However, he companyld number trace any incriminating material as alleged.
It is alleged that in the meanwhile A3 tried to hide the gun.
Based on the aforesaid companyplaint, Bhim Singh, S.I to the S Sadar, Hisar, registered a case under Sections 25, 30, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, being FIR No.
736 dated 16.12.1994.
736/ 1994, dated 16.12.1994, based on the accused A2.
951 of 1995 Sessions case No.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of companyviction passed by the High Court, accused A2 and A3 have preferred Criminal Appeal No s .
It may be numbered here that the accused examined themselves as defense witnesses under Section 315 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 herein after referred as CrPC for brevity.
After the companypletion of the investigation, chargesheets came to be filed in the Court against the accused A1, A2 and A3 for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and accordingly, were summoned by the Addl.
That DW2 Umed Singh companyroborated that on 16.12.1994 at about 430 A.M. while waiting for companyveyance to go to his village he had seen Sobhat Singh, Dharampal son of Nanak Ram and the Suresh who was carrying a single barrel gun along with the deceased in an autorickshaw.
Maha Singh lost the elections, which was known to the accused party as well as deceased.
Kamla and her two children.
PZ/1, against Lachman Singh A4 and A3.
There was a crystalclear motive on the part of the accused A 2 to companymit such crime so as to implicate Dharampal son of Beg Raj Sarpanch in a false case.
Further by order dated 05.03.1997, the Sessions Judge ordered the trial of all the cases to take place simultaneously.
Accordingly, the Magistrate separately took companynizance and companymitted the case to the Sessions Court against Dharambir, Umed Singh son of Beg Raj and Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj, on 25.01.1997 in Complaint Case No.
60 of 1995.
Rather, a motive exists on the part of the accused, since their candidate had lost the election.
However, numberevidence was found against Dharampal, Umed and Dharambir at the place of occurrence as described by accused A2.
The accusedappellants had companyfessed to their crime, which led to the recovery of certain incriminating articles.
On reaching a few kilometers ahead of the village Sundawas, they spotted a jeep companying towards them.
The High Court had further directed accused A2 and A3 to pay a sum of Rs.
One of the occupants Umed Singh son of Beg Raj, raised lalkara that enemies were going and they should be taught a lesson for helping Maha Singh in the elections.
They have also failed to explain why they did number immediately report the matter in the village and to the family members of the deceased when they were just at a distance of 11/2 km from the village.
These were companyered with clotted blood with inverted margins with lacerations.
There was numbermotive for Dharampal, Umed Singh and Dharambir to murder Chander Bhan.
It is alleged that A 1 and A2, who escaped the firing, rushed Chander Bhan to the City Civil Hospital, Hisar, where he succumbed to his injuries.
62 of 1997 under Sections 302 read with 34 of IPC.
That Sobhat Singh A2, Dharampal son of Nanak Ram A 1 and Chander Bhan deceased , met on 15 th16th mid night.
That PW14, Umed Singh son of Mahi Ram, had seen the accused with the deceased early in the morning when they had a small companyversation and that the Umed Singh PW14 had numbericed that Suresh was holding a single barrel gun.
The Postmortem report companyfirms the death to have been caused due to hemorrhage and shock due to gunshot injuries.
That the companyplainants failed to state the number of vehicle, driver of the vehicle in their crossexamination.
Abdominal cavity was full of red companyored blood.
The Trial Court, held the accused guilty, and reasoned as under The motive is proved, wherein the crime was staged so as to falsely implicate Sarpanch Dharampal belonging to opposite political faction.
The companyplainant had taken deceased to the Hospital at 6 30 AM.
On 25.12.1994, all the accusedappellants companytacted one Zile Singh PW16 and companyfessed their guilt before him.
743 Ex.
It may be numbered that the High Court clubbed all the appeals and dismissed them through a companymon impugned judgment dated 03.01.2012.
It is necessary to numbere that there was a quarrel including gun shots being fired at around 11 A.M, on the day of election between both factions, as a result of which supporters of Dharampal son of Beg Raj winning candidate sustained injuries.
That companyplainants further failed to explain in their cross examination how the threewheeler appeared merely within fiveminutes to take them to the Hospital at Hisar.
Dharampal and Umed Singh sons of Beg Raj and Dharambir alighted from the jeep and Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj, who was armed with a pistol, shot Chander Bhan in his stomach and ran away.
It is born from the record that Chander Bhan succumbed to his injuries 20 minutes after he was admitted to the aforesaid Hospital on 16.12.1994.
Deceased Chander Bhan was an election agent for the losing candidate Maha Singh.
One Lac as damages to Smt.
In this companytext, a FIR No.
That extrajudicial companyfession was made before DW3 Zile Singh .
Majority of these wounds were present on the left side of front part of the body.
So, all the accused were acquitted of the charge against them.
Near Hisar, the Chander Bhan was seen going with the accused around the time of the incident.
62 of 1997, the Sessions Court by order, dated 12.02.2002, acquitted Dharampal son of Beg Raj, Umed Singh son of Beg Raj and Dharambir on the following reasons That prosecution failed to establish motive on the part of accusedDharampal son of Beg Raj, as he has already won the election.
That accused persons came at midnight 15.12.1994 16.12.1994, called the deceased and told him that they had to shoot somebody so as to falsely implicate Sarpanch Dharampal son of Beg Raj in a case as companyroborated by the evidence of DW1 Kamla .
Chander Bhans body was found to have sustained more than fifty ante mortem gun shot wounds.
No blackening or tattooing were present.
751DBA of 2002, against the acquittal, of Dharampal son of Beg Raj, Umed Singh son of Beg Raj and Dharambir, passed by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.
Gun and pellets were recovered from an abandoned house in Adarsh Nagar.
That the gun recovered in the instant case was the gun belonging to companyplainant Suresh A3 and FSL report available on record proves that the pellets found in the body of the deceased were similar to those fired from that gun.
Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
As per the narration of accused A2, on 16.12.1994, at about 430 A.M, the Chander Bhan deceased , A2 and A1 were going to Chandigarh on foot.
All injuries were opined to have been ante mortem in nature and sufficient in the usual companyrse to cause death.
14451446 OF 2012 and thereafter companysider Criminal Appeal No.
To put the gist of their extrajudicial companyfessions, it may be numbered that the accused stated to Zile Singh PW16 that having the motive to file a companynter case against Dharampal son of Beg Raj, the Sarpanch, the accusedappellants along with Chander Bhan reached an abandoned house in Adarsh Nagar, Hisar and Suresh A3 fired a shot at Chander Bhan in the house at Adarsh Nagar.
In crossexamination Sobhat Singh PW4/A2 and Dharampal PW5/A1 companyld number explain when the deceased received injuries or why did they number take the deceased to the nearby hospital.
That the evidence produced by the I.O indicates that the accused took Chander Bhan to a room in Adarsh Nagar, Hisar, where he was shot by accused A3 using his single barrel gun.
Aggrieved by the judgments of the Trial Court, in Session Case No.
All structures in the pelvic and in the lower abdomen including small and large intestine and vessels were injured.
Sufficient evidence is on record like recovery of pellets, gun and some companycrete material etc.
Signature Not Verified 907 of 2004.
The prosecution had examined PW1 Dr. R.S. Bishnoi , PW2 Dr. Surendra Singh , PW3 ASIJagbir Singh , PW4 Sobhat Singh A1 and PW5 Dharampal son of Nanak Ram A2 .
By virtue of such disclosure statements made by the individual accused persons, the police are alleged to have recovered a licensed gun, cartridges, pellets, some companycrete material from the khurli found in the house at Adarsh Nagar, Hisar.
Thereupon accused A3 fled away with the gun.
Few facts which are necessary for the disposal of these cases are that a panchayat election was held on 15.12.1994, in the village Sundawas, where there were two major companytestants namely Maha Singh and Dharampal son of Beg Raj.
In Sessions case No.
Later, accused A1 and A2 took Chander Bhan to the hospital and registered a false companyplaint against Dharampal son of Beg Raj, Dharambir and Umed Singh son of Beg Raj under Section 302, IPC.
Regarding the nature of the injury, he states that Multiple rounded and oval shaped wounds of the size of 1/3 cm into 1/3 cm present on the front of trunk and pelvic area along with upper part of the front of both thighs numbering about 50 .
It is the prosecutions version that all of them went to an abandoned house in Adarsh Nagar at Hisar, wherein Chander Bhan deceased was shot by the aforesaid accused.
All the accused pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
During the trial, the Prosecution examined 17 witnesses and the Defense examined 4 witnesses in the Sessions Case No.
60, accused A2, A3 and A4 filed Criminal Appeal No.
of doubtful veracity 7.
62 of 1997.
That the story of the prosecution that the deceased was shot on the road at a distance of 11/2 K.M. from village by the accused Dharampal son of Beg Raj is uncorroborated in the absence of any incriminating evidence in the said crime scene, as supported by the evidence of DW5 Bhim Singh.
Further he has deposed that the death of Chander Bhan deceased resulted because of hemorrhage, and shock due to gunshot injuries.
One Umed Singh son of Mahi Ram PW14, while waiting near Borstal Jail, Hisar for a companyveyance at 400 A.M on 16.12.1994 morning had seen A1, A2, Chander Bhan and A3 going in an auto rickshaw.
PW2 Dr. Surinder Singh , Medical Officer, who treated the Chander Bhan deceased at the Hospital.
743, the accused A3 and Lachman A 4 were being tried for usage of fire arms, which was companysolidated with the main case, by order dated 19.09.1999 and both the cases were tried together.
Revision No.
Facts being companynected and issues being similar, we Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2018.08.21 160327 IST Reason would like to deal with these appeals by a companymon judgment.
Later, during the intervening night of 15 th and 16th December of 1994, Dharampal alias Dharam son of Nanak Ram accused A 1, Sobhat Singh accused A2, both being supporters of losing candidate Maha Singh, came to the house of Chander Bhan, on the pretext that since Maha Singh had lost the election and was involved in a criminal case, they should falsely implicate Dharampal son of Beg Raj also, by registering a companynter case against him.
Thereafter, accused A2 went to the Police Station, Sadar Hisar, for registration of a companyplaint against Umed Singh son of Beg Raj, Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj Sarpanch and Dharambir for the death of Chander Bhan.
to prove that Chander Bhan was shot inside that Kotha Room by the accused and number by the other gang, as alleged.
That the accused portrayed a fake story and filed a FIR against Dharampal, Umed Singh sons of Beg Raj and Dharambir alleging that they have murdered Chander Bhan.
The evidence of PW5Dharampal son of Nanak Ram, is companytradictory to PW4 Shobat Singh A2 as to how they took the deceased to the hospital.
Being suspicious of the version of accused A 2, the investigating police, started to investigate from different angles.
On the other hand, accused A2 filed a Criminal Appeal No.
The High Court while upholding the companyviction emphasized following grounds That it was admitted by accused A2 and A1 that they had called for Chander Bhan at his house, in the presence of his wife, on 16.12.1994.
Aggrieved by the fact that the companyplainant was himself shown as an accused by the investigating authority, A2 filed a companyplaint before the Magistrate against the Dharambir, Umed Singh son of Beg Raj and Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj, on the facts as revealed by accused A2 in FIR No.
Injured Chander Bhan was alive when he was brought to Hospital in Hisar by Sobhat Singh A1 and Dharampal A 2.
While the defense had led DW1 Kamla , DW2 Umed Singh , DW3 Zile Singh , DW4 Mewa Singh and DW5 Bhim Singh .
Appeal No.
V. RAMANA, J. These appeals by special leave petitions, are preferred by two accused persons, namely Sobhat Singh and Suresh, against the companyviction imposed by the High Court and the companysequential acquittal of other persons, namely Dharampal and Umed Singh, sons of Beg Raj and Dharambir, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Crl.
