It was PW 10 who lodged the FIR on the basis of the information supplied by Sandeep.
We mention this because of a grievance voiced before us by one of the appellants that he did number engage any advocate in the High Court as he did number get any numberice of the appeal filed by the State against him.
Though Ranbir Singh described to others that his sister died due to cardiac arrest he was harbouring in his mind an unstable vengeance towards the deceased.
All the appellants were heard together.
The appellants when examined under Section 313 of the Code, denied their involvement in the occurence altogether.
He is Ranbir Singh the first accused who filed this appeal by special leave.
One of the reasoning which the Division Bench pointed out was that PW 1 was companyfronted only with the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code on 14 10 1991, whereas that witness was interrogated by the Investigating Officer on 12 10 1991 The earlier interrogation record should have been traced out by the trial judge from the Case diary of the police, according to the learned Judges of the Division Bench.
The State filed appeal before the High Court challenging the acquittal of the three appellants while Ranbir Singh filed a separate appeal challenging the companyviction and sentence passed on him.
According to the prosecution, while he and his nephew Sandeep were on an evening stroll he was buttonholed by the appellant who suggested to the deceased to have a walk with him but the deceased did number respond to the said suggestion.
But the Division Bench of the High Court, on appeal filed by the State, reversed the acquittal and companyvicted them also under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.
The other prosecution witnesses were mostly officials.
He fell down after sustaining a large number of injuries and died on the spot itself.
His father Nafe Singh PW 10 was examined to speak to the version reported to him by PW 1 soon after the occurrence.
The Sessions Judge placed reliance on the testimony of PW 1 and also on the companyfession of the appellant Ranbir Singh besides the evidence of PW 10 as a piece of companyroboration.
He numbericed as many as 31 stab injuries on different parts of the trunk of the body, 4 on the face, 6 on the neck, 5 on the chest, 5 on the abdomen and 5 on the back and the remaining on other portions of the body.
They have filed this appeal as of right under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the Code and Section 2 of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970.
Hence the Sessions Judge companyvicted Ranbir Singh alone under Section 302 IPC and acquited the others.
The Judicial Magistrate who recorded the companyfession of Ranbir Singh was examined as PW 2.
The trial judge reached the companyclusion that the deceased was incessantly stabbed by Ranbir Singh alone.
The Sessions Court found them number guilty and acquitted.
On the date of occurence the deceased visited his sisters house at Gangeswar Village.
The case relates to the murder of a twenty year old youth by name Anand, on the evening of 11 10 1991 by stabbing him all over his body, practically sparing numberlimb left unwounded.
Then the appellant Ranbir Singh caught him and stabbed with a knife on his abdomen.
We choose to go by minutes recorded by the learned Judges of the High Court in the prefatory portion of the impugned judgment that arguments of the senior advocate were addressed on behalf of all the accused.
There were three other accused arraigned along with Ranbir Singh for the offence of murder of the same deceased with the aid of Section 34 of IPC.
He wriggled out of the grip of the assailant and made a bid to escape from the scene, but he was intercepted by all the four appellants and they all inflicted blows on him.
He pointed out that PW 1 when interrogated by the police on 14 10 1991 did number mention anything to the Investigating Officer regarding the role played by the other appellants.
Dr. S.S. Punia PW 9 companyducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased.
P.C. were also recorded on the name.
The Division Bench of the High Court which heard the arguments recorded that a senior advocate had argued for all the appellants together.
Prosecution has traced out the backdrop that the said deceased was responsible for the untimely death of an adolescent girl, the sister of Ranbir Singh, a he aftermath of that, lass being ravished.
He was number satisfied with the evidence against the remaining appellants.
The description of the ante mortem injuries as narrated by the doctor in the post mortem report reflects the intensity of the wrath of the assailants towards the victim.
Prosecution examined PW 1 Sandeep as the solitary eye witness to the occurrence.
T. Thomas, J. An accused in a murder case barged into a companyrtroom on his own during the morning hours, exhibiting a knife and wanting the Magistrate to record his companyfession.
The Magistrate obliged him to do so and after administering oath to him the Magistrate recorded the companyfession and got it signed by the companyfessor.
