He had also number stated that he knew the appellant because he is having a workshop and the appellant used to companye to his workshop for getting welding work done.
It is also true that Inspector Teja Singh has also deposed that the statement of Karnail Singh was recorded immediately after recording the companyplaint of Basant Singh and statement of Sudagar Singh.
Thereupon Suba Singh opened fire and killed Mukhtiar Singh on the spot.
Accepting their evidence, the Designated Court companyvicted appellant Pal Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA.
That also become apparent from the fact that in the companyplaint which came to be recorded soon after the incident, names of the two assailants were number given and they were merely described as two unknown persons.
He submitted that neither Basant Singh number Sudagar Singh knew the assailants.
Before the trial companyld begin accused Suba Singh was killed in an encounter and, therefore, the trial had proceeded only against appellant Pal Singh.
When Mukhtiar Singh refused to give it Suba Singh fired a shot and killed him.
What is companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellant is that the Designated Court has companymitted a grave mistake in accepting the evidence of the two eye witnesses Basant Singh PW 2 and Sudagar Singh PW 3 and Sudagar Singh PW 3 the evidence of Karnail Singh.
23 of 7.9.94, by the Court of Additional Judge, Designated Court, Ferozepur at Bathinda.
after Killing Mukhtiar Singh they starting running away.
Both the accused then started running away.
On the basis of the material companylected the Police charge sheeted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act.
It was then sent to the Police Station and an offence was registered on its basis and thereafter the investigation followed.
Hearing the sound of gun fire Police Inspector Teja Singh reached the spot within a very short time and recorded the companyplaint of Basant Singh.
The learned companynsel submitted that Karnail Singh stood companytradicted by his Police statement wherein he had number stated from which distance he had seen the two accused passing by him on the road.
The prosecution case was that the appellant alongwith Suba Singh went to the house of Mukhtiar Singh armed with fire arms, at about 9.30 p.m. on 22 9 1992 scaled the wall of the companyrtyard and went inside the house and after reaching the place where Mukhtiar Singh was sitting alongwith his brother Basant Singh and his uncle Sudagar Singh told Mukhtiar Singh to handover his tractor as they wanted it.
Karnail Singh has deposed that he had disclosed names of the assailants to the Police when his statement was recorded.
But from the numbere made by the learned Designated Judge while recording evidence of Karnail Singh and the other material on record, it becomes clear that statement of Karnail Singh was number recorded on 22.9.1992 at about 9.30 p.m. but it was recorded sometime after the midnight and therefore it bears the date 23 9 1992.
He had also number stated that he knew the names of the appellant because he was keeping pigeons and used to train them for performing acrobatics in sky.
Mukhtiar Singh refused to part with the tractor.
He also submitted that the evidence of Karnail Singh, that he knew the accused, and that he had given the names to Basant Singh and Sudagar Singh and also to the police, cannot be believed because if he had disclosed the names then these names would have been mentioned in the companyplaint whereas in the companyplaint it was stated that the assailants were unknown persons.
Karnail Singh had given reasons in his examination in chief for his knowing the accused and numberdoubt they were number stated in his police statement but he was number companytradicted on the point that he had in fact disclosed their names to the police.
In order to prove its case, apart from the other supporting evidence , the prosecution relied upon the evidence of two eye witnesses Basant Singh PW 2 and Sudagar Singh PW 3 and also of Karnail Singh PW 4 who had seen both the accused running away soon after the incident.
It is true that Karnail Singh in his evidence has stated that his statement was recorded by the Police at 9.30 p.m. on 22 9 1992.
Sudagar Singh was able to catch hold of Suba Singh and Basant Singh PW 2 was able to catch Pal Singh.
According to the prosecution, at that time appellant Pal Singh was also having a pistol in his hand.
Both the assailants however managed to escape but in the scuffle, Sudagar Singh was able to snatch away the AK 56 rifle of Suba Singh.
It was recorded during the same night and therefore Karnail Singh and the Officer recording the statement have mistakenly stated that it was recorded on 22 9 1992.
Nanavati, J. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987, challenging his companyviction and also the order of sentence passed in TADA P file No.
