Recoveries were witnessed by several witnesses.
The fact that accused Ravinder Kumar left the office of the deceased earlier and joined them at the Hotel was companysidered significant, as the intervening period was utilized by him to inform the assailants as to where they would be taking the deceased for the assaults being carried out.
556 and 5408 parked on the other side of the road.
The deceased started running away towards the canal and the assailants followed him and assaulted him.
Bhupinder Singh was identified by Hari Kumar PW 18 and Gurmit Singh.
From the fact that the land was to be selected was only known to accused Ravinder Kumar and Ashok Kumar, an inference was drawn that it was these two accused w ho had hired the assailants and planted them well in advance for the ultimate elimination of deceased.
Bodhraj was identified by Jhuggar Singh PW 6 and Santokh Singh PW 7 .
Similar was the case with accused Subhash Kumar.
Two of the accused were identified by him as Subhash Kumar and Rajesh Kumar.
Pistol of the deceased was also recovered at his instance.
The license in respect of the pistol was seized on personal search of the deceased at the spot of occurrence.
3 , Bhupinder accused No.
The registration number of the car is CH01 5408.
He had numbericed accused A 1 and A 2 standing near their vehicle.
Another accused i.e. Kishore Kumar was acquitted by the Trial Court.
Rajesh Kumar was identified by Rnjit Sharma PW 23 and Hari Kumar PW 18 .
Recoveries of various weapons used by assailants were made pursuant to the disclosures made by the accused Bodhraj, Bhupinder, Subhash Kumar Rajesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar.
The deceased while running had fired at the assailants.
3 to 10 .
The driver reversed the car.
2002 Supp 2 SCR 67 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These four appeals relate to a Division Bench Judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dated 31.7.2000.
l, 2, 7, 8 and 9 were really the crucial witnesses.
Since numbervehicle was available.
The accused l and 2 remained silent spectators and even did number pay any heed to the pitiful plea of the deceased to bring the car so that he can escape the attacks.
When they were still seeing the land A 2 told them that he approved of the land and led them to the shop.
On 3 August, 1994 PW 1 was in his shop.
JK 02B As accused Ravinder Kumar appeared to be in extreme haste, he told that site has been approved and PWs.
When he came back, he found the dead body of the deceased lying on the road and heard accused A 2 telling accused A l Kam ho gaya let us go to Jammu.
PW 2 however numbericed that while the deceased was running, he asked accused A 1 to bring the car but the latter did number move.
The shots fired by the deceased were fired in his presence.
When the deceased reached near the road Rajesh Kumar fired at him and hit on his arm.
The assailants reversed the other car and drove towards the deceased and accused Rajesh came out of the vehicle, picked up the weapon lying near the deceased and they mounted on the vehicle and drove off.
They were armed with tokas, churas and revolver.
Thereafter, six to seven persons surrounded the deceased.
7 were acquitted by the Trial Court, but the High Court set aside their acquittal and companyvicted them.
He had identified Krishan Kumar, A 2 and A 1.
8, 9 and 18 are also relevant and their evidence is to the following effect.
They all went to Dhiansar by car.
5 and Rakesh Kumar accused No.
Accused No.
Accused Bodhraj, Bhupinder.
4 , Subhash Kumar accused No.
Six seven assailants were chasing him.
Then PW 1 Immediately told him to inform the police, by which time the deceased had started bleeding.
9 were acquitted by the Trial Court and their acquittal has been upheld by the High Court.
Rohit Kumar accused No.
Accused Ashok Kumar and the deceased went to Hotel Asia for taking their food.
The identification was done on two dates i.e. 11.8.1994 and 16.8.1994.
The revolver lying near the deceased was picked up.
PW GS,PW GS l. PW GS/2 recorded by the police immediately after incident.
On 3rd August.
A 1 had fired some shots in the air.
the same was number operated for quite some time.
CH01 5408 was also parked there.
PW 2 stated that on 3 August, 1994, he was sitting at his house when at about 4 to 4.30 to 5.00 p.m. PW 1 accompanied by A l and A 2 came to his residence and asked him to show some land to the persons accompanying them for the installation if rice cum flour mill.
After the car had left, A 1 and A 2 also left in another car.
PW 1 identified A 1 and A 2 who were present in the Court.
was number examined in Court.
and that he ran to ring up the police.
He knew the names of the accused Bhupinder, Rohit and Rakesh Kumar because he had identified them in the police station in the presence of Tehsildar.
5408 CHO l and left for Mori Bazar.
Evidence of PW 18 Hari Kumar inter alia stated is as follows He was the owner of a Halwai shop in Parade Ground.
Accused Rajesh Kumar has number preferred any appeal against the companyviction as upheld by the High Court.
This was done as PW 1 wanted to go to the site in question along with Pratap Singh PW 2 who was his business partner, AII of them went to village Dhiansar where the land was situated.
They suggested to the deceased to enter into a Financial arrangement.
6 were companyvicted by the Trial Court while Bodhraj accused No.
On 3rd August, 1994, he was getting a vehicle repaired in a workshop at Dhiansar.
Jammu.
The presence of PWsl and 2 at the place of occurrence is fortified from the fact that they were witnesses to the seizure memos Ex.
837/2001 has been filed by the State.
Ravinder Kumar gave the key of his car to Darshan Singh.
Later on, accused Ravinder Kumar joined them.
PW 8 Surjit Singh inter alia, stated as follows On 3rd August, 1994 he had gone for repair of his vehicle to Dhiansar.
Another white car bearing No.
He returned the key of the car to Ravinder Kumar.
the deceased was attacked by some persons later on identified as accused No.
Kishore Kumar who was armed with a pistol was running after the deceased.
Rajesh shot the deceased.
2 Ashok Kumar and accused No.
I , Ashok Kumar accused No.
8 and Kewal Krishan accused No.
2 and Rajesh Kumar accused No.
from the place of occurrence to make the telephone call.
Ravinder and Ashok Kumar persuaded the deceased to accompany them for the selection of the site.
Rakesh Kumar, Rohit and Kewal Krishan were identified by Nainu Singh PW 9 while Subhash Kumar and Rajesh Kumar were identified by Santokh Singh PW 7 and Surjit Singh PW 8 .
So far as the accused Nos.
While returning the deceased was attacked by 4 5 persons who were armed with tokas, daggers etc.
He along with Surjit Singh went towards a tea shop, They heard sound of fire arms being used.
A 2 also ran after the deceased whereas A 1 kept standing near PW 1, The deceased asked A 1 to bring the car immediately but A 1 only shouted to one Short that the deceased should number escape.
While Criminal Appeal Nos.
They saw the deceased bleeding profusely and running towards Jammu Pathankot road.
1994, at about 1.00 a.m. accused Ravi Kumar came to the shop of Hari Kumar in his car No.
After about 10/15 minutes.
The witness identified the revolver, sword, kirch and toka and stated that these were the weapons with which the accused were armed.
This was of grey slaty companyour, A 2 and A 1 had given a lalkara that the deceased should be killed and should number escape.
When the deceased was attacked by the assailants and was pursued by the assailants he had started running towards the national highway.
He saw Kishore was armed with a revolver.
4, 5 and 7 are companycerned, the High Court companyvicted and sentenced them at par with the other three accused.
He was informed that they were interested in purchasing some land for setting up a flour mill.
On the fateful day i.e. 3rd August, 1994, deceased went to his business premises.
He deposed that accused Bhupinder, Rakesh, Subhash and Rajesh were holding Toka, Kirch, Sword and Revolver respectively.
Ravinder Kumar accused No.
Along with Gian Singh PW 1 , ancther property dealer was also picked up.
566 was standing.
Near the work shop gate car No.
They were said to be armed with Chakus knives and Churas bigger knives and were stabbing the deceased.
They did number report the matter to the police and even though they claimed to be friends of the deceased, did number even inform family members of the deceased, They owed huge amounts and issued cheques for which they had made numberprovision.
When they were returning.
l and 2 were told that they would settle the matter at their business premises.
After about 10 minutes of his arrival accused Ravinder Kumar also reached his office.
At the time of his departure, deceased told Darshan to take the food which was to companye from his house, as they were going out to have food.
PW 9 Nainu Singh inter alia stated as follows.
Factual scenario as highlighted by the prosecution is as follows Swaran Singh Pappi hereinafter referred to as the deceased was running a finance companypany.
Accused Kishore fired in the air and the assailants ran towards vehicle No.
He having died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court.
Similar was the case with accused No.
921/2000, 791/2001, 792/2001 have been filed by the accused, Criminal Appeal No.
In order to establish the pleg that companyspiracy was hatched, reliance was placed on the plea of Kapur Chand who was number examined in Court.
Darshan Singh left the office around 11.30 a.m. and returned around 1.30 p.m. On his return, Darshan found the deceased in the companypany of accused Ravinder Kumar and Ashok Kumar.
deceased and accused Ashok Kumara left the office.
l Ravinder Kumar had taken huge amounts as loan from the deceased.
Accused Rajesh Kumar and Subhash Kumar had also suffered bullet injury which was on account of the firing done by the deceased while he was trying to save his life.
All the three after taking food went to the business premises of Gian Singh PW 1 who was a property dealer and broker.
A 1 and A 2 also drove off.
Ashok Kumar made use of the cheque book of his wife and issued a cheque in respect of her bank account, thought.
He numbericed the accused sitting in the car.
Meanwhile, PW 2 went to the house of a companytractor which was at a distance of 200 fts.
The deceased was then surrounded by the assailants and attacked by tokas, swords, etc.
On their way, PW 1 asked A 1 to stop the car to pick up PW 2.
Santokh Singh PW 7 was disbelieved by Trial Court as well as by the High Court.
l and 2.
On the companytrary, they left the scene of occurrence leaving behind the deceased and PWs.
Accused Rakesh Kumar was identified by Ranjit Sharma PW 23 and Gurmit Singh.
Accused Rajesh Kumars presence was established as later on, a licensed revolver belonging to accused Ravinder Kumar was recovered at the instance of Ravinder Kumar.
A 2 was reluctant to stop the car and only on PW 1 s insistence PW 2 was picked up.
Evidence of PWs.
Shots fired by the deceased caused injuries to two assailants.
It was stopped near the dead body of the deceased.
The license of the revolver was seized from the house of Ravinder Kumar and father of the said accused produced the same before the police in the presence of witnesses.
One Hari Kumar PW 18 stated that accused Ravinder Kumar and Ashok Kumar made a statement before him that they had got the deceased killed because he was demanding money from them.
He was at a tea stall near the garage when he saw vehicle Nos.
As the deceased had brought some money from his house which was to be deposited in a bank, Darshan Singh PW 15 an employee was asked to make the deposit.
