The prosecution with a view to companynect the appellants with the crime examined Sadhu Ram PW1 besides Jit Singh PW2, draftsman PW5, investigating officer PW6 and Dr. Anup Sood PW7.
In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.
Since the appeal was received from jail, an amicus curiae was appointed for the appellants.
Rupa appellant stood already arrested in some other case and was formally shown as arrested in the present case on June 12, 1984.
The post mortem on the dead body was performed by Dr. Anup Sood PW7, which revealed the presence of an ante mortem lacerated punctured wound with inverted marging to the doctor was caused due to shock and haemmrohage as a result of the aforesaid injury which was opined by him to be sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
According to the prosecution case on 28th April 1984 Sadhu Ram PW1 was present at his house at about 9 p.m. along with his wife Kaushalya PW4, Satish Kumar deceased and other children.
During the scuffle, the face of one of the intruders got unmuffled.
It was sealed into a parcel.
Kaushalya PW4 were also tendered for cross examination.
Appellant Husna and Jalour Singh were arrested on June 3, 1984 and weapons recovered from them.
Later on two more empty cartridges of 315 bore and one empty cartridge of 32 bore were also recovered and taken into possession vide memo Ex.
Appellants Husna and Jalour Singh were also tried for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Kaushlya PW4, the mother of deceased Satish Kumar was sitting near the dead body alongwith some other members of the family and interrogated.
The empties recovered from the spot and the pistol recovered from Husna appellant were sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh who vide his report Ex.p18 opined that the empty recovered from the spot was found to have been fired from the pistol of Husna appellant.
Accompanied by Sham Lal and Malkiat Singh, Sarpanch of the village, Sadhu Ram PW1 went to police station to lodge a report.
She became hysterical and companyld number give any clue or details of the occurrence.
P.C., the appellants denied the prosecution allegations against them and pleaded false implication.
Formal FIR Ex.p1 was recorded on the basis of that report.
Husna appellant fired a shot which hit Satish Kumar on his face and he fell down.
Investigation was taken in hand and the investigating officer reached the house of PW1.
An empty cartridge of 315 bore was taken into possession from the spot, vide recovery memo Ex.p5.
Avtar Singh PW3 and Smt.
He was also companyvicted for an offence under Section 449 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years R.I. Jalour Singh appellant was acquitted of the charges under Section 302/34 IPC and 449 IPC but companyvicted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo nine months R.I. Through this statutory appeal, the appellants have called in question their companyviction and sentence.
Sadhu Ram PW1 raised an alarm and snatched away the pistol from one of the two intruders.
The prosecution also filed the affidavits of police officials, whose evidence was of a formal nature at the trial.
An inquest report was prepared and the dead body sent for post mortem examination.
At the exhortation of appellant Rupa.
All the three accused then ran away.
Since, numbernames of the assailants had been disclosed in the FIR, during the investigation a supplementary statement of PW1 was recorded in which he gave the names of the accused.
As already numbericed, in the FIR the names of both the appellants were found missing.
Both Rupa and Husna ran out of the house where Jalour Singh armed with a pistol was already waiting.
Satish Kumar, deceased, came to the help of his father.
Sadhu Ram PW1 went near Satish Kumar and found him dead.
A blood stained brick was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.p6.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and examined the record.
Two persons companymitted criminal trespass into the house with their faces muffled armed with pistols.
ANAND, J. The appellants were tried for offences under Sections 302/34 and 449 IPC by the learned Judge of the Special Court.
