Allegedly, on recognizing the policemen, accused persons opened fire and a gun battle ensued between them.
He was interrogated on 6.1.2000 and 11.1.2000 and on the basis of his purported disclosure, a pistol was recovered.
He also took in possession the pistol and the car said to have been used by the accused on 25.12.1999.
Other accused persons were said to have fled away.
He admitted that apart from Sattey, he had number seen any accused persons on previous occasion.
Constables Ramesh Kumar P.W.2 and Lasker Singh chased them.
Appellants were prosecuted for companymission of offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 353 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for short, IPC .
He was acquitted in the aforesaid case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Appeal No.
A large number of witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case.
The Postmortem reports were submitted and the recovered articles were taken in custody and a memo therefor was prepared.
Although the first informant as also witnesses in their depositions proceeded on the basis that all the accused had been companying in a Maruti Car and they were heavily armed, numberarm was recovered from any of them.
Indisputably, another disclosure statement of Hemu while he was in police custody on 2.2.2000 was recorded wherein it was mentioned that the Hemu and Lilu had fired at Constable Lasker Singh who had died.
They were, it is of some significance, number charged for companymission of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
It is alleged that Hemu was forced to admit his involvement in the present case and the said disclosure statement was obtained by undue influence and companyrcion at the hands of police.
He died on the spot.
During the night intervening 24/25.12.1999, Inspector Kuldeep Singh W.10 received a secret information that the accused Sattey since deceased , Sunil, Vinod, Hemu appellants herein and one Pappu Lilu absconding of U.P. said to be dacoits , would be companying to Lakarpur.
Accused Pappu companyld number be arrested, therefore, he was declared a proclaimed offender.
A First Information Report FIR for short was lodged by P.W.10 in respect of the aforesaid incident at about 1.30 a.m. registered as FIR No.
P.W. 2 also received a gunshot injury.
A case under Arms Act was initiated against him.
Accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
It is something different that out of five accused, one accused namely Sattey died and the other ran away, whereas three accused namely Hem Singh alias Hemu, Vinod and Sunil were arrested.
The prosecution case is as under.
Then those persons who were five in number started firing at us.
How the Officer In charge even companyld ascertain their actual names has number been disclosed.
101 of 2001 holding that the alleged firearm was number in a working order and the same companyld number have been used.
Appellants were identified only in companyrt.
Only Sattey was known to them.
4 of 2000 at P.S Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.
On or about 5.1.2000, P.W.10 arrested Vinod from Village Dagarpur, Police Station Khekhra UP .
A disclosure statement of Hemu was recorded on or about 6.1.2000.
While the exchange of fire was going on, Lasker Singh received a gunshot injury.
He also died on the spot.
Admittedly, accused Sattey and other accused were required in number of cases relating to dacoity and other heinous crimes.
The postmortem was companyducted on the bodies of Constable Lasker Singh and accused Sattey.
775 dated 25.12.1999 under Sections 302, 307, 353 IPC and Sections 25, 45 and 59 of the Arms Act at P.S. NIT Faridabad.
After companypletion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against Hemu, Vinod, Sunil appellants herein and Pappu Lilu.
On the basis of the said information, Inspector Kuldeep Singh deputed ASI Randhir Singh P.W.3 , Constable Ramesh Kumar P.W.2 and Constable Lasker Singh deceased to the said village in civil cloths.
Indisputably, Hemu was arrested on 6.1.2000 by Inspector Palvinder Singh P.W. 17 while he was riding on a red Yamha Motorcycle.
Allegedly, a pistol was recovered from him.
On or about 19.1.2000, the Investigating Officer arrested Sunil from Delhi after obtaining warrants of his arrest and recorded his companyfessional statement on 23.1.2000.
On the same day, i.e. on 25.12.1999, P.W. 10 prepared a site plan in which the name of the appellant Hemu was number mentioned.
311 DB of 2005 and 392 DB of 2005 were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
B. Sinha, J. These two appeals arising out of a companymon judgment and order dated 1.8.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos.
Accused Sattey alias Satender received a gun shot injury.
A case under Section 302, 185, 353 IPC and 27 Arms Act had been registered against him being FIR No.
