The prosecution case is the following Appeallnt Hukam Singh who was ranked as A.1 in the trial companyrt and his brother Harnam Singh A.5 and the latters sons Jaswant Singh A.2 and Balwant Singh A.4 had some axe to grind against deceased Munshi Singh.
They extinguished the flames and salvaged whatever remained on the companypse.
Seeing the above mishap befallen his father PW.4 Bhupender Pal rushed to rescue him.
His son Bhupender Pal PW.4 took over a bag of cattle feed which his father brought from the bazar and he too was walking a little ahead of his father.
The companyrts therefore did number attach any credence to the aforesaid belated version put forth by Hukam Singh at the fag end of the trial.
Bhupender Pal PW.4 and Ram Pyari PW.5 were the two eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution.
On sighting the deceased one among the appellants Hukam Singh made an exhortation to finish him off and then Darshan Singh who died before the trial started fired his pistol which hit the deceased on his back.
They sustained injuries at the hands of the assailants and the doctor who numbered such injuries had testified about them in the companyrt as PW.9.
He did number care to examine Bharama Bai number make any attempt to substantiate the version put forward by him.
When his son Bhupender Pal PW.4 and his wife Ram Pyari PW.5 reached the spot Hukam Singh and his associates forcibly prevented them from removing Munshi Singh from the spot.
Police charge sheeted six persons including the appellants for those acts.
A team of doctors companyducted post mortem examination among whom PW.8 Dr. Rajendra Kumar gave evidence that the dead body reached such a stage of burnt companydition that it was impossible to form an opinion regarding the cause of death.
Then Darshan Singh fired at the molesting Minshi Singh.
But he advanced a companytrary version like this He and Darshan Singh saw the deceased grappling Bharama Bai and the lady was crying.
Then the assailants dragged the deceased along the ground and brought him to their companyrtyard.
The fact that they were present at the scene of occurrence companyld number be disputed number the same has been disputed by the accused.
The version spoken to by PW 4 in companyrt is substantially a reiteration of the version which he supplied to the police as early as 8.40 P.M. on the same night.
He also admitted that the dead body of Munshi Singh was subsequently cremated by them.
They made a pyre with firewood splinters and put the body of Munshi Singh on it and set it ablaze while his wife and son were looking on aghast.
All the accused assaulted both of them as well as the deceased.
Munshi Singhs wife on hearing the companymotion flew down from her house and reached her husband.
He slumped down on the spot.
All the appellants were at the bus stop variously armed.
Hukam Singh, when examined by the Sessions Judge under Section 313 of the Code admitted that he killed the deceased.
The police was alerted and they reached the spot but to find only the burnt remaining of Munshi Singh and the smouldering embers of the dying pyre.
Munshi Singh was an advocates clerk who was murdered in the vicinity of his own house by using a pistol and other lethal weapons at about 7 P.M. on 29.6.1981.
That became the basis for the FIR.
However, they recovered a metallic substance from the skeleton which companyld be the embedded remnant of firing the pistol.
THOMAS, J. LITTTTTTTJ The killers of an advocates clerk arranged a funeral pyre by themselves and cremated the victim in the sight of his bereaved widow and son.
On the evening of the fateful day Munshi Singh alighted from a bus near his house and was proceeding to his house.
