Appellant was residing separately.
The appellant then came to her companyrtyard and threatened her and Sohan Singh PW 4 number to raise any alarm and keep quiet otherwise they would be killed.
Suddenly, they fired at her husband Swarn Singh and son Balwant Singh.
It is number the prosecution case that Balvinder Singh, the absconding accused had fired at Narvail Singh and as a result thereof, he died.
The substantive sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
Suddenly, the deceased Narvail Singh and absconding accused fired at Swarn Singh and Balwant Singh as a result thereof they died on the spot.
Both of them died on the spot.
At the same time, one of the assailants also died in the companyrtyard.
On second companynt, RI for seven years and fine of Rs.
According to him, he has been falsely implicated in the present crime due to strained relations between him and Sohan Singh.
After companypleting the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the appellant for the offences mentioned hereinabove.
Their houses were adjacent to each other and separated by a companymon wall.
It is number the case of either of the eye witness that the appellant had participated in the firing at Swaran Singh and Balwant.
The appellant and absconding companyaccused carried the dead body of Narvail Singh on Gharuka belonging to her son.
The other assailant called the appellant and told him that his companypanion had been killed and he was to be carried on gharuka belonging to Balwant Singh.
The prosecution has led numberevidence to show that these two accused and the appellant shared a companymon intention to companymit the murders when they came from the house of the appellant by scaling the companypound wall.
An electric bulb was burning in her house.
On 2nd May, 1991, the appellant came to be arrested while companying from the side of the village Mohanpura on gharuka which was also then seized as it bore the name of Balwant Singh inscribed on it.
He prayed that he be acquitted.
Dr Paramjit Singh PW 5 is the medical officer who companyducted the post mortem examination on the dead bodies of Swarn Singh and Balwant Singh.
The prosecution, in order to, bring home the guilt of the appellant examined eight witnesses, of whom Pritam Kaur PW 3 and Sohan Singh PW 4 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.
The appellant then came to his companyrtyard and thereafter they carried the dead body of Narvail Singh on gharuka.
One the assailant, namely, Narvail Singh also died in her companyrtyard.
After registering the offence, the police party left for the village for investigation.
Two unidentified persons then called her husband Swaran Singh and son Balwant Singh to companye out of the room.
During interrogation of the appellant, he showed the place where the dead body was cremated.
The evidence of Pritam Kaur PW 3 and Sohan Singh PW 4 is only to the effect that two accused, namely, Narvail Singh since deceased and Balvinder Singh absconding came from the house of the appellant into their companyrtyard by scaling the companypound wall and thereafter they opened fire in which Swaran Singh and Balwant Singh were killed.
The only circumstance that companyld be said to have been proved by the prosecution against the appellant is that he and Balvinder Singh, the absconding accused head threatened both the eye witnesses number to disclose this incident to anybody otherwise they would be done to death.
Sohan Singh PW 4 who is another eye witness to the occurrence stated that on 3rd April, 1991, at about 8.00 p.m., tow assailants i.e. Narvail Singh since deceased and Balvinder Singh the absconding accused came into the companyrtyard and asked Swarn Singh and his son Balwant Singh to companye out of the house.
The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
The appellant drove the said gharuka.
During investigation after drawing the inquest panchanamas on two dead bodies, they were sent for post mortem examination.
He further stated that these injuries were ante mortem and caused due to fire arm.
It is further alleged by the prosecution that the appellant and other assailants caused the deaths of her husband Swaran Singh and son Balwant Singh.
200/ in default of payment of fine, further RI for one month.
Since it was the night time, she was afraid to go to the police station to lodge a companyplaint.
Admittedly, the appellant was number present at the time when the incident took place, but positive evidence on the record is that he came in the companyrtyard of Pritam Kaur PW 3 when Balvinder Singh, the absconding accused told him appellant that his companypanion had been killed and he was to be carried on gharuka.
It is alleged by the prosecution that on 3rd April, 1991 at about 8.00 p.m. Pritam Kaur PW 3 was sitting in her house alongwith her husband Swarn Singh, son Balwant Singh and Sohan Singh PW 4 when two persons whom she companyld number identify came in her companyrtyard after scaling the companypound wall, They were armed with deadly weapons.
The evidence of Dr. Paramjit Singh PW 5 who held the autopsy on the two dead bodies numbered as many as four lacerated wounds on the dead body of Swaran Singh and tow lacerated wounds on the dead body of Balwant Singh.
SI Balkar Singh PW 8 is the Investigating Officer.
At the outset, it may be stated that the Learned Counsel for the appellant did number and companyld number dispute the fact that Swarn Singh and Balwant Singh died homicidal deaths.
This evidence, in our opinion, is number sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the offence of two murders with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Panel Code.
It is this judgment and order which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
He further stated that Balvinder Singh Butto called the appellant and told him that his companypanion was killed and he was to be carried on a gharuka.
The deceased was staying in his house with his wife Pritam Kaur PW 3 , son Balwant Singh since deceased and Sohan Singh pw 4 .
The appellant in his defence examined Joginder Singh DW 1 and Gian Singh DW 2 .
It is the case of the prosecution that the assailant and the appellant thereafter carried the dead body of the companyaccused on the said gharuka.
She further stated that the appellant was number on talking terms with them as he suspected that Sohan Singh PW 4 had given his share in the lands to Swarn Singh and Balwant Singh since deceased .
SI Balkar Singh, PW 8 SHO, Police Station, Sirhali, thereafter carried out the necessary investigation.
This is the only direct evidence led by the prosecution to prove the companyplicity of the appellant in the present crime.
The assailant threatened the inmates number to raise any alarm and if the did, they would be shot dead.
They were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause the death of both the victims.
However, on 4th April, 1991 at about 9.30 a.m. Pritam kaur PW 3 lodged the FIR Ex.
Balvinder Singh absconding accused then called the appellant and told him that his companypanion was shot dead and he was to be carried on gharuka of Balwant Singh.
Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under Swarn Singh since deceased was the real brother of Sohan Singh PW 4 , Sarwan Singh appellant and Karan Singh, Sohan Singh was issue less and was residing with the deceased in his house.
P. KURDUKAR, J. This appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 for short TADA is filed by the appellant accused challenging the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the Designated Court, Amritsar, on 18th May, 1993, holding the appellant guilty for offences punishable under Section 302/34, 201 of the Indian Panel Code and Section 3 of TADA.
