PWs 1 and 6 went to the police station of Shakurbasti where PW 1 gave the report Ex.
The appellants when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied their companyplicity with the offence in question though admitted the relationship.
Then she went to her parents house wearing all those ornaments but left them with her father Dhani Ram and brother Mohinder Singh and all the ornaments were never returned by her father and brother.
On 25.5.75 the deceased rebuked PW 4 and asked her to bring the ornaments from her parents, but PW 4 expressed her helplessness.
Sunita PW 11 , the daughter of his brother Kartar Singh PW 5 for household job and PW 11 stayed in the house of the deceased.
The other witnesses were formal witnesses and PW 17 was the investigating officer.
As PW 4 had gone to her parents house, the deceased brought Km.
PW 1, a neighbour of the deceased who had earlier seen the deceased and both the appellants lying on different companys in the front companyrt yard of the house of the deceased and who was sleeping on the terrace of his house heard the voice of the deceased MAR DIYA, BACHAO, BACHAO by about 3.30 a.m. From the upstairs of his terrace he saw the appellant Mahesh dragging the deceased inside the house and appellant Mohinder Singh beating the deceased with the wooden pestle Ex.
The bones at various places were broken.
The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows The deceased Hanumant Singh was the son of Harkishan Singh PW 6 .
PW 17 accompanied by PWs 1 and 6, went to the scene place and recorded the statements of PWs 3,5,6, and 11.
So under the pressure of her husband, PW 4 went to her parents house on 25.5.75 at about 3.00 a.m. to get back the ornaments.
He also recovered some human hair Ex.
The deceased shouted MAR DIYA, MAR DIYA, BACHAO BACHAO Being killed, being killed, save me, save me .
The deceased and these two appellants took their bed in the outer companyrt yard.
By that time, PW 3 came by the side of the house of the deceased.
P8 from the front companyrt yard and the blood stained wooden moosal Ex.
When they were at a distance of 8 to 10 paces, they saw the appellants running towards Shakurbasti.
Santosh PW 4 , PW 6 presented about 30 tolas of gold ornaments worth about Rs.10,000 to PW 4.
Thereafter all the four namely, PWs 1,3,5 and 6 entered the house and found the deceased dead.
PWs5 and 6 were examined to speak about the appellants running away from the scene after the companymission of the crime.
PW 17/A, to the report, dispatched the same for registration of a case to the companycerned Punjabi Bagh Police Station where the I.R. Ex.
On 27.5.75 at about 8.00 p.m. the appellant Mohinder Singh who is numbere other than the brother of PW 4 came to house of deceased along with his friend appellant Mahesh Chander.
At this point of time PW 11 escaped from the scene house and went to the house of her father PW 5 to inform him.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgement of the Trial Court both the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No.
The appellant Mahesh Chander explained his refusal to take part in the identification parade stating that he did so as his face was never muffled and that the PWs saw him in the police station.
An identification parade was arranged but the appellant Mahesh refused to participate in the parade.
Hence these two appeals.
The prosecution examined PWs 1,3, and 11 as eyewitnesses to the occurrence.
PW 7/A was registered by PW 7 Head Constable .
PW 11 was sleeping in the verandah adjoining the outer companyrt yard.
He sent the dead body for post mortem examination.
While so, appellant Mohinder Singh gave a blow with a wooden pestle Moosal on the head of the deceased resulting in bleeding injuries.
The appellants examined PWs 1 to 6 on their side to prove the strained relationship between the parties and the arrest of the appellants in the office of the Electricity Board, Gurgaon.
5,7 and 9 were fractures and injury No.6 was a companytusion.
On 29.5.75 PW 17 arrested both the appellants.
Both PWs 1 and 3 shouted at the appellants to which both the appellants threatened the witnesses if they tried to intervene.
PW 1 ran to the house of PW 6 to inform him.
He summoned the crime team and got the place of occurrence photographed.
Then PW 1 and PW 3 stepped back.
The learned Trial Judge, accepting the case of the prosecution companyvicted both the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.1979 of the Delhi High Court in Crl.
In the meanwhile PW 5 on being informed by PW 11 came to the scene house along with Pws 1,3,and 6.
P1 from near the dead body.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.432 628 of 1979.
He prepared a rough site plan and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased.
38/75 on the charge that on 28.5.1975 at about 3.30 a.m. in Pitam Pura within the jurisdiction of Punjabi Bagh Police Station both appellants in furtherance of their companymon intention companymitted murder of Hanumant Singh, the deceased herein and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.
PW 17 after making his endorsement Ex.
So PW 11 became panicky and kept silent.
The deceased persistently asked his wife PW 4 to bring back the ornaments telling her that her father and brother had intended to grab the same.
Then appellant Mahesh Chander dragged the deceased inside the house while appellant Mohinder Singh kept on hitting the deceased with that pestle.
At the time of the marriage of the deceased with Smt.
He seized the blood stained earth from 5 different spots under the recovery memo Ex PW2/B 13.
PW 1/B before PW 17, the Sub Inspector of Police of Punjabi Bagh who was at the relevant time was incharge of Shakurbasti Police Station also.
1 to 3 were lacerated wounds, injury Nos.
After companypleting the investigation PW 17 laid the charge sheet.
323/76 before the High Court which for the reasons assigned, affirmed the judgement of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal as being devoid of merits.
Though PW 4 went to her parents house many times to fetch the ornaments she was number successful.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. The above appeals by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India are directed against the companyrectness and legality of the judgment dated 4th May, 1979 of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.323/76.
2 and 1 respectively before the 8th Additional Sessions Judge and they took their trial in Sessions Case No.
PW 4 on her first visit to the house of PW 6 brought all the ornaments and stayed there for 6 months.
Injury No.4 was a bruise over the tip of right shoulder.
These two appellants were accused Nos.
A.No.323 of 1976.
Tapas Ray, Kailash Vasdev and Ms. A Ssubhsashinsi NP for the Respondent.
PW 11 questioned both the appellants as to what they were doping to which the appellants threatened PW 11 saying that she would also be killed if she uttered any word.
N. Mulla, Uma Dutta and B.D. Sharma for the Appellants.
PW 2 the police Surgeon performed necropsy on the dead body of the deceased and numbered as many as 9 injuries, of which injury Nos.
Shreepal Singh, NP for the intervener.
At about 3.15 a.m. on the intervening night of 27/28.5.75 PW 11 was woke up and found the appellant Mahesh Chander sitting over the deceased and securing him firmly.
On the way PW 11 met PW 3 at some distance but despite enquiry by PW 3, PW 11 companyld number give any reply and she was dumb sticken.
