The trial companyrt in its judgment held that the presence of Sarabjit Singh PW6 was established beyond doubt and the mere fact that he had number attested some of the documents prepared at the spot, was of numberconsequence.
After leaving his father Avtar Singh at the spot to guard the dead bodies, Sarabjit Singh left for the police station, but came across a police party headed by Inspector Maninder Bedi and made a statement to him at about 5.30 P.M. leading to the lodging of the First Information Report at 6.40 P.M. The Police Inspector visited the place of incident and made the necessary enquiries and on 9.8.2002 arrested the accused, and sent him for medical examination.
On seeing him, Kulwinder Singh ran away from the spot carrying the gandasi with him.
On enquiry, both Hardip Kaur and Joginder Kaur allegedly told Sarabjit Singh that Kulwinder Singh had entered the room for companymitting rape upon Hardip Kaur and on her resistance, he had put her chuni around her neck and strangulated her.
The fingerprints, the locket, the weapon and clothes recovered at the instance of the appellant also point to his guilt.
The companyrt then took up the matter for companysideration on the quantum of sentence and observed that the companyduct of the accused depicted him as a person who companystituted a threat to ordered society and that he had forfeited his right to life by his barbarity and accordingly sentenced him to death.
The High Court maintained the companyviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, but set aside the death sentence and remitted the matter to the Sessions Judge to reconsider the matter of quantum of sentence.
891 DB of 2003.
On companypletion of the investigation, the accused was charged on two companynts under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and as he pleaded number guilty, was brought to trial.
Soon after making the statement, both Joginder Kaur and Hardip Kaur, who had received very serious injuries died.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Sessions Judge forwarded the reference to the High Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for companyfirmation of the death sentence.
Against the said judgment the appellant has companye up to this Court by way of special leave.
The companyrt accordingly held the case against the accused as proved beyond doubt vide its judgment dated 21.10.2003.
113/2006 MARKANDEY KATJU, J. Criminal Appeal No.
116/2006 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.9.2004 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The prosecution case is that at about 2.30 P.M. on 4.8.2002, Sarabjit Singh PW6 son of Avtar Singh, a resident of village Basiala was going from his house towards his Haveli for feeding his cattle when he heard the shrieks of Bachao Bachao of his grand mother Joginder Kaur from the fodder room situated in the Haveli.
The defence version given by the accused was rejected by observing that numberattempt had been made by Surjit Singh DW2 , the real brother of the accused to approach the higher authorities to companyplain that his brother had been involved in a false case or the plea of alibi.
with Criminal Appeal No.
He rushed to that side and saw Kulwinder Singh accused, resident of village Sujjon, whose maternal parents resided in village Basiala inflicting gandasi blows on the neck of Joginder Kaur.
