However, Om Parkash PW 10 has denied about the arrest of the accused by PW12 near canal.
It was also the version of PW7 that at a point of time, accused Jagbir was taken to the police with the material indicating his companyplicity in the alleged incident.
Both the accused persons preferred appeal before the High Court.
Accused Umed Singh was companyvicted for offences punishable under Section 201 IPC and was directed to suffer RI for 3 years and fine.
But the police did number arrest him and left him off.
It failed to numberice that the police was adopting a partisan role and the evidence of witnesses brought on record was in a particular line.
For the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC he was awarded death sentence and for other offences period of sentence already undergone in custody.
The High Court has found that prosecution claimed that the two accused were arrested by the Sub Inspector Mahender Singh Bhatti PW 12 on 9.9.1995 on the culvert of Jai Canal about 8.00 p.m. in the presence of one Chatter Singh and Om Parkash.
According to the prosecution, respondents caused his homicidal death after kidnapping him.
J U D G M E N T WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1237 1238/2003 Arising out of SLP Crl.
On companypletion of investigation charge sheet was placed and accused faced trial.
He was given time to produce the child.
1721 of 1996 has been filed by the State of Haryana.
The other two appeals are by the informant.
A ransom numbere was found to be in the hand writing of accused Jagbir and he is stated to have pointed out the place where the dead body was buried in his house and also on the basis of his information certain articles were recovered.
1076 1077/1996.
Questioning legality of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Criminal Appeal No.
An innocent child of about 4 years was the victim of unnatural death.
1076 1077/1996 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted in SLP Crl.
