M O/4 and the cartridges Ex.
He was also companyvicted for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment.
His disclosure statement Ex.
A recovery memo Ex.
3 and 4 on the deceased were individually sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
The inquest report of the dead body was prepared and on a search from near the dead body three empties Ex.
The empty cartridges as also the revolver were later on sent in separate sealed parcels to the Ballistic Expert, who opined that the empties had been fired from revolver M O/4 On 28th June, 1984, ASI Mohinder Partap arranged a Test Identification Parade before Shri NarinderSingh Bath, Tahsildar cum Executive Magistrate, PW 2.
The prosecution case, that the appellant was arrested on 23 6 1984 and led to the recovery of the revolver and the cartridges pursuant to the disclosure statement, therefore, becomes suspect.
He further deposed that Jackaran Singh accused fired three shots from the revolver hitting my brother, who died at the spot.
M O/4 is companycerned, the disclosure statement, Ex.
The dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was performed by Dr. Sant Parkash Singh, Senior medical Officer, Muktear, P.W1 on 3rd June, 1984 at 11.30 a.m. According to the medical witness, injuries Nos.
They both fired at Sham Lal, who died at the spot.
Blood stained earth was also companylected vide memo Ex.
P 9/A was prepared.
Further, investigation was, thereafter, taken over by Inder Singh, SMO, PW 7 on 16 6 1984.
P 9 was recorded which was attested by the Panch witnesses Yash Pal and Sukhdev Singh, ASI.
Jaswinder Singh, Jagrup Singh and the appellant herein Jackaran Singh were tried for offences under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act by the learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur.
M O/4 and ten catridges Ex.
A telephonic companymunication was given to Gurmel Singh, SHO, at the Police Station, who rushed to the spot and after recording the statement of Surinder Kumar, PW 4 Ex.
They were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.
M O/5 to M O/14 at his instance, and pleaded false implication.
P 6 , which formed the basis of the FIR, took the investigation in hand.
M O/4 pursuant to a disclosure statement made by the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act besides the report of the Ballistic Expert to companynect the appellant with the crime.
Thus, the version that each of the three accused had fired at his brother was also given a go bye.
The appellant was arrested and on his interrogation, he disclosed that he had companycealed one revolver along with ten cartridges under the heap of the companyton sticks in his field.
M O/1 to M O/3 were recovered.
The prosecution, with a view to companynect the appellant with the crime, examined Dr. Sant Parkash Singh, P.W 1, NarinderSingh Bath, PW.2, Gurbachan Singh Draftsman, PW 3, Surinder Kumar, PW 4, Nihal Singh, PW 5, Gurmel Singh, SI, PW 6 and Inder Singh, PW 7.
Thus, at the trial, Surinder Kumar, PW 4 number only attempted to project that he had identified the appellant and Jagrup Singh as the assailants at the time of occurrence but also that all the three shots which had hit the deceased had been fired by the appellant alone.
While Jaswinder Singh was acquitted Jagrup Singh was found guilty of an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer nine months R. I. Jackaran Singh appellant was companyvicted for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
P.C. the appellant denied the prosecution allegations, including the recovery of the revolver Ex.
So far as the companyscious possession of the weapon Ex.
After companypleting the investigation, the appellant and others were put on trial.
Consequent upon the disclosure statement, the appellant got recovered revolver Ex.
He then went on to say that Jackaran appellant had a revolver while Jagrup Singh had a pistol and they alone had fired at his brother and that Jagrup Singh did number fire at his brother but that he had fired in the air.
Since the injuries have been reproduced by the trial companyrt, we refrain from repeating the same in this judgment .
Jaswinder Singh the acquitted companyaccused was also with them.
Besides, the report of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh and affidavits of some of the police officials were also tendered.
The statement of PW 4, Surinder Kumar to the effect that I had seen the accused in the police station for the first time after about 13 14 days of the occurrence probably the defence version.
M O/5 to M O/14 from his field from under the heap of companyton sticks.
In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.
The appellant and his companyaccused, however, refused to participate in the identification parade on the plea that ever since the initiation of the case, the witnesses had been seeing them.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the record.
It was also attested by the panch witnesses, Yash Pal and Sukhdev Singh ASI.
The prosecution case is that on 2nd June, 1984 at about 8.30 p.m. when Sham Lal deceased was returning along with his brother Surinder Kumar, PW4 after taking his bath, near the workshop of Nahar Singh, the appellant and Jagrup Singh companyaccused armed with a revolver and a pistol respectively suddenly came out from behind a tree.
Surinder Singh, PW 4 has, thus, number only made material improvements in his statement at the trial but has also exaggerated the prosecution case.
The sentences were, however, directed to run companycurrently.
