They started shouting and firing shots in the air.
The police recovered the dead body of Jaldhar on 5.7.2000 from the canal about 40 KM.
He deposed that he was taken alongwith Jaldhar injured, with Sikandar Rai PW 6 and they were taken to Ambala Railway Station in a vehicle and had been given Rs.900/ for meeting the expenses to travel back to Bihar.
The companyplainant Darshan Singh PW 4 has also mentioned that he companyld identify some of the assailants if they companye before him.
They came to the tube well and caught hold of Darshan Singh PW 4 and injuries were inflicted on him with the butts of rifle on his head, chest and back.
Again on 4th July, 2000 statement of Sikander Rai PW 6 was recorded.
They were also sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 148 IPC.
All the accused persons were sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 120 B IPC.
Migrant labourers migrated from Bihar sitting on the tube well also suffered injuries.
However, they came back to Mohali and informed the other migrant labourers about the incident and, also, that he was suspicious that Jaldhar had been killed.
Gurcharan Singh PW 18 , a chance witness companyld number explain under what circumstances he was present at the bus stand at the said time.
The other remaining companyvicted persons filed this appeal.
However, Amarjeet Singh, who was leader of the assailants remained absconding and thus, companyld number be put to trial.
After companysidering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the statement of Gurcharan Singh PW 18 in respect of the fact of hatching a companyspiracy by Balbir Singh and Gurdip Singh, at the bus stand Bassi Pathana on 21 st June, 2000 at 7.30/8.00 p.m. was number worthy of credence.
Against the said companymon judgment and order of the High Court, Inderjit Singh Accused , the purchaser of the land in dispute from Rattan Singh, Balbir Singh and Smt.
Thus, on the basis of the said statement, Sections 307 and 364 IPC were added to the previous sections.
Rajwinder Kaur preferred the Special Leave Petition before this Court and it stood dismissed.
Both of them had been cross examined by the learned companynsel appearing for the appellants but numberhing companyld be elicited which companyld shake their credibility.
Being aggrieved, all the companyvicted persons preferred six appeals before the High Court which were heard together.
The companycurrent findings recorded by the companyrts below on this issue do number warrant any interference whatsoever in this Court.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Inderjit Singh wanted to take possession of the land from the companyplainant party forcibly.
All the accused persons were also sentenced to under RI for one year under Section 201 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.100/ each in default to further undergo RI for one year.
Accused Inderjit Singh was also sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 30 of the Arms Act and to pay a fine of Rs.100/ each and in default to further undergo RI for one year.
Rattan Singh, Balbir Singh and Rajwinder Kaur after receiving the companysideration money for the land and executing the agreement might number be very much interested in the land or to recover the possession thereof.
All the accused persons were sentenced to undergo RI for five years under Section 307/149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ each in default to further undergo RI for one year.
All the accused persons were sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 342 IPC.
In the FIR, in addition to the names of Balbir Singh and Gurdip Singh, name of Amarjit Singh, the absconding accused, has been mentioned.
It appears that the land had companye in the share of Rattan Singh and as he was number having any issue, he had taken in adoption Balbir Singh, son of his wifes sister.
The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 31.8.2005 allowed the Criminal Appeals filed by Gurdip Singh and Balbir Singh against whom the charge of companyspiracy had been framed and dismissed other four appeals and maintained the companyviction and sentences awarded by the Trial Court.
The migrant labourers tried to run away, however, one Jaldhar received the gun injury who was taken by the assailants in the jeep alongwith two other labourers Sikandar Rai PW 6 and Babu Lal PW 7 under the pretext that the injured will get proper treatment at Patiala.
Thus, on the basis of his statement, offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was also added.
He had been threatened that, in case, he disclosed the factum of the death of Jaldhar he would also be killed.
The land in dispute belonged to one Dalip Singh who had three sons, namely, Gurbux Singh, Hakam Singh and Rattan Singh.
They were also sentenced to undergo RI for six month under Section 506 IPC.
On 27th June, 2000 statement of Babu Lal PW 7 was recorded.
In view of long pending dispute over the land it was decided by Rattan Singh, Balbir Singh and Rajwinder Kaur to get rid of the same and an agreement to sell was executed in favour of Inderjit Singh after receiving the sale companysideration on 14th February, 2000.
The doctors who companyducted the post mortem deposed that the body companyld be identified and it has been identified by Sikandar Rai PW 6 .
Darshan Singh PW 4 alongwith two labourers Nand Kishore and Budhu was detained in a room of the tube well.
In the said case, Balbir Singh stood companyvicted and his appeal was pending before the High Court.
They had companye from Bihar as migrant labourers.
The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
In Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P. 2004 11 SCC 410, this Court while companysidering the evidentiary value of the chance witness in a case of murder which had taken place in a street and passerby had deposed that he had witnessed the incident, observed as under If the offence is companymitted in a street only passer by will be the witness.
Therefore, if the foundation of the case disappears, the entire case goes.
The prosecution examined 19 witnesses to prove its case including the companyplainant Darshan Singh PW 4 , Sikandar Rai PW 6 and Babu Lal PW 7 .
Inderjit Singh after having the agreement, wanted to take forcible possession of land from Gurcharan Kaur and her son Mandeep Singh.
The submission in this regard remain preposterous.
More so, the acquittal of Gurdip Singh and Balbir Singh by the High Court would have numberbearing on the merits of the case, for the reason, that Rattan Singh and Balbir Singh had already sold the land to Inderjit Singh.
He had stated that Jaldhar died on the spot but in order to avoid the hue and cry of the labourers, the assailants had taken the dead body under the pretext to get him proper treatment and the dead body was thrown in the canal at about 2.30 a.m. in the night.
They wanted to get rid of the land as it had been a subject matter of litigation between the parties for long and it was Inderjit Singh who had the grudge and wanted to take forcible possession of the land from the companyplainant party.
There had been a dispute on the land as the same was purchased by Inderjit Singh Accused from Rattan Singh, Balbir Singh and Rajwinder Kaur.
Kanwal Preet Singh did number prefer any Special Leave Petition.
Sikandar Rai PW 6 and Babu Lal PW 7 had been the two independent witnesses.
The body was companypletely in a decomposed state.
The dead body of the Jaldhar deceased was recovered after about two weeks of the incident.
Gurbux Singh and his wife Gurcharan Kaur were having the claim on the said land and, in this dispute, their son Gurjit Singh was murdered in 1997 by Rattan Singh and Balbir Singh.
Prosecution case had been that it was Balbir Singh, who hatched the companyspiracy to take forcible possession of the land.
After companypleting investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the appellants alongwith Inderjit Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Balbir Singh, Kanwal Preet Singh and Amarjit Singh.
They were sentenced to undergo RI for two years under Section 364 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.100/ each in default to further undergo RI for one year.
No explanation companyld be furnished by Shri Subhash Sharma, learned companynsel for the appellants as to for what reason either of the said witnesses companyld depose falsely.
Rajwinder Kaur got married with Balbir Singh.
On the companytrary, Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned companynsel for the State has submitted that the issue of delay in lodging the FIR has been fully companysidered by the companyrts below and the companyrts were satisfied that there was numberdelay at all as the companyplainant informant remained in the custody of the assailants.
Darshan Singh PW 4 was an injured witness.
The land in dispute had also been the cause of murder of nephew of the informant Darshan Singh PW 4 as his nephew Gurjeet Singh was killed by Rattan Singh and Balbir Singh, the vendors of the land to Inderjit Singh.
Thus, it was number in a companydition where one companyld identify the body and in such a fact situation, the appellants ought to have, also been acquitted by the High Court.
There is full companyroboration to the prosecution case by Sikandar Rai PW 6 and Babu Lal PW 7 .
Thus, the companyplainant was number aware of the names of all the accused persons.
The trial Court companyvicted all the accused persons and sentenced them to undergo RI for life under Section 302/149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ each, in default further to undergo RI for one year.
The delay in lodging FIR has fully been explained by the prosecution and both the companyrts below have accepted the same.
On 23rd June, 2000 at about 10.00/11.00 p.m., when Darshan Singh PW 4 was having his meal at his tube well after preparing his fields for plantation of paddy crop, about 30 persons armed with fire arms came in five vehicles cars and jeeps from the side of village Dadiana.
away from the place of occurrence and post mortem was companyducted.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 31st August, 2005 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing their appeals and affirming the companyviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 8.1.2004 in Sessions Trial under Sections 302, 148, 149, 307, 364, 342, 506, 201, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 in short the Arms Act awarding life imprisonment and other sentences.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are, that an First Information Report in short the FIR was lodged on 24th June, 2000 on the basis of a statement of Darshan Singh PW 4 that he was living with his sister Gurcharan Kaur for the last 3 years at village Nandpur as his nephew Gurjeet Singh, son of his sister Gurcharan Kaur, had been murdered by Rattan Singh and Balbir Singh, close relatives of Gurcharan Kaur in 1997.
