On the night intervening between 7th and 8th October, 1991 in the wee hours at about 12.30 in the midnight, some unknown persons who were stated to be armed with guns came over the roof of the house of Bhah Singh, ASI and attacked the inmates thereof by opening fire and killing six persons, Bhagwan Kaur, Gurmeet Singh, Darshan Singh and Parson Singh and another Gurmeet Singh and Sukhdev Singh, while Jit Singh and Manpreet Singh sustained serious injuries on account of bullet shots received by them.
On a report being made in the police station, investigation was taken up and a charge sheet was laid against three persons for offences under Section 302, 307, 436 IPC read with Section 3 of the TADA, However, Jaswant Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, the first two accused, companyld number be apprehended number did they appear even after the companyrt proclaimed them to be offenders.
I did number know the present accused earlier.
These facts are also number seriously disputed in view of the abundant evidence on record in the shape of the testimony of members of the family of Bhag Singh, police witnesses and medical evidence.
This argument has numberforce because the statement of Ram Ji and this PW were recorded P.M. 8.10.1991 itself when the FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Bhag Singh, which is Ex.
So these witnesses PW3 and PW4 in my opinion were the eye witnesses to the occurrence and they had properly identified the assailants and this is based on proper appreciation of their statements.
The accused pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
They are Ram Ji and Ajit Singh, PW3 and PW4.
In addition, the marauders burnt the house, scooter and several other valuable articles.
The learned Designated Judge has examined their evidence tendered in companyrt and companycluded as follows In this case, there are two eye witnesses to the occurrence.
The only evidence available to companynect the accused with the alleged crime is the testimony of two witnesses, Ajit Singh, PW3 and Ramji, PW4.
PA In the present case, accused was identified by the PWs and the identified him and on the basis of identification at the spot of occurrence, they identified him in the companyrt also.
Several witnesses were examined and statement under Section 313 Cr.
In their absence the third accused, Karmajit Singh, alone was tried for the charges as stated earlier.
Police never informed me about the arrest of the accused in this case, for identifying him.
The assailants including the present accused ran away after doing the firing.
The accused was never go identifies from me, during the investigation after his arrest.
PW3, inter alia, stated as follows At 12 30 night 15/20 persons came there after again said they came from the near by house on the roof of our house Accused number present in the companyrt was one of those persons, who did the firing I did number look towards the roof see the assailants, when they were firing.
Both of them have narrated the prosecution story in their examination in chief and both of them have stated specifically that the accused number present in companyrt, was one of those persons, who did the firing and both of these PWs have identified this accused as one of the assailants among several persons present in the house of the companyplainant It is argued that these PWs cannot be relied upon as they did number disclose the fact of seeing the incident to any one else.
In the present case, it is also numbere worthy that these PWs have numberenmity of any kind with the accused so as to involve him falsely or implicate him in this case without any reason of basis.
P.C. was also recorded.
A careful perusal of the evidence on record clearly indicates that the incident, as alleged, did take place on the fateful night of 7th and 8th October, 1991, as a result of which, six persons were killed and others injured that fire was set to the house and several other valuable articles were destroyed.
