The said Guria was arrested on 28.1.1983 and on the strength of a statement elicited from him a companyntry made pistol, a used cartridge and a Jive cartridge were recovered from beneath the heap of fodder grain stalked in his house.
For dealing with the aforesaid legal point a brief sketch of the facts has to be stated.
Guria was finally charge sheeted by the police and eventually that case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions, PW 4 Jagdish companyplained to the Superintendent of Police that the investigation was number directed into the allegation against the appellant and his brother.
The said legal point has been formulated by this companyrt as follows The question of law which has arisen for determination rests in discovering the companyrse to be steered by a Court of Session when two companymitments are made before it pertaining to the same offence and pertaining to the same victim, one giving one version against one accused, and the other giving another against a different accused.
Normally the retaliating cycle should have companypleted one circle of its rotation, but it seems to have companytinued to rotate.
The police registered FIR on the strength of that companyplaint against the above two persons as accused.
During the investigation companyducted by sub inspector Ganga Ram a Volte face happened when appellant was found to be number the culprit and instead one 19 year old youngster Guria son of Kirpa Ram was discovered to have shot at the deceased.
He was removed in the injured companydition to the hospital by his nephew PW 4 Jagdish and his uncle PW 5 Laxmi Narain .
As he did number get any response he filed a companyplaint before the magistrate on the allegation that the real culprits of Om Prakashs murder were the appellant and his brother Rajinder, and that the police investigation was totally misdirected at the influence of the real culprits.
The magistrate, on receipt of the companyplaint, proceeded therewith and eventually companymitted that case also to the Court of Sessions.
Resultantly, the man whom the investigating agency found to be the real murderer was shown his escape route while the man whom the other side dubbed as the culprit stands companyvicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
1999 Supp 4 SCR 120 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. Seldom would the companyrts have companye across such a weird scenario as the present case has presented.
Hence, the present appeal by Special Leave.
The doctor PW 1 examined him and pronounced him dead.
No appeal was filed against the acquittal of Guria, and hence the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court heard the appeal filed by the appellant alone.
The Bench companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence passed on him and dismissed his appeal.
The aforesaid Sessions Judge pronounced separate judgments in both cases on 4.11.1985, acquitting Guria and companyvicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC appellants brother Rajinder was, however, acquitted .
In 1972 the said Harpat was murdered for which Bagravat father of appellant was, indicted by the police, and in 1978 Bagravat was murdered for which Harpats son Manphool was challaned by the police.
PW 4 Jagdish then proceeded to the police station and lodged the companyplaint accusing the present appellant Balbir and his brother Rajinder as the persons who shot the deceased.
7 of 1985 before the companyrt of Additional Sessions Judge Sri BL Gultai .
54 of 1985.
The trial against Guria was companyducted as Sessions Case No.
On the afternoon of 11.1.1983 Om Prakash son of Harpat was shot dead at the bus stand of Bhuna Fathehabad .
The trial against the appellant and his brother was held before the same Court as the Sessions Case No.
His father Harpat and appellants father Bagravat were primogenitors of the two different families which engaged in annihilating each other.
PW 7 Assistant Sub Inspector of Police held the inquest on the dead body of Om Prakash on the same day.
The backdrop of the murder the subject matter of this case is the following The name of the person murdered in this case is Om Prakash.
In respect of one victim in one murder episode two diametrically divergent stories were put to test in two different trials before the same Sessions Court and both were prosecuted by the same Public Prosecutor.
