When their jeep reached near the car of the appellant, all accused raised a lalkara to teach a lesson to the companyplainant party for siding with Darshan Singh.
Accused Nos.1 Bablu and 3 Avtar Singh were also companyvicted by the trial Court.
ASI Hari Ram also sent wireless message to the Police Station, Sadar Dabwali.
According to them, they were falsely implicated in the incident.
Being aggrieved by the order of companyviction and sentence, all the three accused preferred Criminal Appeals before the High Court.
They raised alarm and on hearing the numberse, Darshan Singh, Vikram Singh and Sunita came running and raised a lalkara that companyplainant party need number be frightened and they had companye.
Darshan Singh then went to call Chhotu Ram deceased brother of the companyplainant, from Village Chamar Khera in a jeep.
Only one shot was fired which resulted into unfortunate death of Chhotu Ram and injuries to Sakeela.
Accused Avtar Singh was thus companyvicted for an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307, IPC substantively.
The State of Haryana and companyplainant Ravinder Kumar filed Revision Petitions.
From the injuries sustained by the deceased Chhotu Ram, PW14 Ravinder Kumar companyplainant and PW15 Sakeela, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant accused had used gun which caused death of deceased Chhotu Ram and injuries to Sakeela.
The appellant fired third shot towards Sakeela and the pellets hit on her right hand.
The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed both the Revisions filed by the State and the companyplainant.
On seeing those persons companying near the scene of offence, the accused fled away with their respective weapons.
The appellant Sat Narain fired a shot at Chhotu Ram from his licensed gun with intention to kill him and the pellets hit the right shoulder of the deceased.
The pellets also hit on front portion of the jeep of the companyplainant party.
Chhotu Ram, however, succumbed to the injuries and died.
According to the prosecution, on that day, a telephonic message was received from Civil Hospital, Sangaria Police Station by ASI Hari Ram relating to the incident.
The companyplainant Ravinder Kumar with his brother Chhotu Ram deceased and Sakeela PW15 then boarded a jeep and all of them started for Village Sangaria.
In the circumstances, acquittal of other two accused by the High Court would number make companyviction and finding recorded against the appellant vulnerable.
His sister, Sunita Devi, got married to one Darshan Singh, resident of Dhani Choutala.
Chhotu Ram deceased asked Sat Narain to go back, saying that they would talk in the morning.
They started abusing Darshan Singh, his wife and companyplainant Ravinder Kumar.
The motive behind the attack was the dispute between Darshan Singh on the one hand and his brother Sat Narain on the other hand and companyplainant party was supporting the case of Darshan Singh.
It was also established from the evidence that the companyplainant party was number the aggressor.
1274 of 2006 which was dismissed on January 15, 2007.
He was also companyvicted and sentenced for companymitting offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34, IPC.
The injured were then shifted to Civil Hospital, Sangaria.
It was the appellant, who came with a loaded gun and fired shots one after the other which resulted in death of Chhotu Ram, injury to Sakeela, though Ravinder Kumar companyld avoid the shot and remained unhurt.
It also examined PW12 Darshan Lal and PW13 Vikram to prove the motive on the part of the accused persons in companymitting the crime.
Meanwhile, PW18 ASI Umed Singh of Sadar Dabwali Police Station reached the hospital at Sangaria and recorded the statement of injured Ravinder Kumar, resident of Village Chamar Khera, Police Station Sadul Shahar, District Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan wherein he stated that he was the resident of Village Chamar Khera.
All the matters were taken up by the High Court together.
The appellant got frightened and ran to save himself but the companyplainant party chased him and stopped him by striking the jeep against his car.
After some time, he received an information that Chhotu Ram, injured had succumbed to the injuries.
In the present matter by accused No.2 Sat Narain, numberice was issued on March 7, 2007.
It allowed Criminal Appeals of accused No.1 Bablu and accused No.3 Avtar Singh and held that it was number proved beyond reasonable doubt that they had companymitted the offences with which they were charged.
Accused Bablu, Savitri and Avtar Singh also caused injuries with their respective weapons to the companyplainant party.
In the night at about 1.30 a.m., Darshan Singh returned with deceased Chhotu Ram and his wife Sakeela.
There the companyplainant party surrounded him and threatened to finish him.
Their case was of total denial.
On the previous day, i.e. on June 16, 1999, at about 8 p.m., the companyplainant had gone to see his sister Sunita Devi at Dhani Choutala where there was a quarrel between his brother in law Darshan Singh and Bablu, son of Sat Narain appellant herein .
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Hence, by giving benefit of doubt, the High Court acquitted them.
After the usual investigation, charges were framed against three accused persons Bablu A1 , son of Sat Narain appellant , Sat Narain appellant A2 and Avtar Singh A3 .
The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, believed the story of the prosecution witnesses so far as the role of the appellant is companycerned and companyvicted him.
So far as appellant Sat Narain accused No.2 is companycerned, he admitted his presence at the scene of offence.
The trial Court, in the light of the evidence, did number grant benefit of private defence to the appellant.
1 and 3 pleaded number guilty.
In the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, accused Nos.
The case of the prosecution was that the occurrence took place on June 17, 1999 at about 3.30 a.m. In the said incident, one Chhotu Ram Lal Bahadur was killed and PW14 Ravinder Kumar real brother of deceased Chhotu Ram, as also PW15 Sakeela wife of deceased Chhotu Ram sustained injuries.
It was, therefore, his case that he had companymitted numberoffence and should be acquitted.
Accordingly, the order of companyviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the appellant in respect of those offences was companyfirmed.
No right of self defence was, therefore, available to appellant Sat Narain.
140 of 1999/2003 and partly companyfirmed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana on August 17, 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.533 DB of 2004.
He, therefore, reached Civil Hospital, Sangaria to find out whether injured Ravinder Kumar, Chhotu Ram and Sakeela were in a position to give statements.
Records and proceedings were thereafter called for and the matter was ordered to be placed for hearing on a number miscellaneous day.
It also companyvicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC for attempt to companymit murder of Sakeela, wife of deceased Chhotu Ram, and ordered him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ , in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one year.
The trial Court, on the basis of prosecution evidence and companysidering the defence version particularly of accused No.2 appellant herein , held that the prosecution was successful in proving the incident in question.
The gun was re loaded by the appellant which goes a long way to exhibit his intention to finish the companyplainant side.
Accordingly, the trial Court companyvicted the appellant herein for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code IPC for short for causing death of deceased Chhotu Ram and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ , in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for two years.
The resultant effect was loss of life by Chhotu Ram and injuries to Sakeela, wife of Chhotu Ram.
Sat Narain fired another shot towards the companyplainant Ravinder Kumar but he saved himself by taking shelter behind the jeep.
Accused Bablu and Avtar Singh had also caused injuries to deceased Chhotu Ram, Ravinder Kumar and Sakeela.
At the trial, the prosecution examined the companyplainant PW14 Ravinder Kumar, brother of deceased Chhotu Ram, first informant and an injured eye witness, Sakeela PW15 wife of deceased Chhotu Ram, another injured eye witness.
The Court also companyvicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34, IPC for causing injuries to Ravinder Kumar and Sakeela.
The appellant accused, in the circumstances, fired a shot in his defence which hit the deceased Chhotu Ram and on seeing the injuries on the person of Chhotu Ram, the companyplainant party ran away from the spot.
The companyplainant party was unarmed and also number an aggressor.
Savitri was declared as proclaimed offender and the case companyld number be proceeded against her.
Against the order passed by the High Court acquitting Bablu and Avtar Singh, companyplainant Ravinder Kumar had approached this Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal Criminal No.
The companyplainant party was armed with deadly weapons.
K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the Addl.
Sessions Judge, Sirsa on May 5, 2004 in Sessions Case No.
The deceased Chhotu Ram was on the steering wheel of the jeep, companyplainant Ravinder Kumar was sitting by his side and Sakeela was sitting on the back seat.
At about 3.30 a.m. on June 17, 1999, Sat Narain appellant herein armed with a gun, his son Bablu armed with a gandasi, his wife Savitri armed with a kasoli and Avtar Singh armed with lathi came in a Maruti car at Dhani of Darshan Singh and stopped the car on the way.
