As accused abjured guilt, trial was held, accused was companyvicted and sentence was imposed.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Preetam Pyare had agreed to purchase a plot from Prem Singh and Sunder Lal and had paid Rs.2000/ as earnest money to them.
Shanti Devi companyplainant, W o Sh.
Preetam Pyare raised an alarm, the accused persons ran away from the spot.
The only evidence against the appellant was the alleged recovery of the pistol which was tested by the CFSL.
Preetam Pyare and his two sons Bhusan Lal and Kamal Kishore came along with them for having talks on the return of money and they reached in front of H.No.407 D, while talking.
The caliber also was the same.
The primary stand of the appellant was that there was numberevidence worth a name and even the so called injured witnesses refused to identify the assailant.
They, after accepting this earnest money, did number sell the plot to Preetam Pyare and had sold it to someone else and when Preetam Pyare demanded back his earnest money, they refused to return it.
Kakoo and Sunder Lal had beaten Kamal Kishore, the younger son of Preetam Pyare as a result of which he received injuries on his head.
Sunder Lal and Kakoo were having lathis in their hands and Sunder Lal exhorted them to beat them.
When Smt.
Shanti Devi also followed them and while they were talking, the talks became uncordial and abuses were hurled.
On 25.12.1992 at about 10.30 p.m. Prem Singh, Sunder Lal and Kakoo, came to the house of Preetam Pyare and took him away saying that they will return his earnest money.
The appellant, who had faced trial for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 in short the Arms Act .
The MLC for the injured was obtained and the accused persons were arrested.
She then lodged a companyplaint with the police on the basis of which, rukka was sent and on the basis of which case under Section 307/34 IPC r w of Arms Act 1959 was registered against the accused persons.
On this Prem Singh took out a revolver and shot him in his chest.
Questioning companyrectness of the companyviction and sentence as imposed the appellant filed an appeal.
It was found by CFSL that the bullet recovered from the body of the injured matched those test fired through the same pistol.
He also shot at Bhushan Lal S o Preetam Pyare, in his chest saying that, this is the way to return the money.
The revolver and the recovered bullet was seized and was sent for analysis to the CFSL and after companypletion of the formalities, the challan was filed in the companyrt.
The wife of Preetam Pyare, Smt.
The Mohalla people took the injured to the hospital.
233 of 1997 which dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
