We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the records.
Apart from the general evidence given as to the motive of A 1 to eliminate deceased Hari Om.
Pursuant to the said dispute, it is stated that on the night before 16.3.1986 A 1 Kanwar Singh had misbehaved by abusing deceased Hari Om, therefore, deceased Hari Om had decided to lodge a police companyplaint on the next day i.e. 16.3.1986.
The High Court also found the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and imposed a sentence of RI for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/ in default RI for 6 months on that companynt.
It also took numbere of the fact that both these witnesses were number permanent residents of Gochi village, having been married to persons away from the village and they were admittedly visiting the village.
The said companyrt also took numbere of the fact of the defence pleaded by the appellant that on the date of the incident he had left the village by 6 a.m. to proceed to Tripura to join duty and had in fact joined duty there and it was from Tripura that the appellant was arrested.
On the companytrary, the blood was found all over the left thigh and the leg of the victim indicating that the victim must have been shot at when he was standing.
On the basis of the above material gathered during the investigation the accused persons were charged as stated above, and the learned Sessions Judge having companye to the companyclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused persons acquitted them while the High Court in appeal has companyvicted the appellant herein and acquitted the other two accused persons, A 1 in the meanwhile had died.
The High Court by its judgment dated 9.11.1995 allowed the appeal so far as the present appellant is companycerned, and companyvicted him of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/ in default to further undergo RI for one year.
The prosecution case as against this appellant rests on the oral evidence of PWs.3 and 7.
The companyrt also came to the companyclusion that the appellant had absolutely numbermotive to assist A 1 in companymitting the crime in question because there was numberenmity between him and the deceased.
On this basis, rejecting the prosecution case, it acquitted all the surviving accused persons.
The companyplaint in question was lodged by PW 3.
On his companying, PWs.3 and 7 left him at the spot and proceeded to the Police Station to lodge a companyplaint which was done around 10.15 a.m. at the Police Station which is stated to be only 3 kms.
Thereafter, it is stated that the appellant shot with a single barrel gun at the deceased in the chest and Hari Om died because of the said shot.
There was a dispute between Kanwar Singh A 1 and deceased Hari Om allegedly murdered by the accused .
It is the further case of the prosecution that A 2 surrendered before the Police on 20.3.1986 while A 1 and A 3 were arrested on 24.3.1986 and A 4 who had by then joined duty in Tripura was allegedly arrested on 10.4.1986 and brought to the village on 17.4.1986.
It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused persons after killing Hari Om threatened PWs.3 and 7 that if they named them they would eliminate their entire family, and fled from the place of the incident.
The companyrt also took numbere of the fact that the apparent companyflict in the evidence of PW 5, the photographer and the evidence of PWs.3 and 7 in regard to the time of the incident and companyrelating the evidence with that of the post mortem report, the companyrt doubted the prosecution case as to the time of the incident.
The State appeal against the acquittal of A 2 and A 3 was dismissed by the High Court, therefore, the appellant is number before us in this appeal.
It also came to the companyclusion that the evidence of PWs.3 and 7 that accused 2 and 3 held the deceased by his hands while the appellant shot him dead, was also highly improbable because there was numberneed to have held the deceased when he was available to be shot at point blank range by the appellant.
The companyrt numbericed that knowing very well that the appellant was using .12 bore gun which sprays pellets, neither A 2 number A 3 would have dared to hold the deceased from such close range because of the possibility of they also being injured in the process.
En route to his place of posting, he had taken some leave to visit his ailing sister at the village, hence, he had companye to the village.
It also numbericed the fact that according to the evidence of the said eye witnesses, deceased was shot at when he was lying down and he was being held by A 2 and A 3.
It is the further case of the prosecution, which, of companyrse, is number disputed, that the appellant in this appeal was serving the Central Reserve Police Force at Jammu was on orders of transfer to Tripura.
It came to the companyclusion that factually if the appellants were hiding in a Nullah and did number want to be identified, there was numberneed for these accused persons to have companye in front of the witnesses so as to make themselves available for identification, because they companyld have very well shot the deceased from the place where they were hiding.
The incident as stated above, was witnessed by PWs.3 and 7.
It is further stated that on a statement made by the appellant, a single barrel .12 bore gun was recovered from the house of A 3 who is the brother of the appellant herein which was kept companycealed in the South Western companyner of the Chabutra.
Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl.
It is relevant to mention herein that during the trial A 1 Kanwar Singh died and the proceedings had abated as against him.
After trial, the learned Sessions Judge came to the companyclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against all the accused persons and acquitted all of them of the charges.
The learned Sessions Judge also doubted the veracity of the recovery of the single barrel gun at the instance of the appellant.
away from the scene of the occurrence.
It directed both the sentences to run companycurrently.
The post mortem examination companyducted by PW 1 has established that the deceased Hari Om died of gun shot injuries.
In the said trial, the appellant was arrayed as accused No.4 A 4 before the Sessions Judge, Rohtak.
The trial companyrt while discussing the evidence of the prosecution came to the companyclusion that the oral evidence of PWs.3 and 4 cannot be relied upon because of the inherent improbabilities found therein.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the accused, the deceased and the companyplainant were all closely related.
So far as the present appellant is companycerned, the prosecution also relies upon the alleged recovery of the weapon made from the house of A 3 at the instance of the appellant.
Appeal No.238/DBA/89.
The further case of the prosecution is that on hearing about the incident, PW 6, the brother of PW 3 came to the spot.
The investigating officer after making the necessary diary entries and sending the special report proceeded to the place of the incident along with PWs.3 and 7 and held the inquest.
He recorded the statement of witnesses and sent the body for post mortem examination.
3 and 7, so far as other accused are companycerned and dismissed the State appeal as against them, while it allowed the same in regard to the present appellant.
With the said intention, it is stated that the deceased Hari Om with PW 3 Raj Bala and PW 7 Gayatri on that day proceeded towards the Police Station at about 9 a.m. and on the way the four accused persons who were hiding in a Nullah waylaid the deceased Hari Om and A 1 shot at him first with a companyntrymade pistol but the same did number fire.
