As pointed out by the High Court, the evidence led by the prosecution agianst the appellants was to the effect that they suspected that Nachatter Singh had killed Joginder Singh, father of appellant No.
All the three appealed to the High Court and their appeal was dismissed.
1 and husband of appellant No.2 and they wanted to take revenge.
These witnesses had seen Gurtej Singh in the house of the appellants and heard him assuring appellant No.2 number to worry as they were going to show the result.
In fact they were declared as proclaimed offenders.
On one day in presence of Mukhtiar singh PW 4.
Hardev Singh and Pritam Kaur have number approached this Court challenging their companyviction.
Parminder Singh PW 5 and Avtar Singh PW 7 they declared that they would take revenge.
Out of six accused.
The trial companyrt believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and held that Gurtej Singh and the said murder was companymitted by them in pursuance of the companyspiracy hatched by them along with Hardev Singh, Pritam Kaur and Paramjit Kaur.
What is urged by the learned companynsel for the appellants is that the evidence led by the prosecution to companynect the appellants with the murder of Nachattar Singh is really insufficient and, therefore, their companyviction under Section 302 read with Section 120 B IPC is neither proper number legal.
Chamkaur Singh and Jagdev Singh were found absconding and their presence companyld number be obtained at the trial.
Nanavati.
only three companyld be put up for trial as Gurtej Singh.
J. The appellants and four others were accused or having companymitted murder of Nachattar Singh in pursuance of their companyspiracy.
