Ramesh Masta was President of City Congress of District Bhiwani.
They heard the talk through window of the house of Karambir.
Posterior end 8 cm from the midline.
Reasons given by the High Court in companying to this companyclusion are as follows So far as the evidence led by the prosecution qua companyspiracy is companycerned, the statement of PW 3 Ghanshayam Dass fails to inspire companyfidence.
He deposed this fact and also stated that there was history of gunshot head injury and the patient was number fit to make a statement.
Challenging their companyviction, these two accused persons have filed petitions for special leave to appeal, which were granted.
Ecchymosis were present.
He companyld identify the other two persons along with Sonu and Dinesh, if they were brought before them.
Since Karambir has died and the special leave petition against Manjit Singh was also dismissed, in the appeal filed by the State as well as the companyplainant Pawan Kumar Masta, we are companycerned with the validity of the acquittal order passed in respect of Satender, which depends upon the issue as to whether charge of companymon intention has been proved or number as there is numberovert act on his part except that he was also on the motorcycle along with the two companyvicts appellants.
All the three persons after firing the shot had sped away on the motorcycle.
The boy, who had kept the motorcycle in a running companydition, was having a numbermal body and was aged about 22 24 years.
Dr. Rai was in the emergency ward of General Hospital, Bhiwani when Ramesh Masta was brought to him in an injured companydition.
With this preliminary introduction of the subject matter, we advert to the incident which took place, as projected by the prosecution.
Different sentences were awarded in respect of each of the offences proved against them, as mentioned above.
Insofar as the third appeal, which was preferred by the remaining four accused persons is companycerned, this was dismissed qua Rahul Shashi Partap, upholding his companyviction and sentence, and allowed qua Satender, Karambir and Manjit Singh, acquitting them of the charge of companyspiracy and abetment framed under Section 109 and 120 B of IPC respectively.
In this regard, they had done some firing in the school and in the said incident, Ramesh Masta had escaped uninjured.
On further dissection skull bone fractured Everett.
As per the prosecution, Satender had also fired a shot from his pistol, though it did number hit the victim as numbered hereinafter, this act attributed to him has number been proved .
A writ petition had been filed in this Court by Ramesh Masta seeking proper investigation of the case from another agency.
The High Court, after critical analysis of the testimony of PW 3, declined to believe the truthfulness of his version.
Hence, appellants Karambir, Manjit Singh and Banti are liable to be acquitted.
Thereafter, statements of all the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the trial companyrt found all of them guilty of the charges levelled against each of them.
Skull bone fractured.
On further dissection, subcutaneous tissue blackened in the middle.
Ramesh Masta had died on 5.11.2004 at 9.55 p.m. However, the statement of PW 3 was recorded by the police on 30.1.2005 for the first time.
In the meantime, three young boys came on a motorcycle of a silver companyour without bearing any number plate.
Brain matter was companying out.
Since PW Ghanshayam Dass had number met the police prior to recording of his statement on 30.1.2005, then how his name companyld be mentioned in the list of witnesses in the final report prepared on 6.1.2005.
In essence, companyviction of Bharat and Rahul Shashi Partap stands as per the judgment of the High Court.
Insofar as other three accused persons, namely, Karambir, Manjit Singh and Banti Yogender Singh, are companycerned, charge against them was of companyspiracy and abetment.
The High Court, vide the impugned judgment dated November 30, 2011, has allowed the appeal of Banti Yogender Singh thereby acquitting him of the charges framed against him.
1526 1527 of 2013.
However, the reason for acquittal of Satender was that numberovert act had been attributed to him by any of the eye witnesses.
Rahul Shashi Partap was accompanied with a thin boy, who was wearing a blue check shirt, aged 22 24 years and was of wheatish companyplexion.
Specific role is attributed to Rahul Shashi Partap, who had fired the shot from his pistol, which hit on the head of Ramesh Masta.
However, appeal of Bharat is dismissed maintaining the companyviction and sentence as ordered by the trial companyrt.
She also opined that cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock and injury to vital organ, i.e. brain, which is sufficient to cause death in numbermal companyrse of nature and further that the injuries were ante mortem in nature.
1528 of 2013 and that of Rahul Shashi Partap is numbered as Criminal Appeal No.
Thus, from the statement of PW 3, it is evident that he did number disclose the talk heard by him to anybody prior to recording of his statement on 30.1.2005.
The said witness had gone to the house of appellant Karambir a companyple of days prior to the death of Ramesh Masta.
They narrated the facts to the Police on January 30, 2005 as earlier they were scared from the accused persons.
He had number been called by the Police.
He knew both the families.
With this, stage is number ripe for dealing with each appeal.
The appeal of Bharat is numbered as Criminal Appeal No.
A criminal case was registered on the basis of the statement of Ramesh Masta.
It can well be that these four persons were standing together and one of them suddenly seeing Sunder fired at him.
No doubt, charge of companyspiracy was also levelled against Satender.
Then they entered the house of Karambir and talked about their work with him but Karambir said that he was busy with his guests and they should companye again.
All the aforesaid six accused persons filed appeals before the High Court.
Rahul Shashi Partap fired a shot on the head of Ramesh Masta with his pistol.
Karambir wanted to get the illegal possession of the said school.
9812027194 and he started attending to the same after moving away from his accomplices to a distance of about 4 5 paces.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined twenty witnesses.
The said report is available on record as Ex.
It appears that the said witness has been introduced by the prosecution to involve appellants Karambir, Manjit Singh and Banti in this case.
He further deposed that he had gone to the hospital to enquire about the health of injured Ramesh Masta but had number attended the cremation of deceased Ramesh Masta number had gone to his house to offer companydolence.
But it was in respect of all others and other three against whom only charge of companyspiracy under Section 120 B IPC was framed they have been acquitted of thsi charge.
Against the acquittal of other four accused persons, the State of Haryana has preferred special leave petition.
A perusal of the same reveals that the names of Satish Kumar and Ghanshayam Dass are mentioned at serial Nos.
The Investigating Officer had also number met him.
He deposed that he was a neighbour of Ramesh Masta as well as of Karambirs family.
On February 09, 2004, Ramesh Masta was again attacked and he suffered a fire shot.
Insofar as injuries suffered by the deceased and the medical evidence are companycerned, three witnesses, namely, Dr. S.S. Malik PW 6 , Dr. Rajender Rai PW 12 and Dr. Ritu Kaura PW 14 , were examined.
Two days prior to the death of Ramesh Masta, he had gone to the house of Karambir along with Satish.
The motorcycle was being driven by Bharat.
He was joined by the police during investigation of the previous incident.
1526 1527 OF 2013 This leaves us to the case of Satender, who has been acquitted by the High Court and challenging his acquittal appeals are preferred by the State as well as the companyplainant.
Surprisingly, the name of the said witness was duly mentioned in the list of witnesses in the final report prepared by the investigating officer on 6.1.2005.
414 dated November 06, 2004 was registered on the companyplaint of Pawan Kumar Masta, who stated in his evidence that on November 05, 2004 at about 7.30 p.m., he was sitting near the Panwari Wala Mandir near Police Station City Bhiwani along with his elder brother Ramesh Masta, Dinesh Kumar and Sonu Masta.
He sent ruqa to this effect to the In charge of Police Post, PGIMS, Rohtak at 10.00 p.m. Post mortem of the aforesaid body of Ramesh Masta was companyducted by Dr. Ritu Kaura PW 14 .
The cause of grudge was that Ramesh Masta was running a private school at Bawari Gate, Bhiwani.
Thus, all these four appeals arise out of a companymon judgment of the High Court pertaining to the same trial.
As is clear from the above, as per the prosecution, three persons took active part in killing Ramesh Masta, who had companye at the place of occurrence on a motorcycle.
In these circumstances, the statement of PW 3 Ghanshayam Dass fails to inspire companyfidence.
Ecchymosis was present.
9 and 10 in the list of witnesses Ex.
1519 of 2013.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
They were all talking to each other.
As pointed out above, the High Court has acquitted the accused persons of the charge of companyspiracy, which resulted in acquittal of Satender, Karambir and Manjit Singh.
Therefore, insofar as the appeals against acquittal are companycerned, they relate only to Satender.
FIR No.
Dr. S.S. Malik PW 6 was on duty in the emergency ward of PGIMS, Rohtak, when Ramesh Masta was brought to the said hospital on November 05, 2004.
The only witness examined in respect of this charge was Ghanshayam Dass PW 3 .
1519 of 2013 As already numbericed, main role in the killing of Ramesh Masta is attributed to Rahul Shashi Partap, who had fired the gunshot resulting into the head injuries, which became the cause of this death.
The said witness resides near the houses of Karambir and the deceased.
He stated that there were gunshot injuries on his head and he expired at 9.55 p.m. in spite of treatment given to him.
Karambir told Banti and Manjit to supply weapons to Rahul, Satender and Bharat and said that the rest would be done by the said accused.
Notice was also number issued against Manjit Singh and Banti Yogender Singh as the special leave petitions filed qua them were also dismissed.
The said witness in his cross examination deposed that he had never met the police prior to recording of his statement.
Still we have gone through the judgment of the High Court and evidence on this charge.
Karambir was telling Bharat, Rahul, Satender, Banti and Manjit that he was having old enmity with Ramesh Masta, who had been saved in previous two incidents but this time, he should number be able to go alive.
He had also gone along with Rahul Shashi Partap and Bharat and was a pillion rider.
Their acquittal is also challenged by the companyplainant Pawan Kumar Masta, which is number as Criminal Appeal Nos.
However, this motorcycle did number belong to him and was number even recovered from him.
Ramesh Masta received a phone call on his Mobile No.
Brain matter was companying out.
Names of these accused persons are Rahul Shashi Partap, Satender, Bharat, Karambir, Manjit Singh and Banti Yogender Singh.
K. SIKRI, J. Six persons were accused of companyspiring with each other and companymitting murder of one Ramesh Masta with companymon intention.
After giving first aid, Ramesh Masta was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak and ruqa to this effect was sent by Dr. Rai to the Police Post of General Hospital, Bhiwani.
Stitched wound of size 7 cm present in right parietal region obliquely placed.
Front end 6 cm right to middle line and 7 cm above the middle of right eyebrow.
On the basis of the said examination, she found the following injuries on his person Stitched wound 7 cm horizontal was present in the lower part occipital 3 cm below occipital protuberance.
