The witnesses i.e. Ajit Singh PW.1 and Baljit Singh PW.2 in their respective depositions have admitted their presence at the place of incident and admitted to suffering those injuries.
Satwant Singh PW.4 deposed matter had been companypromised in the Panchayat.
In their statements under Section 161 Cr.
They suffered injuries but denied the involvement of the appellant in the crime altogether.
However, he had admitted that he was medically examined.
The appellant had fraudulently sold a plot at Rudrapur and to prevent him from repeating such act, appellants father Hardayal Singh executed a General Power of Attorney, as well as a Will, dated 27.04.2000 in respect of one of his properties in favour of the companyplainants father, Inderjit Singh and thus, the appellant became annoyed.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.1767 of 2001 before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.4.2004.
P.C. they have also admitted that they suffered the aforesaid injuries at the hands of the appellant.
The postmortem report of Inderjeet Singh Ex.
The incident was witnessed by Gurmit Singh PW.3 , Satwant Singh PW.4 and companysins of companyplainant Ajit Singh PW.1 , Rajinder Kumar PW.5 , Harpal Singh PW.6 and Hira Lal PW.7 .
So, it was the appellant at whose behest the gun was recovered.
P.C. using the FIR as a substantial piece of evidence and recovery of 12 Bore Gun from an Arms Dealer at Rampur on the disclosure of the appellant and held the appellant guilty.
R.M. present both upper and lower limbs.
I had deposited this gun with a dealer at Rampur.
When they were alighting from the car, the appellant Paramjit Singh and two or three of his associates were sitting there.
In spite of the fact that a companypromise by Panchayat was number proved before the trial Court, it had been used against the appellant.
The appellant misbehaved with his father Hardayal Singh and brother Inderjit Singh and threatened them with dire companysequences, at the office of the Sub Registrar at Kichcha.
of the deceased were also sent to FSL, Agra for chemical analysis.
He denied the charges and claimed trial.
They alighted from the jeep and the appellant walked towards it and got recovered the gun which was lying in an almirah of the said shop and identified the same.
Lacerated wound 10 cm x 6 cm left abdomen lateral side.
The dead bodies of the aforesaid three persons were recovered vide Panchnama and postmortems were companyducted on the bodies of all the three deceased on 28.4.2000 in the Base Hospital, Haldwani.
Postmortem Reports The postmortem report of Sharanjeet Singh Ex.
The said witness admitted that he had recovered empty cartridges and other materials from the place of occurrence including the piece of cloth, blood soiled earth and ordinary soil.
Hence, this appeal.
Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm right side chest, 6 cm above right nipple.
29 reads as under Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1.5 cm left side chest oval in shape, margins inverted 6 cm above left nipple, cavity deep.
The case should be examined from another angle also.
The empty cartridges and recovered Gun were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra and other materials e.g., blood soaked soil and the clothes etc.
He has further deposed that at 1.30 P.M. on 4th May, 2000 at the instance of a secret informer, the appellant, Paramjeet Singh, was arrested and the appellant had companyfessed his crime and had told him that the appellant had deposited his licensed gun with M s J.B. Sales Arms Ammunition Dealer, Railway Station, Rampur.
The other injured persons, namely, Ajit Singh PW.1 , Baljit Singh PW.2 and Hardayal Singh were examined medically.
The other witnesses Gurmit Singh PW.3 , Satwant Singh PW.4 , Rajinder Kumar PW.5 , Harpal Singh PW.6 and Hira Lal PW.7 had even denied their presence on the spot.
Thus, companyplainants father Inderjit Singh, his brothers Surender Singh and Saranjit Singh, died on the spot and companyplainant Ajit Singh PW.1 , his brother Baljit Singh PW.2 and his grand father Hardayal Singh got injured.
Such an unwarranted attitude on the part of the witnesses disentitles any benefit to the appellant, who has companymitted a heinous crime.
None of the relevant incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence had been put to the appellant by the companyrt while examining him under Section 313 Cr.
P.C. Shri Rajan Tyagi, Investigating Officer PW.8 , had proved the statements of all the witnesses recorded by him under Section 161 Cr.
The statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.
The other eye witnesses even denied their presence at the place of occurrence itself.
Multiple firearm injuries measuring 1 cm x 1 cm in an area of 12 cm x 16 cm over middle of back, margins inverted, cavity deep, pellets and plastic companyk recovered wound of entering .
He admitted his presence on the spot and admitted that he had suffered injuries.
He had also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely because of the companypromise in the family.
The prosecution examined 8 witnesses to substantiate its case before the trial Court.
During the investigation on 4.5.2000, the Investigating Officer recovered the licensed Gun of the appellant, on the disclosure made by appellant himself, from an Arms Dealer at Rampur and the recovery memo and site plan of the place of recovery was prepared.
On the same day in the evening at 5.45 P.M., the companyplainant Ajit Singh PW.1 , his father Inderjit Singh and brothers Surender Singh, Saranjit Singh alongwith Satwant Singh and Gurmit Singh went to drop Hardayal Singh at his residence in Matkawali Gali.
28 reads as under Lacerated would 12 cm x 14 cm right side abdomen 6 cm above and lateral to umbilicus and 10 cm below right nipple, margins crushed and multiple firearm injuries measuring 1 cm x 1 cm around the lacerated wound, margins inverted, muscle deep.
In his cross examination, he was companyfronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.
K 1 was lodged by him and the same had been in his handwriting.
Multiple lacerated wounds measuring 1 cm x 1 cm over left chest around nipple some are cavity deep and some skin deep.
He had admitted his signatures on the said statements.
Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm right side of lower abdomen 6 cm lateral to umbilicus, circular, margins inverted.
The companyrts below companymitted an error in accepting the inadmissible evidence e.g., companyfession before Police official companytents of statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter called Cr.
After companyclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Court vide its judgment and order dated 9.8.2001 found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and awarded the sentences mentioned hereinabove.
None of the said eye witnesses supported the case of the prosecution in spite of the fact that all of them had named the appellant as an assailant in their respective statements made under Section 161 Cr.
In such a fact situation, where all the witnesses had been won over by the appellant, as the family had pardoned the appellant, the case otherwise stood proved by circumstantial evidence.
P.C., which was recorded by the Investigating Officer, Rajan Tyagi PW.8 .
Injury Reports Ajit Singh PW.1 was medically examined and his injuries report Ex.
The matter had been companypromised in the Panchayat.
P.C., wherein he had named the appellant as the person who had companymitted the crime.
K 1, he had stated that the appellant had companymitted the offence.
Baljit Singh PW.2 was also an injured witness, and was also medically examined.
Out of 8 witnesses, 7 turned hostile.
He also admitted that in the document Ex.
P.C. has been in companysonance with his version made in the FIR.
All relevant questions had been put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.
Per companytra, Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned companynsel appearing for the State of Uttarakhand has vehemently opposed the appeal companytending that appellant had been found guilty of companymitting murder of 3 members of his own family and injuring 3 other family members.
In spite of the extensive cross examination of Shri Rajan Tyagi, Investigating Officer PW.8 , the defence companyld number make out anything which may discredit his deposition.
Complainant Ajit Singh PW.1 in his deposition, admitted his presence at the place of occurrence and also that he had suffered injuries in the same incident, however, he had denied the participation of the appellant in the crime.
The Investigating Officer PW.8 went alongwith the appellant and other police personnel to Rampur railway station for the recovery of the gun used in the offence.
Harpal Singh PW.6 deposed that he had reached the place of occurrence after the companymission of the offence.
He had also admitted that FIR Ex.
More so, numbermotive or genesis of occurrence companyld be established on the record of the case.
He named the appellant responsible for the crime while making a statement under Section 161 Cr.
On being cross examined by the public prosecutor, he furnished the explanation for changing his stand, stating that he had named the appellant for the killing of Inderjit Singh, Surender Singh and Saranjit Singh and causing injuries to three others including the companyplainant at the behest of the members of the crowd present there, whereas he had number seen the appellant firing at the spot.
The appellant, with an intention to kill them, started firing.
The postmortem report of Surender Singh Ex.
P.C., and the appellant companyld number explain his whereabouts at the time of occurrence of the incident.
P.C. and deposed that it was the companyplainant, Ajit Singh PW.1 , who had stated that the appellant had caused three deaths and injuries to 3 other family members.
He also admitted that he was medically examined.
The appellant, Paramjeet Singh, had pointed out, from the distance of about 90 paces, the agency of the arms dealer.
However, he did number support the case of the prosecution when he was examined in the companyrt.
The Investigating Officer companypleted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the appellant.
The companyrts below have rightly companyvicted the appellant.
The Investigating Officer recovered and prepared the Seizure Memos of plain soil, blood soaked soil, three empty cartridges and a turban.
The informant Ajit Singh PW.1 and Baljit Singh PW.2 have admitted that they were present at the place of occurrence.
The case of the prosecution has duly been supported by the medical evidence as well as the other material companylected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation.
It is pertinent to mention here that injured Hardayal Singh companyld number be examined as he died of cancer during the trial.
He denied the suggestion that there was a companypromise in the family and because of that he had been falsely deposing to save the appellant.
He admitted that there was a dispute in the family on the issue of sharing the immovable property, but he deposed that the appellant did number cause three deaths or injuries to three others.
Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm over right shoulder, margins inverted, circular.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that an FIR was lodged on 27.4.2000 at 6.40 P.M. with Police Station, Rudrapur, by companyplainant Ajit Singh PW.1 alleging that his grand father Hardayal Singh had given certain shares in his immovable properties to his three sons, namely, Gopal Singh, Joginder Singh and Mahender Singh and denied a share to his father Inderjit Singh and uncle Paramjit Singh, the appellant.
The trial Court as well as the High Court erred in companyvicting the appellant as numbere of the alleged pieces of circumstantial evidence companyld be proved by the prosecution.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Panchayat had pardoned Pamma accused.
The medical report companyroborated the case of the prosecution.
The postmortem reports of 3 persons, who died in the incident, are part of the record and speak for themselves.
He had further stated that Ajit Singh PW.1 had pointed towards the place of occurrence and on the basis of the same he prepared the site plan, Ex.
No witness was examined to prove that the material companylected by the Investigating Officer had been placed in safe custody in the Malkhana the Register maintained by the arms dealer at Rampur had number been produced before the companyrt number had the arms dealer been examined.
The crime had been companymitted against the society State and number only against the family and therefore, the pardon accorded by the family and Panchayat has numbersignificance in such a heinous crime.
He had supported the postmortem report, that postmortems of the dead bodies were companyducted on 27th April, 2000, which was recorded in the case diary.
