His father Nafe Singh PW 10 was examined to speak to the version reported to him by PW 1 soon after the occurrence.
They have filed this appeal as of right under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the Code and Section 2 of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970.
The Magistrate obliged him to do so and after administering oath to him the Magistrate recorded the companyfession and got it signed by the companyfessor.
The other prosecution witnesses were mostly officials.
Prosecution has traced out the backdrop that the said deceased was responsible for the untimely death of an adolescent girl, the sister of Ranbir Singh, as the aftermath of that lass being ravished.
One of the reasoning which the Division Bench pointed out was that PW 1 was companyfronted only with the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code on 14.10.1991, whereas that witness was interrogated by the Investigating Officer on 12.10.1991 The earlier interrogation record should have been traced out by the trial judge from the Case Diary of the police, according to the learned Judges of the Division Bench.
On the date of occurrence the deceased visited his sisters house at Gangeswar Village.
Hence the Sessions Judge companyvicted Ranbir Singh alone under Section 302 IPC and acquitted the others.
The Sessions Court found them number guilty and acquitted.
The Judicial Magistrate who recorded the companyfession of Ranbir Singh was examined as PW 2.
He wriggled out of the grip of the assailant and made a bid to escape from the scene, but he was intercepted by all the four appellants and they all inflicted blows on him.
We choose to go by minutes recorded by the learned Judges of the High Court in the prefatory portion of the impugned judgment that arguments of the senior advocate were addressed on behalf of all the accused.
Prosecution examined PW 1 Sandeep as the solitary eye witness to the occurrence.
The appellants when examined under Section 313 of the Code, denied their involvement in the occurrence altogether.
Dr. S.S. Punia PW 9 companyducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased.
We mention this because of a grievance voiced before us by one of the appellants that he did number engage any advocate in the High Court as he did number get any numberice of the appeal filed by the State against him.
He pointed out that PW 1 when interrogated by the police on 14.10.1991 did number mention anything to the Investigating Officer regarding the role played by the other appellants.
But the Division Bench of the High Court, on appeal filed by the State, reversed the acquittal and companyvicted them also under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.
It was PW 10 who lodged the FIR on the basis of the information supplied by Sandeep.
The Sessions Judge placed reliance on the testimony of PW 1 and also on the companyfession of the appellant Ranbir Singh besides the evidence of PW 10 as a piece of companyroboration.
There were three other accused arraigned along with Ranbir Singh for the offence of murder of the same deceased with the aid of Section 34 of IPC.
All the appellants were heard together.
He is Ranbir Singh the first accused who filed this appeal by special leave.
Though Ranbir Singh described to others that his sister died due to cardiac arrest he was harbouring in his mind an unstable vengeance towards the deceased.
Then the appellant Ranbir Singh caught him and stabbed with a knife on his abdomen.
He fell down after sustaining a large number of injuries and died on the spot itself.
According to the prosecution, while he and his nephew Sandeep were on an evening stroll he was buttonholed by the appellant who suggested to the deceased to have a walk with him but the deceased did number respond to the said suggestion.
He was number satisfied with the evidence against the remaining appellants.
P.C. were also recorded on the same.
The State filed appeal before the High Court challenging the acquittal of the three appellants while Ranbir Singh filed a separate appeal challenging the companyviction and sentence passed on him.
The case relates to the murder of a twenty year old youth by name Anand, on the evening of 11.10.1991 by stabbing him all over his body, practically sparing numberlimb left unwounded.
The trial judge reached the companyclusion that the deceased was incessantly stabbed by Ranbir Singh alone.
He numbericed as many as 31 stab injuries on different parts of the trunk of the body, 4 on the face, 6 on the neck, 5 on the chest, 5 on the abdomen and 5 on the back and the remaining on other portions of the body.
THOMAS, J. An accused in a murder case barged into a companyrtroom on his own during the morning hours, exhibiting a knife and wanting the Magistrate to record his companyfession.
The description of the ante mortem injuries as narrated by the doctor in the post mortem report reflects the intensity of the wrath of the assailants towards the victim.
