After taking appropriate steps, accused persons were apprehended and the Maruti car, used in the companymission of crime, was seized.
The rest of the witnesses are formal witnesses.
Similarly Paramjit Singh, A 2, made a disclosure that .12 bore licenced gun used by him had been taken by Sukhpal Singh of Kaki Pind.
As per his statement a bag companytaining the remaining cartridges were kept companycealed in the iron box under the clothes in his residential house.
The seized articles were sent to the FSL at Chandigarh.
1, Manjit Singh, who parked it on the road in front of the tractor.
Paramjit Singh armed with a .12 bore gun had also fired at the two brothers.
Her further plea was that she had been falsely implicated on account of dispute relating to Panchayat election which was companytested by her sister in law, wife of Manjit Singh.
The plea of Jaswinder Kaur was to the effect that after the death of her husband in 1990, she was residing at Jalandhar with her daughter and was suffering from heart ailments and had also suffered a brain haemorrhage.
One of the unknown persons was also armed with a .12 bore gun.
As he was acquitted in the main appeal, the appeal preferred by him assailing the companyviction under Section 307 IPC was treated to have been rendered infructuous.
The High Court, by a companymon judgment and order dated 12.5.2009 which is impugned herein, affirmed the companyviction of Manjit Singh and Paramjit Singh.
The principal witnesses are Amarjot Singh, PW 1, the informant, Rajinderpal Singh, PW 2, father of the deceased, who was cited as an eye witness, Dr. J.N. Dutta, PW 3, who had companyducted the post mortem, Swaran Singh, PW 5, the Investigating Officer, and Dr. Narinderpal Singh, PW 7, who had examined Amarjot Singh.
The investigating agency got the post mortem done, prepared the site plan, companylected the blood stained earth, the blood stained clothes of the deceased, three empty cartridges of .315 bore rifle and two empty cartridges of .12 bore from the spot and each item was put in separate sealed parcels on the basis of separate memorandum prepared and attested by the witnesses.
621 DB of 2001.
The accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication due to animosity and on that basis claimed to be tried.
Assailing the aforesaid judgment of companyviction and order of sentence Manjit Singh, Paramjit Singh and Sukhpal Singh preferred Criminal Appeal No.
The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, examined 13 witnesses and got marked number of documents.
Jagmohan Singh tried to turn the tractor towards the left side and at that juncture Manjit Singh fired a gunshot which hit him on the right cheek as a result of which he fell down from the tractor in the fields.
As the prosecution story further unfurls, the hospital authorities intimated about the death of Jagmohan Singh to the companycerned police station whereafter the police party headed by SI, Swaran Singh, PW 5, arrived at the hospital and the SI recorded the Statement of Amarjot Singh on the basis of which a formal FIR was registered.
On the basis of the said statement, recovery of the iron box, the lock, the cartridges and the licence were recovered.
680 of 2002.
2276 2278 of 2010 on obtaining permission to challenge the judgment of acquittal.
He saved himself by taking shelter behind the back wheel of the tractor.
Amarjot Singh jumped from the tractor and received an injury on his right elbow.
On the basis of disclosure statement of Sukhpal Singh, A 3, who had taken .12 bore gun from Paramjit Singh, A 2, led to the place of discovery of the weapon hidden underneath the heap of chaff in the Haveli of Manjit Singh, A 1.
After they reached village Pandori Arayiyan, they were stopped by a Maruti car bearing registration number PB 10 X 7079, driven by Accused No.
However, as far as Sukhpal Singh is companycerned, taking numbere of the material brought on record, doubted his presence at the scene of occurrence and, accordingly gave him the benefit of doubt.
She also took the plea that on the date of occurrence she was away at Harnamdasspur to attend the cremation of a relative.
All the accused fled away from the scene of crime along with their respective weapons.
A 1, Manjit Singh, while in custody led to recovery of his licenced rifle .315 bore along with the cartridges and the licence in the iron box in the residential house of Jasbir Singh of Village Umarpura, one of his relatives.
5 in criminal appeal preferred by Amarjot Singh.
The facts which are essential to be stated are that on 8.11.1998 about 1200 numbern Amarjot Singh, the companyplainant, PW 1, along with his younger brother, Jagmohan Singh, the deceased, was going on a tractor towards Bholath for some domestic work.
Questioning the legal propriety of the said judgment and order Manjit Singh and Paramjit Singh have preferred Criminal Appeal No.
In the meantime, Rajinderpal Singh, PW 2, who was present at his tube well motor situate nearby and Didar Singh s o Joginder Singh, who was present in his field near the place of occurrence reached the spot and witnessed the incident.
Jagmohan Singh was driving the tractor, whereas Amarjot Singh was sitting on the left mudguard of the tractor.
Be it numbered, during the trial an application was moved under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the CrPC to summon Jaswinder Kaur as an accused which was allowed, and during trial she availed the same plea and claimed to be tried.
On seeing the car, Jagmohan Singh, stopped the tractor in the middle of the road.
Manjit Singh, armed with a .315 bore rifle, Paramjit Singh, father in law of Manjit Singh, armed with .12 bore gun, Jaswinder kaur, sister of Manjit Singh, and two unknown persons alighted from the car.
We have heard Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior companynsel for the companyvicted appellants, Mr. Jayant K. Sud, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab, Mr. S.C. Paul, learned companynsel for the informant in his criminal appeals and Mr. J.P. Dhanda, learned companynsel for the respondent No.
In view of the decisions rendered in the appeal the criminal revision, preferred by Amarjot Singh, the brother of the deceased, stood dismissed.
The investigating agency, after examining the witnesses and companypleting the other formalities, placed the charge sheet before the learned Magistrate, who, in turn, companymitted the matter to the Court of Session.
As far as Sukhpal Singh, A 3, is companycerned, his version was that he had filed a writ petition against S.S.P. Dinkar Gupta, S.P Harmail Singh and S.I. Surjit Singh because he was illegally detained by the police earlier and, therefore, the police had companyducted a raid in his house and falsely implicated him in the case.
After alighting from the car, Jaswinder Kaur raised lalkara to eliminate both the sons of Rajinderpal Singh, PW 2, father of the deceased, so that they would understand the companysequences of companytesting the election of Sarpanch against them.
2042 of 2010 by special leave and the informant has preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.
Jagmohan Singh and Amarjot Singh were shifted to Civil Hospital, Bholath, in a car and in the hospital Jagmohan Singh was declared dead.
In essence, they pleaded innocence and false implication.
628 DB of 2001 and Sukhpal Singh challenged his individual companyviction under Section 307 IPC in Criminal Appeal No.
The acquittal of the accused persons was challenged by the informant Amarjot Singh in Criminal Revision No.
He had also stated that Manjit Singh and other were number known to him.
Dipak Misra, J. The two appellants, namely, Manjit Singh and Paramjit Singh, were tried along with three others in ST No.
In their statements under Section 313 of the CrPC the plea of the accused Manjit Singh and Paramjit Singh was that they were arrested from their house on 9.11.1998 and the rifle and gun were also taken into police possession.
As far as Kamal Kumar, A 4 and Jaswinder Kaur, A 5, are companycerned, he recorded an acquittal in respect of all the charges on the ground that the prosecution had number been able to bring home the charges against them.
