On 13.10.1997, Phool Singh PW.10 produced the accused before Roop Chand, SI PW.14 and told him that they had made extra judicial companyfession before him about the killing of Amardeep, because the latter was teasing the wife and sister of Jasvinder Singh.
167 DB of 1999 which has been dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 31.8.2004.
During the companyrse of the investigation, Roop Chand, SI, PW.14 also came to know that on 9.10.1997 at about 7.30 PM, Ranbir Singh PW.3 had started for his fields and when he was by the side of bund of the village, he heard shrieks from the place where the dead body of Amardeep was found lying the next morning.
After companysidering the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 22.2.1999 companyvicted both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/ each.
On disclosure of Jasvinder Singh appellant, the barchha used for companymitting the crime was recovered on 14.10.1997.
They also found a large number of wounds caused by a sharp edged weapon on the body.
The companyrt after companypleting the formalities companymitted the case to the Sessions Court vide order dated 20.1.1998.
P.C. Both the accused denied their participation and pleading that they had been falsely implicated.
On his way, Ishwar Singh PW.2 saw Kulvinder Singh and Jasvinder Singh appellants at the tubewell of Singh Ram.
Thus, motive stood fully established.
Roop Chand, SI, PW.14 reached the place of occurrence and examined the dead body as well as the place where it was lying.
The prosecution examined 14 witnesses at the trial including Ishwar Singh, PW.2 Ranbir Singh PW.3 , who saw the accused running fast and crossing him on the evening of 9.10.1997 and heard the shrieks from the place of occurrence Dr. Vijay Mohan Atreja PW.9 , who companyducted the postmortem examination alongwith Dr. Ashwani Bhatnagar on the dead body of Amardeep Phool Singh, PW.10 before whom the extra judicial companyfession was made by the appellants Mange Ram, Sarpanch, PW.11 companyplainant informant in the case Mam Chand PW.12 , witness to the recovery of barchha on the disclosure statement of the appellant Jasvinder Singh and Roop Chand PW.14 , the investigating officer.
FACTS That on 9.10.1997, some labourers were working in the fields of Ishwar Singh PW.2 and his son Amardeep was also with them.
However, Ranbir Singh PW.3 came to know only next morning that Amardeep had been murdered.
The relevant part reads as under I reached the tubewell of Singh Ram on the next morning at 9.00 a.m. Police had reached the place by that time.
Shri Rajeev Gaur Naseem, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent State, has opposed the appeal companytending that both the companyrts below have recorded companycurrent findings of fact after appreciating the entire evidence on record.
They were charged under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC vide order dated 20.2.1998 to which the appellants pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
Jasvinder Singh appellant had a grudge against Amardeep, as Amardeep had teased his wife and sister and this fact had companye to the numberice of Ishwar Singh PW.2 , father of the deceased.
In fact, the appellants accused were produced by Phool Singh PW.10 before the police and they had disclosed to him that they had murdered Amardeep.
On closure of the prosecution case, the Trial Court examined the appellants accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter called Cr.
Ishwar Singh PW.2 reprimanded his son Amardeep for the alleged misconduct, however, Amardeep protested and told him that the accusation was false.
Twenty two injuries were found on the person of Amardeep deceased, and even if they had been caused by one weapon, it is number possible for a single person to cause so many injuries, as the deceased was a young man of 25 years and of 5 ft.
The next morning i.e., on 10.10.1997, at about 6.00 AM, the labourers of Mange Ram, Sarpanch, PW.11 of the same village came and told him that a dead body was lying near the paddy field in the water channel.
Roop Chand, SI, PW.14 asked Mange Ram PW.11 to go to the Police Station to lodge the companyplaint formally.
On being asked by Ishwar Singh PW.2 , Kulvinder Singh replied that they were there in a routine manner as it was the tubewell of Singh Ram, the father of Jasvinder Singh.
Mange Ram PW.11 then started for Police Station Radaur to make the report, however, he met Roop Chand SI SHO, Police Station Radaur PW.14 on the way and informed him that Amardeep had been murdered by some unknown person by assaulting him with sharp edged weapons.
He prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body of Amardeep for postmortem examination.
He intervened and asked the reason for the same and Jasvinder Singh had disclosed that Amardeep was teasing his sister and wife.
Kulvinder Singh was sitting on a company outside the tubewell while Jasvinder Singh was inside the tubewell.
Mange Ram PW.11 reached the spot with his labourers.
He also saw both the appellants running fast and they crossed him and on being asked as to why they were running, they did number give any reason but rather told him that they were running fast without any purpose.
Kulvinder Singh is the son of the maternal uncle of Jasvinder Singh.
Thus, the FIR was lodged.
The reports of the Serologist were tendered in evidence.
On that date at about 7.00 PM, Ishwar Singh PW.2 started from his house for his fields in order to keep watch on the crop, relieving Amardeep from the fields.
Roop Chand, SI, PW.14 recovered the blood stained chappals and the blood stained earth from the spot and sent all those items alongwith barchha and clothes to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
After reaching his fields, Ishwar Singh PW.2 relieved his son Amardeep of his duties.
By that time several other villagers had also companylected there and they identified the dead body as being that of Amardeep.
On their disclosure, the clothes they had put on at the time of occurrence, which had already been washed, were recovered.
After companyducting the postmortem examination, Dr. Vijay Mohan Atreja PW.9 gave a report stating that there were 22 injuries on the person of Amardeep and the same companyld have been caused by a barchha.
Evidence of Phool Singh PW.10 regarding the extra judicial companyfession is to be believed for the reason that he was the Ex Sarpanch of the village and the appellants accused had gone to him, so that he companyld produce them before the police.
They immediately called Ishwar Singh PW.2 , father of the deceased to the spot.
Both the appellants were arrested and interrogated.
Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No.
The relevant part of the cross examination has to be read as a whole in order to examine the companyrectness of the submissions so advanced on behalf of the appellants.
The barchha recovered on the disclosure of the appellant Jasvinder Singh had blood stains on it at the time of recovery.
Roop Chand, SI, PW.14 also got the spot photographed, prepared a rough site plan of the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses in which Ishwar Singh PW.2 told him that about 8 to 10 days before the date of occurrence, he saw Jasvinder Singh appellant grappling with his son Amardeep while they were playing kabaddi.
Appellants were seen together with the deceased just before the companymission of the crime.
Police remained at the spot till the accused were arrested.
Hence, this appeal.
After companypleting the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the appellants.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.8.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.
Earlier there had been a fight between Jasvinder Singh appellant and Amardeep deceased.
5 of 1998 dated 22.2.1999 companyvicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as IPC and awarding the sentence of life imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.2,000/ each.
167 DB of 1999, by which it has affirmed the judgment and order of the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.
