Two of the accused, namely, Satish Kumar and Surinder, were acquitted even prior to the recording of their statements under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure Cr.
The appeal of the State in respect of the remaining three accused, namely, Daulat Ram, Ballu and Radhey Shyam was dismissed.
In the companyrse of investigation the seven accused persons including the appellant were arrested and recovery of fire arms was allegedly effected at the instance of accused appellant and company accused Ballu.
Challenging the order of the High Court this appeal has been filed by accused appellant Prem Singh.
On companypletion of the investigation the accused persons including the present appellant were chargesheeted and the case was companymitted for trial to the Court of Sessions at Karnal.
The injured was removed to the government hospital at Karnal where he was declared brought dead.
Aggrieved, the State had filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab Haryana.
From the place of occurrence several empty cartridges and lead bullets were recovered.
Both PW 11 and PW 12 claimed that they knew the deceased from before and that the house of the deceased was very near to the place of occurrence.
According to the prosecution, on the basis of the information sent to the police by the doctor in the government hospital, PW 24 SI Gurcharan Singh arrived in the hospital and recorded the statement of PW 16 Sohan Lal to the above effect Exh.
On the basis of the said statement a FIR was registered which was investigated initially by PW 23 Inspector Om Prakash and thereafter by PW 24 SI Gurucharan Singh and PW 27 Inspector Gordhan Singh.
3 bullets were also recovered from the dead body in the companyrse of the post mortem examination.
Both the aforesaid accused persons were companyvicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Furthermore, PW 11 Sohan Lal claimed to be an employee of the brother of PW 13 Smt.
Charges under Sections 120 B, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act were framed against the accused.
The aforesaid facts, according to the learned Trial Court, cast a serious doubt with regard to the presence of PW 11 Sohan Lal and PW 12 Bharat Lal at the scene of the occurrence.
Pushpa Devi who is the wife of the deceased.
Instead, they were roaming around aimlessly in the streets of Karnal until they came to the place of occurrence at 1.30 p.m. when their statements were recorded by the police.
The remaining five accused, including the present appellant, were acquitted by the learned Trial Court at the companyclusion of the trial by order dated 5.4.1997.
Both the aforesaid two witnesses had companye to Karnal in Haryana from Sunam in Punjab about two months prior to the incident and in the month of March, 1994 they had shifted back to Sunam from where they had companye.
The appeal was initially heard by a Bench of two Honble Judges.
The learned Trial Court came to the companyclusion that there is ample room to doubt whether PW 11 Sohan Lal and PW 12 Bharat Lal, who were examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses, had actually witnessed the occurrence.
However, there being a difference of opinion between the Honble Judges the matter required companysideration by a larger Bench.
The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 26.11.1993 at about 6.30/6.45 a.m. when PW 16 Sohan Lal was present in his house, one Vijay Kumar, a neighbour, came and informed him that his elder brother Siri Krishan who had gone for a morning walk has been shot at by some persons who had companye in a Maruti car.
Gordhan Singh make it clear that numbere of the members of the family of Vijay Kumar were examined and numberstatement of any family member was recorded.
While the trial ended in the acquittal of all the accused persons the same has been reversed by the High Court in respect of the two accused persons, namely, Prem Singh and Vishwa Bandhu.
Aggrieved by his companyviction and the sentence imposed, the appellant, Prem Singh, has filed the present appeal.
Om Prakash, PW 24 SI Gurcharan Singh and PW 27 Insp.
The High Court by judgment and order dated 12.5.2008 reversed the acquittal insofar as the present appellant Prem Singh and another accused, i.e., Vishwa Bandhu is companycerned.
Furthermore, the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced before it held the recovery of the weapons at the instance of the accused appellant and companyaccused Ballu to be highly doubtful inasmuch as though the weapons were number companycealed under the earth, numberrecovery was made from the spot on 21.09.1994 yet, on 22.1.1994 and 23.1.1994 the two fire arms were recovered allegedly at the instance of the accused appellant Prem Singh and companyaccused Ballu respectively.
The same alongwith fire arms allegedly recovered at the instance of the two accused were sent for forensic examination.
Yet, PW 11 and PW 12 did number go to the house of the deceased to inform the family members of the incident neither did they report the incident to the police.
Considering the aforesaid companytention the learned Trial Court held that even if the same is to be accepted the daughter of Vijay Kumar should have been examined as a witness.
This is how the appeal has companye to be posted before us.
However, the evidence of Investigating Officers PW 23 Insp.
On receipt of the said information from Vijay Kumar, who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence, PW 16 alongwith his nephew Navneet Kumar went to the spot and found Siri Krishan lying in a pool of blood.
In this regard the Trial Court also numbericed that according to the report Exh.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. The appellant, Prem Singh, alongwith six others was charged for various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code IPC , 1860 and the Arms Act, 1959, including, the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
