He prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of informant Pushplata, witnesses Amit Kumar, Anar Devi and Ram Singh PW 2 .
7 of 2004 for companyfirmation of death sentence of accused Manoj, Sonu, Umesh, Tej Pal and Narendra , whereby appeals of accused Dinesh and Sheo Pal was allowed acquitting them of the charges and appeals of accused Manoj, Sonu, Umesh, Tej Pal and Narendra were partly allowed companyverting their death sentence to life imprisonment.
Due to said enmity, on 3.6.2001 at about 7.00 AM Manoj, Sonu alias Ajay, Umesh and Sunil armed with companyntry made pistols and Tej Pal, brother in law of Sonu, Narendra, son in law of Rajpal Singh armed with knives came to her house and killed her husband, sons Manish and Ashish and her brother Vinod with fire arms and knives.
She stated that she along with her mother, brother Amit and several other persons witnessed the occurrence.
Accused Manoj, Sonu alias Ajay and Umesh were further charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
The trial companyrt framed charges under Sections 148, 452, 302/149 and 302/120 B against Manoj, Sonu, Umesh, Tejpal, Narendra, Rajpal, Dinesh and Shiv Pal.
The investigating Officer after obtaining permission from District Magistrate, Saharanpur filed charge sheet in the companyrt under Section 25 of Arms Act against the accused Manoj, Sonu Ajay and Umesh.
The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present case are that one Pushplata alias Guddy PW 1 lodged a report at Police station Deoband, Saharanpur that there was a dispute and enmity between her husband Dr. Rajveer Singh and brother in law Rajpal Singh with regard to a land and litigation which was pending in the Court.
Inspector Amrit Lal PW 5 reached at the place of occurrence and instructed S.I. Azad Singh Chauhan PW 6 to prepare the inquest memos.
After companyducting the postmortem of the deceased Rajbir, Manish, Ashish and Vinod on 3.6.2001, Dr. R.R. Gahlot PW 3 , Medical Officer, S.B.D. Government Hospital, Saharanpur opined that the death was caused by shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined ten witnesses out of which PW1 and PW 2 are the eye witnesses of the occurrence.
He also companylected the blood stained earth, plain earth, bed sheet, plain cement, empty cartridges and prepared the recovery memos.
During the companyrse of trial accused Rajpal expired, hence the case was dropped against him and trial of remaining accused companytinued.
2181, 1997, 2027, 2129, 2936 and 2903 of 2004 and Criminal Reference No.
Y. EQBAL, J. These appeals by special leave by the State are directed against the companymon judgment and order dated 27th May, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos.
Whereas the defence examined five witnesses.
