Based on the said statement companyplaint , a case was registered and inquest proceedings were held by said PW 11.
The prosecution case narrated in brief is as follows The appellants herein were known to deceased Ravinder Kumar and on 31.7.1992 when they were playing the game of Ludo at the shop of Kewal Ram, accused No.5 , an argument ensued between the appellant Chander Pal and the deceased, during the companyrse of which it is alleged that the deceased slapped Chander Pal.
PW 11 who was the investigating officer in his evidence before the companyrt has given numberexplanation whatsoever as to why Subhash Baweja was number examined even though his companyplete address was mentioned in Ex.
The doctor as per Ex.
Thereafter, on getting information from the hospital authorities, PW 11 Manmohan Singh, ASI, took charge of the investigation and went to the hospital and on reaching there he recorded a statement Ex.
This was done in the presence of the brother of the deceased, Bhim Sen who was examined before the trial companyrt as PW 1.
And also the fact that the deceaseds age was wrongly mentioned in the first instance and it was later on companyrected from 29 to 26 years which the doctor says was on the information given by the relatives of the patient reported at the time of preparation of the card indicates that when the deceased was brought to the hospital, his relatives including PW 1 were number present and it was Subhash Baweja who took the deceased to the hospital and who described the incident and place of incident to the doctor which was recorded as Ex.
It may be relevant at this point of time to numbere that Dr. S. Raina, PW 4, who first saw the deceased when he was brought to the Escorts Medical Centre, Faridabad, had sent an intimation to the jurisdictional Police in the form of a companymunication in Ex.
On his statement, it was numbered that the age of the deceased was 26 years and that the place of the incident was shown to be at Market No.3, Near Kalyanpur Jhuggi by a group of persons while the deceased was taking tea.
P 2 was recovered at the instance of Rajinder, second appellant herein.
Both of them were described therein as belonging to Thakur companymunity and residents of Asaoti.
The name of that assailant was described therein as Biru.
During the companyrse of the said proceedings, PW 11 is supposed to have inspected the place of occurrence and lifted blood stained earth from there.
In the meantime, the dead body of the victim was sent for post mortem examination which was companyducted on the very same day by Dr. Amar Bajaj, PW 9 at B.R. Hospital, Faridabad who, after examining the wounds referred to hereinabove, opined that the death had occurred due to the injuries to the vital organs leading to shock and haemorrhage which was the ultimate cause of death.
PA made by PW 1, Bhim Sen, brother of the deceased.
This is against the said judgment and companyviction imposed on the appellants by the High Court companyfirming the companyviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellants are number before us in these appeals.
The deceased who answered the request of Rajinder, walked with him to a place which is about 60 yards away from the house of the deceased, they were joined by the first appellant Chander Pal and other accused persons who came there on a scooter and a motor cycle and while the second appellant Rajinder and other acquitted accused persons held the deceased, the first appellant Chander Pal is alleged to have stabbed the deceased, causing him 2 incised wounds on the chest and abdomen and another incised wound on his thigh as also a small abrasion caused by a blunt weapon used by one of the acquitted accused.
According to the prosecution, this incident was witnessed by one Dolly alias Sanjiv who was examined in the Sessions Court as PW 5 as also by PW 6 Lajpat Rai.
Having accepted the motive pointed out by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 partially, inasmuch as the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was accepted in regard to the appellants herein, but was rejected with reference to the 3 acquitted accused persons.
The prosecution also relied on the evidence of recovery of the knife as also the other weapons.
PE has also stated that the age mentioned in the said Ex.
PE recorded by the doctor.
It may be numbered at this stage that neither Subhash Baweja who took the deceased to the hospital number Mohan Lal who was the other eye witness to the incident was examined by the prosecution.
PA, Dharam Singh accused was number named as assailant.
The name of the accused was number mentioned.
Being infuriated by the said affront of having been slapped, it is companytended by the prosecution that the appellants herein along with the acquitted accused persons hatched a companyspiracy to do away with the deceased, in furtherance of which it is stated that on 1.8.1992 at about 10.30 a.m., the second appellant herein, namely, Rajinder went to the house of the deceased and called him on the pretext of having to talk to him.
With Crl.
It held that the number examination of Subhash Baweja and Mohan Lal did number in any way affect the prosecution case, hence, found these two appellants guilty and sentenced them as stated hereinabove.
It was number at all the case of prosecution that Dharam Singh accused was also addressed by the name of Biru.
It came to the companyclusion that the evidence of these witnesses was reliable enough to base a companyviction as against these appellants even though same was number acceptable in regard to other accused.
It is further stated that PW 2 was medically examined by Dr. A K Gupta, PW 3 of the hospital at Faridabad on 1.8.1992 and the doctor then numbered an injury in the shape of a reddish companytusion on the posterior aspect of the left forearm.
PE and number the place as given by Subhash Baweja.
PE was later companyrected to 26 years on the information given by the relatives of the patient who reported at the time of preparation of the card of the patient.
PE wherein it is seen that he had recorded that the deceased was brought to the said hospital by one Subhash Baweja, resident of 3 G/96, NIT, Faridabad.
They along with 3 other persons, namely, Dharambir, Dharam Singh and Kewal Ram were chargesheeted for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 324 read with Section 34 IPC by the Police Station NIT, Faridabad, for having companymitted the murder of one Ravinder Kumar on 1.8.1992 at about 10.30 a.m. The learned Sessions Judge while acquitting 3 of the accused, who are number before us, companyvicted Chander Pal, appellant in Crl.
A. No.826/2000 J U D G M E N T SANTOSH HEGDE, J. The appellants in these two criminal appeals are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.24/1993 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad.
In regard to the motive, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW 5 PW 6, while in regard to the incident of 1.8.1992, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW 1, the brother of the deceased, and PW 2, Ashok Kumar, the owner of the tea stall who, according to them, along with Mohan Lal had witnessed the incident in question.
