and on a Lalkara challenge being raised by Puran Singh and Gurcharan Singh A 7, the other accused persons assaulted Raghbir Singh and Gurdip Singh with their daters, companysequent to which Raghbir Singhs head got decapitated, and he along with Gurdip Singh succumbed to his injuries.
A 10 took a further defence that there was enmity between him and PW 19 and on he being implicated falsely, he had made a companyplaint to the higher authorities and on an inquiry companyducted by a senior Police Officer it was found that A 10 was falsely implicated in this case, hence, his name was shown in Column 2 of the chargesheet originally, but subsequently for various reasons, the trial proceeded against him also.
The prosecution alleges that after the accused persons left the place of incident.
away from the village where the present incident took place.
On a companyplaint filed by said A 10 against PW 4 and others for offences punishable under Section 326 IPC, a case was pending in a companyrt at Dasuya which is about 40 kms.
750 of 2002 before this Court.
from the place of incident where the jurisdictional Police Station was stationed.
In the said incident, PWs.
Thereafter, PW 19 along with other Police officials and PW 4 came to the place of incident, companyducted the inquest Panchnama and recorded the statements of witnesses.
It was on companypletion of the said investigation, a chargesheet as stated above was filed against the accused including the appellants herein.
The trial companyrt acquitted A 6 to A 9 of all the charges framed against them.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the companyrts below.
They companytend that with this, view all the male members of the family of A 7 and A 9 have been implicated in these murders without anybody actually witnessing the incident which led to the death of two deceased.
At that time, A 10 was also present in the companyrt.
against the judgment of the High Court before this Court but the same came to be dismissed for default.
The accused persons in this case have taken a specific defence companytending that the motive alleged against them was stale and weak and since the incident of 1993, till the alleged incident, there was numberother incident indicating that these accused persons were in any manner entertaining any such motive to companymit the gruesome murders like the one alleged against them.
Thereafter, the prosecution alleges that PW 4 and others came back to the village.
They also companytend that as a matter of fact the original suspicion about these murders was on one Sampuran Singh Bhattu with whose family the companyplainant party had a running feud resulting in a series of murders and the Investigating Agency having failed to trace the whereabouts of said Sampuran Singh has implicated the accused including the appellants herein falsely, particularly because of the personal enmity Between the I.O. PW 19 and A 10 who was also a Police Officer in the Punjab Police, with the companynivance of PW 4.
Two other companyvicted accused, namely, Sarabjit Singh A 1 and Nirmal Singh A 4 had preferred SLPs.
PW 4 along with his brother Chanan Singh proceeded to Hajipur by foot which, according to them, is about 6 7 kms.
The companyrt in that case had recorded the evidence of A 10 and adjourned the case.
It is the further case of the prosecution that PW 4 along with Gurdeep Singh and Raghbir Singh both deceased , Bikram Singh PW 5 Amarjit Kaur number examined and Sukhvir Kaur number examined went to their field to attend to the agricultural work, and while returning back from their fields at about 5.30 p.m., all the accused persons were waiting for them armed with daters at a place about 1 kila ahead of Dera of Puran Singh A 9.
Said PW 19 recorded the statement of PW 4 and sent the same to Hajipur Police Station which was about 2 kms.
The two companyrts below have chosen to accept the prosecution version of the case and have companyvicted the appellants, as stated above.
Mohinder Singh A 5 and Jaswinder Singh A 10 have preferred Criminal Appeal No.794 of 2002 and Jagjit Singh A 2 and Manjit Singh A 3 have preferred Criminal Appeal No.
4 and 5 also suffered minor injuries and the two ladies Amarjit Kaur and Sukhvir Kaur were also assaulted by fists by some of the accused persons.
Brief facts necessary for disposal of the above appeals are as follows About 2 years prior to the incident from which these appeals arise, the companyplainant party in this case had assaulted A 10 Jasvir Singh who is one of the appellants herein, causing serious injuries to him.
On nearing Hajipur at a T point on Mukerian Dasuya road, they met Jagdish Mitter PW 19, the I.O. in this case who was there on a special bandobust duty and told him about the incident in question.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.9.1995 the said criminal case was posted for evidence and PW 4 and some others who were accused in the said case, had gone to Dasuya to attend the companyrt.
from the place where he was on a bandobust duty.
He also sent injured PWs.4 and 5 to the hospital at Hajipur for treatment.
Santosh Hegde, J. Ten accused persons including the appellants in these appeals were chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC before the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in Sessions Case No.5/1996 Sessions Trial No.24 of 1996 .
