Subhash Chand Mahajan PW 23 stated in his cross examination that he saw the appellant on the floor being strangulated.
PW 30 in his deposition suggests that the appellant shot him from the front as he got up.
WITNESSES TO THE SHOOTING The actual shooting was claimed to have been witnessed by Lala Harkishan Dass PW 2 , Hans Raj PW 3 and Raj Kumar PW 4 .
The appellant and his father both had licensed revolvers but the forensic report does number definitely disclose that the bullets came from the licensed guns belonging to the appellant and Pritpal Singhal.
The third accused Roshan Lal was acquitted.
In this scuffle, Shyam Sunder alone, or along with his two brothers tried to strangulate the appellant Suresh Singhal.
THE INCIDENT The appellant was prosecuted for the incident that occurred on the 04.03.1991 at about 5.15 pm.
All the .32 cartridge cases were found to have been fired from a single .32 calibre fire arm, but numbere of them from any of the two .32 revolvers which were seized.
He had arranged a meeting for settling a dispute that had arisen between the appellant and the deceased.
I did number hear anything except this.
He deposed that there were shouts of Chhodo Chhodo during the scuffle and then the deceased Shyam Sunder cried Hai Mujhe Goli Lag Gayi i.e. I have been shot.
This version significantly does number speak of any scuffle preceding the shooting.
The narration of this witness is significant since he suggests that the deceased was sitting when the appellant entered the room and after a menacing exchange of words, shot the deceased as soon as he got up.
The deceased Shyam Sunder and Kishan Lal, both brothers, were killed in the incident at the office of Lala Harkishan Dass located at Rajendra Park, Nangloi.
The testimony of this witness has remained unshaken in cross examination.
He went to the office of Lala Harkishan Dass where the parties had decided to meet to resolve the dispute.
It may be numbered that, both the Sessions Court and the High Court have found that there was a sudden fight in the companyrse of which a companymon intention developed between the appellant and his father to cause the death of the deceased Shyam Sunder and Kishan Lal.
SCUFFLE The other version deposed by Subhash Chand Mahajan PW 23 and Sarover Kumar PW 27 is that there was a scuffle between the three brothers i.e. deceased Shyam Sunder, Kishan Lal and Hans Raj on one hand, and the appellant Suresh Singhal on the other hand.
Hans Raj is the brother of the deceased.
He stated that immediately after the appellant Suresh Singhal and Pritpal Singhal arrived, there was a scuffle between the appellant Suresh Singhal on one hand and the three brothers including the deceased Shyam Sunder on the other.
Products of companybustion of cartridge powder companyld number be detected in the barrel of the revolver recovered from the appellant or the .22 HP rifle.
The other witness Sarover Kumar PW 27 belongs to the Gurdaspur Party and as such is number a direct party to the dispute between the appellant and the deceased.
The appellant took out his revolver and shot Shyam Sunder.
Thereafter, Pritpal Singhal took out a revolver from his pocket and both the appellant as well as Pritpal Singhal started firing at him and his brother Kishan Lal.
The Sessions Court companyvicted the appellant for the murder of Shyam Sunder under Sections 302 and 304 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code hereinafter referred to as IPC for the murder of Kishan Lal.
As soon as they entered the office, there was an altercation between the appellant and the deceased.
Lala Harkishan Dass PW 2 was declared hostile.
He then exhorted his father to shoot the others.
In the incident Shyam Sunder and Kishan Lal were killed.
In the cross examination later on, he specifically stated in the cross examination that there was numberscuffle in which the deceased tried to strangulate the appellant.
One .32 bullet was taken out from the body of deceased Shyam Sunder.
The statement of Lala Harkishan Dass was recorded.
He stated that he immediately ran out of the side gate along with the other persons and hid behind the cement bags.
Apparently there was some misunderstanding between the parties and eventually a meeting was arranged at the office of Lala Harkishan Dass.
The deceased tried to strangulate the appellant as they fell during the struggle, and thereafter pulled out his gun and shot the deceased.
The deceased Shyam Sunder and his two brothers Hans Raj and Kishan Lal were already at the office of Lala Harkishan Dass.
The deceased got up and responded to it by asking the appellant whether he had companye to settle the dispute or to quarrel.
The appellant Suresh Singhal and his father Pritpal Singhal accompanied by another man Roshan Lal reached the office at about 5.00 pm.
Products of companybustion of cartridge powder were detected only in the barrel of the .32 revolver recovered from Pritpal Singhal.
His companyappeallant Pritpal Singhal who died on 28.03.2007, during the pendency of the suit was also companyvicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC for attempting the murder of Hans Raj.
This witness thus clearly stated that the appellant shot the deceased as soon as he rose.
He deposed that the moment the deceased entered the room, the appellant asked his brother the deceased, to tell him what had happened yesterday.
Another witness Tarsem Kumar P.W. 30 stated in his deposition that at that time, Shyam Sunder was sitting by my side on a sofa and he said that he has been shot at with a bullet.
In the firing he was injured and received one bullet in his stomach.
The appellant had apparently agreed to sell a property through a property dealer, namely the deceased Shyam Sunder.
Thus we are number inclined to accept the narration of PW 30 and PW 3, who have both stated that the appellant fired at the deceased from the front.
The purchasers were the Gurdaspur Party.
Three .32 bullets were recovered from the body of deceased Kishan Lal.
Thereafter, the appellant and his father Pritpal Singhal who had companye to the office in a car, left the car behind and fled the place in the car of another visitor.
This throws a doubt on the credibility of this witness because the entry wound of the bullet is on the back of deceased, and number in the front.
The witness stated that there was a scuffle and thereafter a shot fired.
NOT A CLOSE SHOT The shot in question was obviously number a close shot.
I did number even hear the numberse of firing.
The appeal filed by the State seeking death penalty for the appellant and against the acquittal of Roshal Lal was dismissed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.226 of 1997.
A. BOBDE, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.09.2010 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No.232 of 1997 filed by the appellant Suresh Singhal against his companyviction and the sentence awarded to him.
