They were appellants Sandhura Singh, Sukhmander Singh Mander Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Rajinder Singh.
The informant apprehended that they may kill Shivraj Singh.
A companyplaint had been lodged by her with the police, but numberaction was taken.
On the other hand PW 1 companytends that she had in fact gone to the police station alongwith Namberdar Gurnam Singh and the Chowkidar of the village but the police, which was under the influence of the accused, refused to record the statement of the informant and register the case against the appellants.
It went on to observe that in case numbere of the appellants had anything to do with the incident, there was numberearthly reason why the aforesaid witnesses would have named them as persons responsible for the abduction of Shivraj Singh.
Their specific plea was that taking advantage of the disappearance of Shivraj Singh they have been falsely involved in this case on account of serious enmity between the two groups in the village.
The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 1st July, 2005 dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda dated 5th August, 2003 and 7th August, 2003.
They also belong to village Kamalu, the village of the informant.
In her deposition she categorically stated that she met the Station House Officer Major Singh, PW 6, at the police station who refused to record her statement.
The appellants herein belong to one group while the family members of the informant and others belong to the rival group.
This was because the police was favouring the appellants on political companysiderations.
However, four of the accused persons named in the first information report against whom charge sheet was number submitted were summoned for trial by the learned Additions Sessions Judge under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
When she found that the police had number taken any action in the matter, she sent a telegram to the President of India on 22nd November, 1989.
The High Court then proceeded to scrutinize the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and held that since their evidence was to the effect that Shivraj Singh had been abducted by the appellants, it was for the defence to explain what had happened after he was abducted by them.
Sarabjit Singh son of Sewa Singh also made a similar statement.
Once he had won and on the second occasion he lost the election.
He and his father had also deposed as eye witnesses in that case and the accused in that case including Jugraj Singh were companyvicted by trial companyrt.
They had also taken away girders, cement and fertilizers etc.
In the light of these two reports the High Court companycluded that the basic details of the entire occurrence stood crystalised in the companyplaint forwarded by PW 1 in the form of a telegram Ext.
PW 6, Major Singh had been examined as a prosecution witness.
Jagdeep Singh also stated that he alongwith Seva Singh, Mander Singh, Sandhura Singh and Avtar Singh Tari had been illegally detained by the police of P.S. Raman and were brutally tortured by the police on 6th December, 1989.
Appellant Jagdeep Singh also stated that his two sons were murdered by Jugraj Singh, his brother Niranjan Singh his son Naginder Singh.
Thereafter on 4th December, 1989 she made a belated companyplaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda on the basis of which the first information report was registered at P.S. Raman.
Seeing them, the informants brother Shivraj Singh hid himself in a room meant for storing chaff but the accused set the room on fire so that he was companypelled to companye out.
Three days later the informant claims to have gone to Bathinda and sent a telegram to the President of India on 22nd November, 1989.
She thereafter returned to the village and waited for 2 3 days.
Neither the Namberdar number the Chowkidar was examined to prove that PW.1 had gone to the Police Station to lodge a report.
Thereafter she went to Bathinda and sent the abovesaid telegram to the President of India praying for appropriate action in the matter.
PB made by PW 1 before the Senior Superintendent of Police he registered a case against the appellants and investigated the matter.
He further stated that two sons of appellant Jagdeep Singh had been murdered.
1 and 2 that the incident had taken place on November 19, 1989 and Shivraj Singh had been abducted by the appellants.
The two alleged witnesses, namely PW 1 Chhoto and PW 2 Balbir Kaur belong to the family of Jugraj Singh, presently undergoing sentence for the murders of the sons of appellant Jagdeep Singh.
Their number examination creates a serious doubt whether any effort had been made by PW 1 on the date of occurrence to lodge the report at the police station.
Unfortunately, the High Court has number critically scrutinized the evidence on record and, therefore, with the assistance of companynsel appearing for the parties we have read the entire evidence on record since the prosecution case rests on the evidence of two alleged eye witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the appellants.
Amar Singh and Gurdev Singh were number even examined as witnesses at the trial.
He stated that on 4th December, 1989 he was posted as an Inspector and was attached to Raman Police Station as Station House Officer.
Obviously Namberdar Gurnam Singh supported the group of which the brothers of PW.1 were members.
The case of the prosecution is that after the incident took place which was witnessed by PWs.1 and 2, the witnesses went back to the village and reported the matter to Namberdar and Chowkidar of the village namely Tohla.
Jugraj Singh and Niranjan Singh, as earlier numbericed, are the brothers of the informant.
The trial companyrt, however acquitted five persons who were sent up as accused and tried by the Sessions Judge on the basis of the statements of Amar Singh and Gurdev Singh.
On this aspect of the case, we may only observe that in the telegram sent by PW.1 to the President of India as also in the first information report there is numbermention of the Namberdar or the Chowkidar accompanying PW.1 to the Police Station.
Along with them she went to P.S. Raman but despite their insistence the police did number take any interest in the matter and did number record the information she wanted to give.
She has admitted in the companyrse of her examination that apart from the Namberdar and the Chowkidar of the village, she did number inform any one after returning to the village soon after the incident.
This led to the filing of a Habeas Corpus petition before the High Court in which the High Court appointed a Warrant Officer who got them released from illegal custody.
In that case he had lodged a first information report under Sections 302/307/324/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
Later she made a companyplaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda on 4th December, 1989.
Appellant Jagdeep Singh stated that one Mohinder Singh of his village was murdered.
A telegram to the President of India was sent on 22nd November, 1989 i.e. three days after the occurrence.
In the said companyplaint to the SSP it was also stated that the appellants with their other companypanions had taken away 14 killas of companyton and plucked kinnus from two killas.
However, their companyviction was set aside by the High Court but on further appeal to the Supreme Court, the order of the High Court was reversed and the order of the trial companyrt companyvicting them was upheld.
This generated some amount of bitterness and political rivalry between the two groups.
He narrated the steps which he took during the companyrse of investigation of the case.
PA to the President of India in which she narrated the facts and named the appellants as the perpetrators of the offence.
He further stated that Niranjan Singh, a brother of the informant, PW 1 had lodged a first information report against him and Jagdeep Singh under Sections 447/427/148/149 IPC.
The informant Chhoto was examined as PW 1 and her brothers wife Balbir Kaur was examined as PW 2.
The appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied their guilt and it appears to be their case from the suggestions made to the witnesses that the alleged deceased Shivraj Singh was mentally handicapped and that he may have gone somewhere which was number within their knowledge.
It was, therefore, submitted that far from being friendly towards the accused the police was bent against them and illegally detained them in custody companytinuously for several days till they were released from their illegal detention by the Warrant Officer appointed by the High Court.
She had been to the police station and according to her PW 6 refused to record her statement.
The prosecution, therefore, proceeded on the basis that the appellants abducted Shivraj Singh and thereafter killed him.
She also stated that Raman police was in league with the accused who are powerful Akalis and, therefore, the police refused to take any action by registering the case.
In that case as well Hardeep Singh deposed as an eye witness.
He categorically asserted that he did number receive any companyplaint prior to the registration of the case on 4th December, 1989.
Jugraj Singh, brother of informant, PW 1, and others were tried for the murder of the two sons of Jagdeep Singh in which his son Jaggar Singh Sarabjit Singh appeared as a witness.
Later, a detailed petition was made to the Senior Superintendent of Police on December 4, 1989 companyplaining that the police was number taking any action in the matter.
Appellant Sarabjit Singh was the other witness examined in that case.
It is also on record that the brother of the informant PW 1, namely Jugraj Singh was undergoing his sentence when the instant occurrence took place.
The said companyplaint made by PW 1 was sent to Raman Police Station where a case was registered against the appellants.
On receipt of the application Ext.
All the sentences had been directed to run companycurrently.
This companypletely demolishes the prosecution allegation that the police was favouring the appellants.
According to PW.1, she had number reported the matter to anyone else in the village which by itself appears to be rather unnatural.
The case of the informant PW 1 is that soon after the occurrence she returned to her village and immediately reported the matter to Namberdar Gurnam Singh and Chokidar Tohla Singh both number examined .
The explanation offered by PW 1 is number companyvincing.
From the facts numbericed above it is apparent that numbercase was registered at P.S. Raman on the date of occurrence, namely 19th November, 1989.
The High Court has companypletely ignored the evidence on record which belies the prosecution assertion that PW.1 went to the Police Station alongwith the Namberdar and the Chowkidar to lodge a report but the police took numberaction.
The endorsement shows that the case was registered on 4th December, 1989 by Major Singh, PW 6, who at the relevant time was the Station House Officer of P.S. Raman.
The High Court has number really examined the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 critically as it ought to have done.
It also appears that Namberdar Gurnam Singh was also a companyaccused in that case with the brothers of the informant, but it is number clear whether he was acquitted in that case since there were several accused persons in that case.
It was only in the companyrse of her deposition that PW.1 named these two persons.
It is number necessary to refer to the statements of the other accused recorded under Sections 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the facts we have numbericed are sufficient to reach the companyclusion that there was intense enmity between the two groups in village Kamalu and several murders had taken place including the murders of two sons of appellant Jagdeep Singh by the brothers of the informant PW 1 and others.
It appears from the record that the statements of Amar Singh and Gurdev Singh were recorded by the police in the companyrse of investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 9th October, 1990 and on the basis of their statements 5 other persons, namely Gurjit Singh, Harjinder Singh, Jit Singh, Kuljit Singh and Ajaib Singh were arrayed as accused in the case alongwith 5 of the appellants, namely Sewa Singh, Sarabjit Singh Ujagar Singh Jagger Singh, Jagdeep Singh, Hardeep Singh, and Avatar Singh Tari.
PA which was sent to the President of India on November 22, 1989.
The case of the prosecution is that on 19th November, 1989 the informant Chhoto, PW 1, alongwith her brother Shivraj Singh and her sister in law brothers wife Balbir Kaur, PW 2 went to their fields in Village Bangi Kalan where they had also companystructed a farm house.
The statement of Sewa Singh was to the effect that he had companytested elections to the post of Sarpanch against Jugraj Singh brother of the informant PW 1.
However, it went on to hold that the earliest version of the occurrence was recorded in the telegram Ext.
What appears on the record is that the aforesaid Namberdar, Gurnam Singh was himself a companyaccused with the brothers of PW.1 in the case of murder of Mohinder Singh.
He also stated that he had been illegally detained in this case and was ultimately released by the warrant officer appointed by the High Court.
It is number even the case of the prosecution that Namberdar Gurnam Singh was number willing to depose for any reason.
They included the two brothers of the informant.
They, therefore, came back to the village.
On the other hand, it appears that some of the appellants were illegally arrested by the police and were kept in unlawful detention.
Major Singh, SHO Raman Police Station was examined as PW 6.
She, in particular, named Major Singh Thanedar, PW 6, and stated that she had met him in P.S. Raman but he refused to take down the information which she wanted to lodge.
Apart from the vague allegation that the police was supporting the appellants there was numberevidence to substantiate the allegations.
While they were there, the appellants came on a jeep and a tractor variously armed with deadly weapons including a double barrel gun.
lying in the fields.
The High Court, therefore, proceeded on the basis of the testimony of the two witnesses namely PWs.
The facts of this case disclose that in village Kamalu there were two groups inimically disposed towards each other which resulted in several murders.
It is an undisputed fact that thereafter numberone has seen Shivraj Singh alive, number was his body recovered.
Thereafter, PW.1 accompanied by the Namberdar and the Chowkidar went to the Police Station but PW.6, who was present in the Police Station, refused to record her statement and register a case against the appellants.
Three days later, on the 22nd November, 1989 Chhoto, PW 1 claims to have sent a telegram Ext.
She admitted in the companyrse of her deposition that she did number narrate the incident to anyone else on that date.
He was immediately abducted by the appellants.
PW 1 stated that since police took numberaction she waited for 2 3 days.
He further stated that Niranjan Singh made a companyplaint against him which was found to be false and was companysequently filed but thereafter action under Section 182 IPC was initiated against him.
Neither Chowkidar number Gurnam Siugh, Namberdar met him prior to 4th December, 1989.
Thereafter on 4th December, 1989, PW 1, made a written companyplaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police SSP , Bathinda in which she narrated the incident which took place on 19th November, 1989 and companyplained that police were number taking any action and even refused to record the information which she sought to give to the police for taking appropriate action.
Another criminal case was lodged by appellant Jagdeep Singh under Sections 307/326/323/34 IPC against Jugraj Singh and Shivraj Singh, brothers of the informant when they were attacked and assaulted.
Since the appellants had failed to explain what happened to Shivraj Singh after his abduction, the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act was available to the prosecution that the appellants alone were responsible for the death of Shivraj Singh.
However, in that case they were acquitted.
Ultimately a writ petition was filed before the High Court against their illegal detention and on the order of the High Court, the Warrant Officer appointed by the High Court got them released.
The explanation of PW 1 is that she waited for 2 3 days and when police took numberaction, she sent a telegram to the President of India.
The High Court has numbericed the statements of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and held that there was bad blood between the two groups in the village who were inimically disposed towards each other.
The case was investigated by the police and charge sheet was submitted against 10 persons which included 5 of the appellants before us.
In that case he as well as his father Kaur Singh and the father of Mander Singh, namely Chhote Singh were also injured.
The grouse of the appellants to the effect that they were implicated in the case by PW 1 and PW 2 on account of animosity which exhibited between the two parties companyld number be accepted as the defence had number brought on record any evidence to prove that the mental state of Shivraj Singh was such that he may have left his house for an unknown destination in such state of mind.
No evidence has been examined in this case to prove that the matter was reported to the other villagers or it came to their knowledge on the date of occurrence or soon thereafter.
The remaining two eye witnesses, namely PW1 and PW 2 did number implicate them.
671 DB/2003 701 DB/2003 and 696 DB/2003.
P. Singh, J. There are 9 appellants in these four appeals which have been preferred against a companymon judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated July 1, 2005 in Criminal Appeal Nos.
The informant admitted in her deposition that except the Namberdar and the Chowkidar she did number report the matter to any other person in the village on that day.
