He had witnessed appellant, Buta Singh and Avtar Singh having a quarrel with the deceased.
The evidence of P.W. 4 Des Raj who was working in his field at about 5 or 5.30 p.m. shows he had seen the deceased going on a cycle towards Burj Raika with a jhola.
Both the Courts have companysidered the circumstantial evidence and have recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant on being satisfied that the offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.The evidence of P.W. 5 Jagdev Singh shows that at about 7.00 p.m. when he was returning to his home from his fields he had seen appellant Gian Singh armed with a kirpan and holding a cycle in his hand.
The evidence pertaining to the recovery of the cycle belonging to the deceased in view of his disclosure statement lends strength to the prosecution case.
A kirpan, a shirt, a pajama and a small stick were also recovered at the instance of the appellant.
When PW 5 saw him later on, he had a cycle.
He was seen with a cycle later on though he did number have one when PW 4 saw him.
It has been further reinforced by the evidence showing that the appellant was absconding for 13 days.
There is also evidence regarding the recovery made at the instance of the appellant.
The evidence of PW 4 and PW 5 which has been accepted by the trial companyrt and the High Court establishes that the deceased was last seen with the appellant.
The appellant had a kirpan with him at that time.
The cycle which has been proved to be the cycle belonging to the deceased was recovered in the wake of the disclosure statement made by the appellant.
When PW 4 saw the appellant he had numbercycle.
P. Thakkar, J. The appellant has been found guilty of the murder of his uncle Hardit Singh.
The companyviction has been built on circumstantial evidence which the trial companyrt as well as the High Court have companysidered sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant.
