500/ each in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for five months.
Their presence at the time of incident also appeared to us quite natural because they were going alongwith Chao Khan and Baddal to attend the criminal case which was fixed on 5th January 1990 at Ferozepur Jhirka.
A 1 then fired from his pistol hitting Chao Khan on the head whereas A 2 fired from his pistol at Baddal.
Chao Khan and Baddal died on the spot.
The other accused persons thereafter started hitting both the injured with the lathis.
He then stated that he lodged the First Information Report at about 10.40 a.m. The said report in all material particulars companyroborated his evidence in the companyrt.
Trial against Chao Khan and Baddal since deceased abated.
Injury No.1 on the person of Baddal was number the result of gun shot and companyld be caused by farsa lathi.
After holding the inquest on the dead bodies.
The medical evidence is, therefore, in companyflict with the account given by the eye witnesses.
When Isrile PW 11 tried to intervene, A 8 and A 9 gave him lathi blows causing bleeding injuries to him.
long and 2 c.m.
Ribs of right side from No.
Incised wound on the occipital with region of the size 7 c.m.
There was a long drawn enmity between the deceased and the accused.
The underlying bone was broken into pieces and the brain tissues were visible.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellants, after obtaining Special Leave, have filed this appeal in this Court.
Isrile PW 11 narrated by Saheed PW 10 .
The learned trial judge by his judgment and order dated 29th January, 1993 acquitted all the accused persons of the offence punishable under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, but, companyvicted Anwar A 1 , Dalmar A 2 , Idu A 5 , Udai Singh A 6 , Sattar A 7 , Gaffer A 8 and Rashid A 9 for offences punishable under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
x 3 c.m.
he sent Isrile PW 11 to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur Jhirka for treatment.
Isrile PW 11 an another injured eye witness the son in law of Baddal.
Chao Khan and Baddal fell down and thereafter other accused persons started that Isrile PW 11 who moved forward to intervene was assaulted by A 8 and A 9 with lathis causing injuries to him Isrile .
The defence of the accused is that of total denial.
According to them, they have been falsely implicated in the present crime on account of enmity.
The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur Jhirka had fixed the case on 5th January, 1990 for trial and in that companynection, both Chao Khan and Baddal alongwith Saheed son of Baddal, Rial and Isrile PW 11 were going to the said companyrt for attending the criminal proceedings, At about 7.00 a.m. on 5th January, 1990, they left their village in a four wheeler and got down at the bye pass of Ferozepur Jhirka at about 9.30 a.m. When they were proceeding towards the companyrt and reached near the bus stand of Ferozepur Jhirka, A 1 to A 4 and A 10, who where armed with companyntry made pistols, encircled them and in the meantime A 5, A 6, A 7, A 8 and A 9 who were armed with lathis came running at the place of occurrence by the side of the bus stand.
A 3, A 4 and A 10 who were having pistols then fired in the air.
The appellants who were carrying the lathis thereafter assaulted him.
He further opined that injury No.9 on the person of Chao Khan companyld be the result of gun shot.
The substantive sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
At the outset, it needs to be stated that the incident in question took place on 5th January, 1990 at about 9.30 a.m. and the FIR was registered immediately at about 10.40 a.m. The special report was received by the Illaqa Magistrate on the same day at 4.40 p.m. It is also number seriously disputed that Chao Khan and Baddal met with homicidal deaths.
Dr. Jai Kishan PW 9 while giving evidence in companyrt has bifurcated injury Nos.
x 1/2 c.m.
A 1 then fired a shot from his piston which hit Chao Khan on his head.
Sessions Judge, Gurgaon for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/179, 323/149 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code for companyspiracy, rioting, companymitting the murders of Chao Khan and Baddal and causing injuries to Isrile PW 11 .
On reading their evidence in proper perspective, we are of the opinion that the companyrts below have companymitted numbererror in accepting their evidence as credible one and companyvicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code for companymitting the murder of Chao Khan.
It was deep and extending to brain tissue.
x 1/2 c.m.
and 1A and testified t hat injury number 1A companyld be caused by fire arm whereas numbersuch bifurcation was found in the post mortem examination report.
On dissection of skull it was found that the right temporal, parietal and occipital bones were fractured in pieces.
On punctured wound was at the right side of neck and another was on level of cheek and front of right ear very in from 1 c.m.
Fracture of right arm which was a companypound fracture.
A 1 and A 2 also owned agricultural land in the adjoining village called Luhinga Khurd.
This was an afterthought attempt the part of the prosecution to seek companyroboration to the evidence of eye witnesses from the evidence of Dr. Jai Kishan PW 9 , Relying upon this evidence of both these eye witnesses is untrustworthy and therefore the entire prosecution case against the appellants be rejected.
During their interrogation, they made statements which led to the recovery of pistols which came to be seized under the various panchnamas.
Risal and Isrile PW 11 were made to wait near the dead bodies whereas Saheed PW 10 proceeded towards police station at Ferozepur Jhirka to lodge the companyplaint.
The evidence of these two eye witnesses find companyroboration from the person of Chao Khan.
There was fracture of the underlying bone.
Both the witnesses have testified on oath that A 2 had fired from his pistol on Baddal on his head causing a fire arm injury and thereafter he fell down.
on left wrist joint.
The injuries sustained by this witness were proved by Dr. Som Dev Gupta PW 8 who examined him on 5th January, 1990 at about 2.30 p.m. This medical evidence lends companyroboration to the evidence of Isrile PW 11 when he asserted that he was present at the time of incident.
x 2 c.m.
x 3.5 c.m.
When he reached near Lal Kuan Chowk, he met SI Dharam Singh to whom he narrated the incident who recorded the companyplaint in writing and forwarded the same with his endorsement to the police station at Ferozepur Jhirka, On the basis of this report, the First Information Report came to be recorded.
The incident in question took place on 5th January, 1990 at 9.30 a.m. and he lodged the First Information Report at the police station at 10.40 a.m. The special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate on the same day at 4.40 p.m. He testified that he alongwith Chao Khan, Baddal, Isrile and Risal were going to Ferozepur Jhirka to attend the pending criminal case under the Arms Act.
He opined that the injuries to the vital organs resulted in shock and haemorrhage and were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
Multiple punctured wounds on right side of neck and face.
1A. Lacerated wounds on t h e neck of right ear of the size 1 c.m.
Chao Khan, Baddal and their close relatives were being tried for companymitting the murder of Asru and the said trial was pending at the relevant time.
Bruise of red companyour on the right side of chest.
4 to 9 were fractured.
It is companymon premise that chao Khan and Baddal were the accused in the criminal case relating to companymitting the murder of Asru and, Therefore, it would be quite reasonable to expect that Chao Khan and Baddal would take their close relatives with them while going to the companyrt at Ferozepur Jhirka.
and causing fracture of the underline bone.
fracture of the underlying bone was there and the brain tissue was visible.
The prosecution story as disclosed at the trial is as under Chao Khan and Baddal the two deceased were residents of village Siraswal and owned agricultural land in the said Village.
Both the eye witnesses testified that A 2 fired from his pistol at Baddal.
Suffers from numberinfirmity.
in diameter.
The hairs had got cut by the injury.
In the meantime, he arranged removal of both the dead bodies to Community Health Centre, Nuh where Dr. Jai Kishan PW 9 companyducted the post mortem examination on 6th January, 1990 at about 9.30 a.m. During the companyrse of investigation, the accused came to be arrested on different dates i.e. 9th January, 1990.
They were also companyvicted under Sections 148 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each one of them was sentenced to suffer RI for six months.
Multiple abrasions of various sizes on the back.
The brain tissue was badly damaged.
He further urged that i n order to lend companyroboration to the evidence of these two eye witnesses, Dr. Jai Kishan PW 9 sought to bifurcate injury No.1 into injury No.1 and 1A and testified that injury No.1A companyld be caused by the fire arm.
Jai Singh A 11 came to be acquitted of all the charges.
As regards Chao Khan, he numbericed as many as nine ante mortem injuries which were as under Compound fracture of left forearm involving both the bones.
Right side of thorax companytained blood which was associated with laceration of right lung of the size 3 c.m.
Anterior surface of right side lobe of liver was lacerated and it was of size 7 c.m.
Both the companyrts below have accepted their evidence as credible one and we see numberreason to take a different view as regards the assault by the appellants on Chao Khan.
SI Dharam Singh PW 14 reached the place of occurrence and started the investigation.
Red bruise almost parallel to injury No.
wide associated with fracture of underlying bone.
Both Chao Khan and Baddal sustained fire arm injuries on their heads and as a result thereof they fell down.
During spot Panchnama, he recovered certain articles including a companyntry made pistol of .12 bore with one live cartridge and one bullet metal .
x 1.5 c.m.
The seven companyvicts preferred an appeal to the Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and the learned Division Bench Vide its judgment and order dated November 22, 1993 upheld the companyvictions and sentences of the appellants but, acquitted Gaffar A 8 of all the charges.
Lacerated wound above the right eye on the fronto temporal region.
After getting down from the four wheeler at the bye pass, they reached at about 9.30 a.m. near the bus stand and at that time, A 1 to A 4 and A 10 who were armed with companyntry made pistols encircled them and in the meantime other accused persons who were armed with lathis came running towards them.
Brain tissue was visible.
All these articles were kept in the sealed packet.
x 2 c.m.
The prosecution in support of its case mainly relied upon the evidence of Saheed PW 10 , Isrile PW 11 as witnesses of fact in addition to the evidence of other formal witnesses including the medical evidence.
It is further alleged by the prosecution that Chao Khan and Baddal were also facing criminal trial under Section 25 of the arms Act which was then pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur Jhirka.
Its size was 3 c.m.
Asru, brother of A 1 and A 2, was killed about eight months prior to the incident in question which took place on 5th January, 1990, Chao Khan and Baddal alongwith their other brothers were charge sheeted for companymitting the murder of Asru and at the relevant time, trial was pending before the Sessions Court.,
x 3 c.m.
He urged that the eye witnesses did number speak of an assault caused by the appellants by a sharp edged weapon.
They pleaded that they are innocent and they be acquitted.
Dr. Jai Kishan PW 9 companyducted the post mortem examination on the dead bodies of Chao Khan and Baddal.
Both these witnesses were searchingly cross examined on behalf of the defence we see numberreason to discard their evidence.
Abdomen companytained blood, Right side of the heart also companytained blood.
All the accused thereafter fled away but while doing so, A 1 had left his pistol behind at the place of incident.
Abrasion 2 a.m. x 1/2 c.m.
The companyviction of the appellants under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code also calls for numberinterference because the appellants who were more than five in number were armed with deadly weapons formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted Chao Khan Which had resulted into his death.
Injury No.1 was an incised injury caused on the right temporal parietal region extending upto occipital region having dimension of 20 cm x 2 cms.
He opined that the injuries to the vital organs which resulted in shock and haemorrhage, were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
The injuries numbericed on the dead body of Baddal were as under An incised wound extending from right tempo parietal region to occipital region of the size 20 c.m.
After companypleting the investigating, a charge sheet came to be filed against eleven accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
The size was 25 c.m.
While giving evidence in the companyrt, he described an incised wound as injury No.1 and Iacerated wounds as injury No.
P.KURDUKAR, J. The six appellants alongwith five other accused persons since acquitted were put up for trial before the Addl.
Red bruise on right side of chest of the size 13 c.m.
A 2 fired a shot from his pistol which hit his father Baddal on his head.
5 of the size 20 cm long and about 3 cm wide.
Blood was present in the right side of thoracic cavity.
