According to prosecution the second person who entered subsequently was the appellant.
Hence the present appeal.
The learned companynsel for the appellant has raised serious objection for number examination of Ashok Talwar from whose statement appellant was arrested.
Shri K.K. Tyagi PW6 junior companynsel attached to the chamber of the deceased, J.S. Obroi, Steno of the deceased and Shri Bijendra Singh PW11 a suspended head companystable of Delhi police who was a client of the deceased, were present at the time of the occurrence.
At the time of incident PW 6, J.S. Obroi and PW 11 were present in the chamber of deceased.
On seeing accused persons firing shots at the deceased, PW 6 rushed to the adjacent house and informed the police over phone.
By the impugned judgment the designated companyrt acquitted accused appellant and Ajay Kumar of the charge under Section 120B IPC.
Three accused namely appellant Manjeet Singh Kukku, Ajay Kumar and Georg Innis Jerry were booked for trial before the designated companyrt.
J.S. Obroi was number examined and PW 11 was declared hostile.
P 3/A three were of 9 m.m and two were of 45 m.m.
The designated companyrt, however, found the accused appellant Manjeet Singh guilty under Section 302 IPC and under Section 5 of Terrorist Activities and Disruptive Prevention Act, 1987 and companyvicted him accordingly.
Both the persons started firing shots from their revolver.
Non examination has been duly explained by the prosecution.
The companyrt also acquitted Georg Innis Jerry of the charge under Section 201 IPC.
While lifting the body of the deceased the shirt of PW 6 stained with blood of the deceased.
He pushed PW 6 and at the same time another person aged about 30 years also went inside the chamber.
PW 6 met him at the nursing home and Investigating Officer recorded his statement.
PW 35 has stated on oath that in spite of best efforts he companyld number locate this witness.
The police after getting information arrested the appellant on 5th July, 1998 at Jabalpur and after investigation submitted the charge sheet.
This recovery also supports the presence of PW6 as he deposed that two assailants fired from their revolvers.
We have heard Shri R.K. Maheshwari, learned companynsel for the appellant and Shri A.S. Nambiar, learned senior companynsel for the respondent.
PW 6 was the main witness of the occurrence and he identified the appellant.
This was exhibited as PW 4/A. It was recorded that at 09.00 p.m PW 6 informed about the incident of the death of the deceased.
PW s 1,2 and 3 who rushed to the chamber of deceased also identified the appellant.
According to prosecution at about 08.45 p.m on 6th June, 91 deceased Baba Gurcharan Singh a lawyer was murdered in his chamber by the appellant and Brij Mohan.
PW 4, Head Constable Narain Singh has proved this entry.
Five cartridges were recovered from the spot and those were fired from pistol.
PHUKAN, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.05.99 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Designated Court II, Delhi in Sessions Case No.
At that time the deceased was giving dictation to his steno for filing a petition before this Court and a young boy peeped through the door glass of the chamber and on being signaled by the deceased he walked inside.
Five cartridge cases were recovered from the place of occurrence as per recovery memo Ex.
