The appellants did number explain how they disappeared from the village and were number seen in the village from the day of the occurrence and how and in what companynection they had been away from their residence at the village.
on December 1, 1972 at Delhi.
the evidence of PWs 8, 9 and 10.
For the latter they have been companyvicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years.
the three injured eye witneses father, brother and mother respectively of deceased Gurdarshan Singh , 2.
recovery of fire arms at the instance of appellants 1 and 2 and 5.
1 Gurnek Singh which adjoins the said haveli.
Appellant No.
The evidence relied upon by the prosecution in order to establish line guilt of the appellant companysisted of 1.
The occurrence took place on October 13, 1972 at about 7.00 P.M. near the haveli of the victims and near the house of appellant No.
1 had also heaped his bricks on that part of the land and PW 8 had protested against the action of appellant No 1 The trial companyrt did number companysider the evidence as regards motive reliable The High Court on the other hand, came to the companyclusion that the evidence regarding motive was sati factory and that the trial companyrt was number justified in rejecting this evidence.
Both of them surrendered after proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 of the Cr.
M1, admeasuring 19 marlas which had fallen to the share of P.W. 8 father of the deceased which demand had number been acceded to by PW 8.
The trial companyrt and the High Court have accepted the evidence which established that both the appellants were number traceable in the village immediately after the occurrence when the Police Officers were searching for them in the village in companynection with this occurrence.
8, 9 and 10, namely, the father, brother and mother of Gurdarshan Singh were hit by pellets and injured in the companyrse of the very same transaction.
1 had demanded plot No.
One Sandhura Singh number examined as witness was also hit with pellets and sustained injuries in the companyrse of the same transaction.
the evidence regarding motive was number companysidered satisfactory by the trial companyrt 2.
The appellants had fire arms with them and they had fired at the victims from the roof of their house.
1 viz.
the fire arms which have been recovered were number shown to have been used in the companymission of the crime 5.
the dying declaration made by Gurdarshan Singh before the Police Officer at the Hospital 4.
The evidence regarding motive was to the effect that the father of appellant No.
The evidence regarding absconding which both the companyrts have accepted and which is adequate and satisfactory, lands further credence to the prosecution case.
Appellant No.
1 surrendered some 20 days later, on November 4, 1972 and Appellant No.
P.C. had been initiated against appellant No.
the evidence regarding recovery of weapons was number companysidered reliable 4.
Sandhura Singh who was number related to the deceased had number been examined 6.
evidence pertaining to motive 3.
Appellant No.
evidence regarding the absconding of the appellants.
Deceased Gurdarshan Singh and the three injured eye witnesses viz.
Shri Ajit Singh had a dispute with the father of the deceased about partition of the land belonging to the family to which both of them belonged.
the evidence regarding dying declaration had number been accepted by the trial companyrt 3.
The appellants have assailed the said finding and the order of companyviction and sentence for the murder of Gurdarshan Singh and the attempt to companymit the murder of PWs 8, 9 and 10.
P. Thakkar, J. The trial companyrt held, and the High Court companycurred, that appellants were the culprits who had fired at and injured Gurdarshan Singh who succumbed to his injuries as also his father, brother and mother injured eye witnesses PWs 8, 9 and 10 .
