Pursuant to the charge sheet submitted by the police in that case three seperate trials were held.
The trials ended in acquittal of all the accused and aggrieved thereby the State preferred appeals before the High Court.
Accused Durga Das and Pawan Kumar were companyvicted under Section 302/34 IPC and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
A week later, on November 16.1991 to be precise, at or about 4.30p.m.
The High Court companyvicted the two juveniles also and directed their detention in a special Home for a period of seven years.
In one of them Jai Sham, Durga Das and Pawan Kumar figured as accused, in another Jai pal and Padam, wh were juveniles, were tried and the third related to the trial of Jai Sham for the offence under Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act for being in unauthorised possession of knife, with which the murder was companymitted.
Within a short while the police party came on the spot and with their help Chhinda was removed to the Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.
In retallation they started abusing and one of them grappled with Chhinda and then left the place.
The other two companyvicts, namely Durga Das and Pawan Kumar, however have number filed any appeal.
n a detailed discussion of their evidence the trial Curt found the same unacceptableand the reason canvassed by it for such companyclusions are that the evidence as to with whom and where the First Information Report was lodged was highly discrepant, that though P.Ws 8 and 9 admitted that the fathers name of the accused and their addresses were number known them from before those particulars find place in the I.R and numberexplanation was forthcoming from the prosecution abut the same, and that the evidence of to the eye witnesses as also that of the to investigating Officers was companytradictory on material particulars.when P.W.8,9 and the deceased were on their way to the factory, those five boys ambushed them and gave out that Chhinda would number be allowed to go alive.
2 a Shorn of details, the prosecution case is that on November 9,1991 at or abut 5 P.M. when P.W.8, his Brother in law Dayal Masih P.W.9 , brother Chhinda deceased and Joginder Singh P.W.11 , all employees of Bhushan Factory in the local Industrial Areas, were going to ease themselves they saw five young carrying two bags of aluminium powder with them.
In allowing the appeals by a companymon judgement the High Curt companyvicted Jai Sham under section 302 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively, with the direction that the sentences shall run companycurrently.
Aggrieved by the companyvictions and sentences recorded against recorded against him, Jai Sham has filed two of these appeals while the other appeal has been filed by the two juveniles challenging their companyvection and detention in Special Home.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 38 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Immediately, four of them namely Durga Das, Pawan Kumar, Padam Singh and Jai Pal caught hold Chhinda and Jai Sham started giving blows with a knife which he brought out from his pocket.
To prove its case the prosecution examined a number of witness of whom P.Ws 8 and 9 figured as eye witnesses.
On suspicion that they were carrying stolen property, P.W 8 and his companypanions accosted them.
Instinctively, when P.W. 8 and 9 shouted for help they took to their heels.
J U D G E M E N T K. Mukherjee, J These three appeals, which have been heard together, stem from an F.I.R lodged by Riaz Masih P.W.8 on November 16,1991 at Mani Majra police Station for the murder of Chhinda in an accident that took place earlier on that day in Bapu Dham Colony.
P.W.8 gave a statement abut the incident which was recorded by S.I. Sukhdev Singh W.13 and the case was registered.
