Santosh Hegde, J. - (1.)The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and conviction imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak in his judgment dated 6-11-1995 made in Sessions Case No. 93/93 as confirmed by the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh made in Crl. Appeal No. 590-DB/95, dated 18-1-2001.
(2.)Briefly stated the prosecution case against the appellants is : The deceased Chander Has and the appellants were related. They had some inter-se dispute in regard to some property, therefore, the prosecution has alleged that the appellants on 14-4-1993 took away the deceased from his house in the presence of his wife Birmati examined before the trial Court as PW-2. Ever since then the said Chander Has was not seen alive. It is stated that on 17-4-1993 said PW-2 along with a relative of Chander Has, namely, Dharambir Singh PW-8 went to the Police Station at Sampla and submitted a written application to the SHO in regard to missing of the said Chander Has. It is the further case of the prosecution that though the SHO of the said Station by name Chand Mohammad, ASI recorded a complaint and registered the same in the daily diary of the Station did not take up any investigation as the said complaint did not make out any cognizable offence. On 18-4-1993 another police officer of the said Station by name Gian Singh PW-9 on seeing the said complaint of PWs. 2 and 8 took up investigation and in that process he went near the village called Khalawar where he was met by one Attar Singh, ex-Sarpanch of the village who told him that a dead body of a young man had been found under some Kikar trees at a nearby place. On getting this information the said investigating officer (PW-9) proceeded to the said place along with two relatives of Chander Has by name Raghbir (PW-3) and Jai Bhagwan (PW-4). On reaching the said place they saw a dead body which was in a highly decomposed state. The same was identified by PWs. 3 and 4 as that of their relative Chander Has. The prosecution then alleges that on the body being identified and completing the inquest at the place where the body was found the same was sent for post mortem examination. It is relevant to note here that at the time of the inquest of the dead body, no external injuries were noticed. Thereafter PW-9 recorded the statements of PWs. 3 and 4 at the spot where the body was found and recorded the statement of PW-2 at her house as also of one Kehar Singh (PW-5) who according to prosecution has seen the deceased in the company of the appellants in the bazaar when he was walking there on the evening of 14-4-1993. The prosecution then states on getting the said information PW-4 search for accused persons and was unable to arrest them immediately. From the material on record, it seems that appellant No. 1 was arrested on 19-4-1993 whereas appellant No. 2 who was then serving in the Army, was found in Sikkim at the place where he was posted. He was arrested from there on 14-6-1993. In the meanwhile, the investigating agency on a statement allegedly made by appellant No. 1 recovered a sharp-edged weapon 'Gaiti' as also a motorcycle which the prosecution alleges was used by the appellants in taking away the deceased.
(3.)On receipt of the post mortem report from the doctor (PW-7), who had opined that the deceased had died a homicidal death, having suffered stab injuries which could have been caused by a weapon like Gaiti recovered from appellant No. 1, the appellants were charged for the murder of Chander Has and were tried as stated above.