Santosh Hegde, J. - (1.)The appellants in these two criminal appeals are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 24/1993 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad. They along with 3 other persons, namely, Dharambir, Dharam Singh and Kewal Ram were charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 324 read with Section 34, IPC by the Police Station NIT, Faridabad, for having committed the murder of one Ravinder Kumar on 1-8-1992 at about 10.30 a.m. The learned Sessions Judge while acquitting 3 of the accused, who are not before us, convicted Chander Pal, appellant in Crl. A. No. 825/2000 under Section 302, and Rajinder, appellant in Crl. A. No. 826/2000 under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to undergo RI for 6 months. Appeal filed by these convicted appellants and the appeal and revision filed agianst the acquittal of some of the accused and for enhancement of sentence to capital punishment came to be dismissed by the High Court of Punjab andHaryana at Chandigarh vide its judgment in Crl. A. Nos. 458-DB and469-DB of 1995.
(2.)This is against the said judgment and conviction imposed on the appellants by the High Court confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellants are now before us in these appeals.
(3.)The prosecution case narrated in brief is as follows : The appellants herein were known to deceased Ravinder Kumar and on 31-7-1992 when they were playing the game of Ludo at the shop of Kewal Ram, (accused No. 5), an argument ensued between the appellant Chander Pal and the deceased, during the course of which it is alleged that the deceased slapped Chander Pal. According to the prosecution, this incident was witnessed by one Dolly alias Sanjiv who was examined in the Sessions Court as PW-5 as also by PW-6 Lajpat Rai. Being infuriated by the said affront of having been slapped, it is contended by the prosecution that the appellants herein along with the acquitted accused persons hatched a conspiracy to do away with the deceased, in furtherance of which it is stated that on 1-8-1992 at about 10.30 a.m., the second appellant herein, namely, Rajinder went to the house of the deceased and called him on the pretext of having to talk to him. This was done in the presence of the brother of the deceased, Bhim Sen who was examined before the trial Court as PW-1. The deceased who answered the request of Rajinder, walked with him to a place which is about 60 yards away from the house of the deceased, they were joined by the first appellant Chander Pal and other accused persons who came there on a scooter and a motorcycle and while the second appellant Rajinder and other acquitted accused persons held the deceased, the first appellant Chander Pal is alleged to have stabbed the deceased, causing him 2 incised wounds on the chest and abdomen and another incised wound on his thigh as also a small abrasion caused by a blunt weapon used by one of the acquitted accused. The prosecution further states that this incident in question was noticed by PW-2 Ashok Kumar who was the owner of the tea-stall in front of which the said incident took place, and it is also stated that the said Ashok Kumar when he tried to intervene in the fight, suffered a minor injury on the posterior aspect of his left forearm. It is further stated that the deceased was then taken to Escorts Medical Centre, Faridabad, where on arrival he was declared dead by the doctor. Thereafter, on getting information from the hospital authorities, PW-11 - Manmohan Singh, ASI, took charge of the investigation and went to the hospital and on reaching there he recorded a statement - Ex. PA -11 on 14-8-1992 and he also took into custody a scooter from Dharam Singh and a motorcycle from Dharambir, the acquitted accused. The further case of the prosecution is that on interrogation on 17-8-1992, the first appellant Chander Pal led them to the recovery of a knife Ex. P-1 which according to the prosecution was used in the stabbing of the deceased. It is further stated that an iron rod Ex. P-2 was recovered at the instance of Rajinder, second appellant herein.