- (1.)This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.7.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Hary ana at Chandigarh in Crim i-nal Appeal No. 701-DB of 2002 by which it has affirmed the judgment and order dated 8.8.2002 and 14.8.2002 passed by the learned ADJ, Sonepat in Session Trial No. 162 of 2001 by which and whereunder the appellant alongwith two others stood convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and awarded the sentence for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 each with default clause.
(2.)The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are:
(A) That on 5.7.2000, an FIR was lodged in the Police Station Ganaur District, Sonepat with regard to murder of one Mahabir @ Tunda wherein the appellant was named along with two other persons namely Virender @ Kala and Ram Singh s/o Ran Diya.

(B) That at 6.30 a.m. when Mahabir (deceased) reached near the field of Mathi r/o Pipli Khera and from the side of Bari, the said three accused came on a scooter and stopped near the cycle of the Mahabir (deceased) and all of them had given him blows with 'Dav'. He suffered injuries and died on the spot. The said FIR was lodged at 11.30 a.m. On the basis of the same, the investigation started. The statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') and after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused under Sections 302/34 IPC. In the trial, large number of witnesses were examined by the prosecution and on conclusion of the trial, all the three accused were convicted and sentenced as referred to hereinabove.

(C) It may be pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the appeal, the other two convicts died and only the appellant survives and thus, the appellant filed the present appeal.

2A. We have heard Mr. Manoj V. George, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manjit Singh, learned AAG for State of Haryana and perused the record.

(3.)The large number of questions have been raised on behalf of the appellant. However, the said questions remained the same which have been agitated before the Court's below and answered by the Courts. In fact, the main question agitated before us by Mr. George had been that in the instant case, the prosecution examined the related witnesses and not an independent witness had been examined. The Courts below have considered this issue and rejected on the ground that the defence put this specific question to the Inspector Jagdish Parsad PW10 wherein, on being asked, he replied as under:
"The Sarpanch and other respective (respectable sic) persons of the village were asked to join the investigation but they express their inability."