- (1.) SINCE the above three appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and order dated 24. 01. 2003 passed by 1 st F. T. C. /additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in S. T. No. 374 of 2000, there fore, these appeals are being disposed of together by this common judgment. These appeals have been preferred against the aforesaid impugned judgment and order whereby the accused/appellants Kamil, Dilshad and Tasleem have been convicted u/s 307/34 and 342/34 I. PC. The accused Kamil was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment u/s 307/34 I. P. C. whereas the accused Dilshad and Tasleem were sentenced to undergo 7 years R. I. u/s 307/34 I. P. C. respectively. The accused/appellants were further convicted and sen tenced to undergo three months R. I. u/s 342/34 I. P. C. It was further directed that both the sentences would run concurrently.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that a report (Ex. Ka. 1) was lodged by Smt. Sushila Devi, mother of the injured Brijesh Kumar Singh on 27/06/2000 at about 0010 hrs. in the police station Kotwali Roorkee, Haridwar alleging therein that on 23/06/2000 her son Brijesh Kumar Singh who was employed in B. S. F Jalandhar was coming to his village Bhangari on leave. When he reached in his village, he saw accused/appellant Kamil and other persons gambling on the road. He ob jected on the gambling and asked the ac cused/appellants not to gamble in between the road. Thereafter, the accused/appel lants hurled abuses upon him but her son Brijesh Kumar Singh came to his house without protesting the accused/appellants. It was further alleged in the F. I. R. that on 26/06/2000 at about 8:30 p. m. her son Brijesh Kumar Singh started from his house to Roorkee Railway station to board on the train to attend his duties at Jalandhar. When he reached before the house of accused/appellant Kamil, the ac cused/appellants Kamil, Dilshad and Tasleem, all of a sudden, emerged before him. The accused/appellant Kamil was having country made pistol on his hand and he started assaulting her son by the butt of the said country made pistol. The accused/appellant Tasleem was having hammer on his hand and he started as saulting the injured by the hammer. When the said incident was communicated to the informant, she immediately rushed to the place of the incident and found that her son injured Brijesh Kumar Singh was taken inside the room of accused/appel lant Kamil and the accused/appellants were assaulted the injured Brijesh Kumar Singh. Her son, injured Brijesh Kumar Singh, narrated the incident to her. She requested the accused/appellants to release her son but they did not pay any heed to her request. Smt. Gulsana, the landord of the informant also reached at the spot alongwith the informant. When the injured was not released by the accused/appel lants, they went to the police station where a report was scribe by the wife of the in jured Smt. Binda Singh and the same was lodged by the informant Smt. Sushiia Devi. Thereafter, the police reached at the spot; recovered the country made pistol alongwith six live cartridges; and took the ' injured to the police station. The matter was investigated and chargesheet was sub mitted after completion of the investiga tion against the accused/appellants. After submission of chargesheet, the accused/appellants were committed to the court of Sessions for trial and the trial court framed charges u/s 307/34, 342 and 506 I. P. C. against the accused/appellants. The accused/appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed their trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as eight witnesses. Brijesh Kumar Singh PW1 is the injured witness who has narrated the incident. Smt. Sushila Devi PW2 is the mother of the injured, an eyewitness to some extent, who has lodged the report in the police station. Smt. Binda Singh PW3 is the wife of the injured Brijesh Kumar Singh who has scribed the report. Dr. Mange Ram Malik PW4 and Dr. Yogesh Kumar PW5 are the Medical Officers who have exam ined the injured. Smt. Gulsana PW6 is the landlord of the injured and the eye witness to some extent of the incident. Shri Nautan Das PW7 is the Sub-Inspec tor who has prepared the Chick FI. R. and made necessary entries in the G. D. Shri Harish Chandra Saxena PW8 is the inves tigating officer of this case who has sub mitted the chargesheet against the ac cused/appellants.
(3.) THE accused-appellants were exam ined u/s 313 Cr. P. C. and they have pleaded not guilty to the offence. They have further stated that the police have implicated them falsely in this case. They have further stated that they have inimi cal terms with Smt. Gulsana and she being the landlord of the injured, false evidence has been given against them. Ac cused/appellant Kamil has further stated in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC. that on 26/06/2000 he was sitting in his house alongwith Tasleem and Dilshad. The injured Brijesh came there; called him out; and suddenly started firing upon him. Thereafter, he caught him and handed over to the police. The accused/appellants Kamil appeared as DW1 and the defence also ex amined Nayeen as DW2 in support of their defence.;