- (1.) The applicant, vide this application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeks leave to file appeal against the impugned judgement of acquittal dated 14.6.2011, whereby respondents-accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). However, accused-respondent no.2 Rajinder Singh @ Nona was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 25 (1B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 and he was sentenced accordingly. Facts first.
(2.) Applicant Ranjit Kaur was the sister of deceased Makhan Singh. She was not the complainant in the present case. It was Sadhu Singh complainant, who set the criminal law into motion. It would be pertinent to refer to the facts noted by the learned trial court, so as to avoid repetition and the same read as under :- " Brief facts of this case are that this case was registered on the statement of complainant Sadhu Singh, recorded by the police on 11.11.2009 in the area of village Gidder at 8.00 AM. The complainant recorded in his statement that they are two brothers and younger is Makhan Singh. Both the brothers are residing separately and doing cultivation also separately. On 10.11.2009 the complainant and his brother were returning back from Bhucho Mandi to their house in village Gidder on a tractor trolley after purchasing the household articles. Makhan Singh was driving the tractor and complainant was sitting in the trolley. The complainant further submitted that it was 5.30 PM that when they reached near the Canal Minor in the area of village Gidder and two persons were standing near the Canal Minor and out of them, one person was of long height and the other person was having lower height and they were standing near their motor cycle. The person having long height covered himself with a blanket (loi) and the other person gave signal to stop the tractor. Makhan Singh brother of the complainant slow down the speed of the tractor and then the person of a long height took weapon and fired towards Makhan Singh with an intention to kill him and fire hit on the back side of the head. The complainant concealed himself in the trolley due to the fear and the tractor turned towards the fields. The complainant further submitted that he raised alarm of mar-ditta-mar-ditta and both the accused ran away on their motor cycle alongwith the weapon towards village Ganga. In the mean while some other person came from the village and a vehicle was arranged and Makhan Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Nathana and after that he was shifted to Bharat Brain Hospital, Power House Road, Bathinda, where a CT Scan was conducted and Makhan Singh was taken to D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana by the relatives and now, he is admitted there for treatment. The complainant further submitted that he can identify both the accused. So, the action be taken against them. On this statement, this case was registered. Makhan Singh died on 17.11.2009 and then the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was added, vide DDR No.9 dated 17.11.2009. The present accused were named in the statement of Jagdev Singh, Rajinder Singh and Harpal Singh, which was recorded on 14.11.2009 and 15.11.2009. As per the statements Makhan Singh was got killed by hiring accused Harjinder Singh and Subhash Kumar @ Shanni by Hakam Singh and his wife Karamjit Kaur. Hakam Singh is son of deceased Makhan Singh. The other accused Buta Singh, Baljit Kaur, Jarnail Kaur worked as a mediator for hiring of accused Harjinder Singh and Subhash Kumar. The accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation, the challan against the accused was presented. The telephone details calls was collected and a double barrel 12 bore gun was recovered from accused Harjinder Singh on his disclosure statement."
(3.) Investigation was carried out, as noted above. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., was presented to the court of competent jurisdiction. The relevant documents were supplied to the accused. Finding the offence under Section 302 IPC, exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed by the learned Magistrate to the court of Sessions, vide order dated 10.3.2010.;