S.S.GREWAL, J. - (1.) VIDE order of Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated 15.6.1993, Manmohan Singh appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ -; in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was further convicted under Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ - in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under Section 454 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. He was further convicted under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -; in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Paramjit Singh appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ -; in default of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment or six months. He was further convicted under Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ -; in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under Section 454 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. He was further convicted under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Vide order of Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated 15.6.1993, Manmohan Singh appellant was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.
(2.) AGGRIEVED against the orders of his conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court Manmohan Singh appellant has filed Crl. A. 247 -DB of 1993 in the main case and Cr. A. 277 -SB of 1993 concerning his conviction and sentence under Section 25 of the Arms Act in a separate trial whereas Paramjit Singh Appellant filed Crl. A. No. 266 -DB of T/1993. As common questions of law and fact are involved in all the aforesaid appeals these shall be disposed of by one order. In brief facts of the prosecution case as emerged from the first information report recorded on the basis of the statement of Amarjit Singh PW are that he had installed a flour mill and resides on the Chaubara i.e. on the first floor of the said Flour Mill along with his father Dewan Singh and Mother Rattan Kaur. On 22.4.1989, Dewan Singh father of Amarjit Singh PW had gone to his village in order to harvest wheat crop and his mother Rattan Kaur alone was present in the house. Manmohan Singh appellant who is distantly related to Amarjit Singh and was on visiting terms with him came twice on 22.4.1989 and asked Amarjit Singh PW that he was in need of cooking gas connection and asked that he should accompany him to the gas store situated in the back side of Sangam Cinema for arranging cooking gas for him. Amarjit Singh PW could not accompany Manmohan Singh as he was busy in his own work. At about 3 p.m. Manmohan Singh came and met Amarjit Singh PW for the third time that day and asked him to arrange cooking gas connection for him. Amarjit Singh PW asked Manmohan Singh (present appellant) to leave for B.S. Gas Agency and promised that he would reach there shortly. Manmohan Singh appellant then went away and after sometime Amarjit Singh PW went to the aforesaid Gas Agency and waited there for more than an hour or so for Manmohan Singh appellant but the latter did not come. Amarjit Singh PW then returned to his house. As he reached near the stair -case he saw Manmohan Singh appellant closing the door on the first floor facing the stair case. Manmohan Singh appellant came down immediately on seeing Amarjit Singh PW and felt nervous. At that time Manmohan Singh was carrying something wrapped in white bed sheet in his right hand which was stained with blood. Amarjit Singh PW told Manmohan Singh appellant that he waited for him at the Gas Agency for quite a long -time and that he went back to his house at about 4.15 p.m. On enquiry by Amarjit Singh PW as to what Manmohan Singh appellant was carrying wrapped in bed sheet and why he had not reached the Gas Agency, Manmohan Singh appellant slipped away saying that the bed sheet contains a bottle and some eatables. Then Amarjit Singh PW went up -stairs and found that his mother Rattan Kaur was lying dead on a mattress on the floor of the room of Chaubara and blood in sufficient quantity had oozed from her head. There was a big wound on the head just above the right ear and the same was bleeding. After putting the head -gear round the neck, the knots have been tightened. Amarjit Singh PW observed that the Petti (iron box) was sufficiently found stained with human blood. Besides lock of Petti which was found stained with human blood articles of Petti were lying scattered outside. On further search .32 bore revolver bearing No. A 61515 together with 15 cartridges of .32 bore were found missing. Along with Rs. 7000/ -, two jewellery sets weighing about 9 Tolas were found missing. According to Amarjit Singh PW Manmohan Singh appellant sent him away on the pretext for getting gas connection, committed the murder of his mother Smt. Rattan Kaur and also committed theft in respect of the aforesaid articles. On 29.4.1989, Manmohan Singh appellant was arrested and one revolver of .32 bore No. A. 61515 was recovered from him along other articles. A separate case was registered at the Police Station against the said appellant under the Arms Act. After completion of the investigation, both the appellants were challaned, tried, convicted and sentenced as stated earlier.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the parties were heard.;