- (1.)Perhaps, age-wise, this is the oldest criminal Division Bench appeal, which is being disposed of by us. We may mention here that delay is primarily caused by the appellants only, who after being released on bail, did not appear for a considerable period. Record reveals that for about more than two years, presence of Bias Raj could not be secured even through non-bailable warrants of arrest and ultimately this Court in May, 2006 appointed Sh. M. M. Gupta, Advocate, as amicus-curiae, to assist this Court on his behalf. Thereafter also some of the appellants chose not to appear and, as such, non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued to secure their presence. Ultimately, Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate, put in his appearance on behalf of appellants-Mohinder Pal, Madan Lal and Basant Kumar, and made a request that earlier the present appeal was being handled by Sh. Sakal Bhushan, Advocate, who has since shifted to Supreme Court and he would be assisting this Court on behalf of aforesaid three appellants. One of the appellants, namely Lal Chand died during the pendency of the appeal, which fact was subsequently verified by the learned State counsel and, as such, qua Lal Chand the present appeal stood abated. This, in brief, is the flashback which has caused delay in disposal of the instant appeal.
(2.)It is also worth-mentioning that along with aforesaid five appellants (including Lal Chand since dead), Krishan Kumar and Om Parkash alias Doctor, the other two sons of Lal Chand, were also booked and faced trial. They have earned acquittal vide impugned judgment. The State, however, has not filed an appeal against their acquittal. Therefore, the present appeal now survives qua four appellants only namely Bias Raj, Mohinder Pal, Madan Lal and Basant Kumar (for short to be referred to as 'the accused').
(3.)Another two facts need to be clarified to avoid any confusion at any later stage, viz
(i) that in the title of the impugned judgment, one Sant Kumar figures as accused No.4, he is son of Lal Chand. In fact, this is a typographical mistake. Instead of Sant Kumar, it should have been Basant Kumar as is otherwise clear from the operative part of the judgment. However, the present appeal is by Basant Kumar S/o Lal Chand alongwith other four convicted accused;

(ii) another fact is with regard to Mohinder Pal, the convicted accused. He has initially figured as Roshal Lal in the statement of Jaswinder Lal (since deceased), which is the basis of registration of the F.I.R., but during trial, it is made clear that Roshal Lal is known as Mohinder Pal also. In the operative part of the judgment or even in the memo of appeal, Mohinder Pal is mentioned as alias Roshan and is the appellant before us. However, in our judgment, he shall be referred to as Mohinder Pal only.