SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THE appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 14 -6 -1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 1/83 by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as below: Name of accused Convicted under Section Sentence awarded 307 I.P.C. 5 years' RI. and a fine of Rs. 200/ - in default to further under go 3 months' R.I. 27 Arms Act 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/ - in default to further undergo 1 month's imprisonment. Raj Singh 364 I.P.C. 5 years' RI. and a fine or Rs. 200/ - in default to further undergo 3 months' R.I. 307/34 I.P.C. and 307 I.P.C. 5 years' RI. and a fine of Rs. 200/ - in default to further undergo 3 months' R.I.
(2.) BY the same judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge acquitted two accused, namely Amrit Pal and Teka of the charges framed against them. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: (i) On 22 -10 -1982 at about 1 a.m. in the night P.W. 2 Bogar Singh S/O Munshi Singh gave statement Ex. P/2 to the SHO P.W. 20 Dharsi Ram stating inter alia that on that day, he came from his village to Mandi Kesri Singhpur for seeing Ram Lila and when he was seeing Ram Lila. P.W. 5 Nachhatra Singh was also sitting with him. It was further stated by P.W. 2 Bogar Singh that at about 10 p.m. in the night Raj Singh accused appellant and another alleged to be son of Daman Singh to whom he did not know by his name came there and they called P.W. 2 Bogar Singh and thereafter he came outside and they told him that they had to go upto the Bridge of Thada. Thereafter all the three persons went on a motor -cycle and the motor -cycle was being driven at that time by son of Daman Singh. It was further stated in his statement that when they reached near the bridge of Dhanjatia, the motor -cycle was stopped. The accused appellant Raj Singh stated that he had seen a bottle of wine there and he went there to see the bottle, but it was not found. Thereafter, the son of Daman Singh raised a cry and after his voice the accused appellant Pali alongwith two other persons came there and accused Pali fired shot from pistol towards P.W. 2 Bogar Singh and that shot caused injuries on his stomach and another shot was fired by another person who was with the accused appellant Pali and thereafter P.W. 2 Bogar Singh was thrown away in the river. It was further stated by P.W. 2 Bogar Singh that the accused had old enmity. Accused appellant Raj Singh and son of Daman Singh had brought him there so that he could be killed. (ii) On this report, police registered the case and during investigation P.W. 2 Bogar Singh was medically examined by Dr. P.W. 11 Jaswant Singh and his injury report is Ex. P /14. He was X -rayed and his X -ray report is Ex. P /15. (iii) During investigation on 22 -10 -1982 at about 5.10 a.m. in the morning statement of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh was got recorded by the Magistrate and the same is Ex. D/1 and after usual investigation a challan against the four persons was filed by the police. (iv) Vide order dated 1 -2 -1983, charges were framed against the appellant Pali for offence under Section 307 I.P.C and 27 of the Arms Act and the appellant Raj Singh was charged for offences under Sections 364, 307, and 307/ 34 I.P.C. The other two accused persons namely Amrit Pal Singh and Teka were also charged, but have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. (v) In support of the prosecution case as many as 20 witnesses were produced and many documents were got exhibited and after trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced both the appellants as stated above while acquitting other two accused persons. (vi) Aggrieved from the said judgment and order this appeal has been preferred by these accused appellants Pali and Raj Singh (It may be stated here that during pendency of the appeal accused appellant has died and vide order dated 1 -8 -2000. his appeal has abated.) and now this appeal would be confined only with respect to accused appellant Raj Singh.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant Raj Singh has raised following submissions before this Court: (i) That the statement of P.W. 2 Bogar Singh is only solitary testimony in the present case, which should not be believed in the manner as has been believed by the learned Sessions Judge because the learned Sessions Judge himself has come to the conclusion that he is not reliable witness. (ii) He has further argued that once his statement is full contradictions with his previous statement Ex. P/2, and statement recorded by the Magistrate Ex. D/1 and when his statement has not been believed against the accused Amrit Pal Singh and Teka, it should not have been believed for rest of the accused also. He further prays that the accused appellant Raj Singh be also acquitted of the charges framed against him.;