M.B.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Bharatpur, has convicted each of the accused appellants, namely, Sahab Singh and Jagdish -father and son; respectively, under Section 302/34 IPC and 302 IPC; respectively. Each of them has been sentenced to suffer life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - (In default, further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment). Accused appellant, Jagdish, had also been charged under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, but the learned Special Judge acquitted him of the said offence. Alongwith the two accused appellants; two more accused, namely, Charan Singh and Vijai Singh were tried by the learned Special Judge, but both of them were acquitted. There was fifth accused also, namely, Balblr. He was a child arid, therefore, he was tried by the children court and he too was acquitted by the children's court after his trial.
(2.) IN village -Didwari, Police Station -Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur, there was an enclosure regionally called as (geit) as has been shown in site plan (Ex.P/4). The case of the prosecution is, that on February 10, 1987, the accused appellants unloaded a trolley of wood in the said 'geit' and when deceased -Bhagwan Singh asked Sahab Singh and Jagdish (accused appellants) not to do so, they did not pay any heed to his request and continued to unload the trolley of wood. It is also the case that the accused appellants abused deceased -Bhagwan Singh and they then went to their house. The houses of the accused appellants and the deceased -Bhagwan Singh are at the distance of two hundred yeards of each other. After the aforesaid incident, as per the case of the prosecution the two accused appellants alongwith three others came to the house of deceased -Bhagwan Singh. Accused appellant, Sahab Singh, is said to have been armed with a 12 -bore gun and accused appellant, Jagdish, was armed with a 'pacfera' (country made -rifle). The licence of that country -made rifle is in the name of accused appellant, Sahab Singh. Charan Singh is said to have been armed with a 'katta'. No sooner, the accused persons and others came, as per the case of the prosecution, Jagdish Singh (accused appellant) fired his country -made rifle at Bhagwan Singh (deceased) and his son Chandan Singh, some how missed and did not hit anybody but the third shot which too was fired by accused appellant, Jagdish Singh, hit Bhagwan Singh causing injury on his neck, and Bhagwan Singh died on the spot. The occurrence, as per the first information report (Ex.P/1) which was lodged by Chandan Singh (PW -2) was witnessed by Maharaj Singh, Nem Singh, Prem Singh, Mahendra Singh, Biri Singh and Brij Lal Sharma; who are said to have been at the spot and saved Chandan Singh and others. Ex.P/1 was lodged and first information report was registered. But, immediately thereafter a dispute arose about the correctness of Ex.P/1, as Chandan Singh said that, in fact, he had reached the police station -Kumher and had submitted some other report which contained the names not only of two accused appellant's but also of three more persons, namely, Vijai Singh, Charan Singh and Balbir. But, as Jagmohan Singh, SHO (PW -12), is said to have told Chandan Singh that his case would be spoiled, therefore, he wrote another report in which the name of Vijai Singh, who is said to be a handicapped person because of stammering speech, was not included but still Jagmohan Singh was not satisfied as he wanted to help the accused persons and, therefore, he said that names of more than two persons as an accused could spoil the case, therefore, he (Chandan Singh) was made to give another report (Ex.P/1) and was lodged by him.
(3.) BEFORE we proceed further, we may state that after having heard the learned Counsel for the accused appellants and the Public Prosecutor, who is, assisted by the learned Counsel for the complainant, we are satisfied that the conduct of Shri Jagmohan Singh (PW -12), the then SHO, is of suspicious nature. That apart, it appears to us that the first information report was lodged after investigation had been completed and chargesheet was filed as has been admitted by Jagmohan Singh (PW -12) in his statement, in the Court. Therefore, though we will refer to the investigation done by him and the statements recorded by him under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but we will not place any reliance on those proceedings of investigation and the statements, for the reasons that these appear to have not been done fairly and prima facie appear to have been done in order to help some accused persons. This prima facie inference also appears to be justified on the basis of the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution before the Court.;