B.PRASAD , S.P.PATHAK, JJ. - (1.) THE present jail appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh in Sessions Case No. 99/2001 dated 6 -10 -2001.
(2.) THE prosecution was initiated on the basis of information given by Lakha Singh informant on 25 -1 -1999 at about 12.00 p.m. to Police Station Anoopgarh. In the information given to the police it was stated by the informant that neighbours of his daughter Chhindo Dara Singh and Mohan Lal came to his house and informed that at the house of Chhindo, Sher Singh was lying dead. On receiving this information, the informant went to the house of his daughter where he saw that Sher Singh was lying dead and his daughter Chhindo was not at home. Chhindos husband died about 10 years before. Chhindo had developed intimacy with the accused since last 10 years. Lal Chand had visited last night to see Chhindo. It was alleged by the complainant that his son Sher Singh used to reprimand Chhindo and Lal Chand for their relationship and on this count Lal Chand had murdered his son Sher Singh at the house of Chhindo. When he arrived Chindo and Lal Chand both were not available in the house and their whereabouts were not known. At the time of occurrence Chhindos daughter Mechi and Phohi were available. After receiving such information, FIR No. 604/99 was recorded at police station Anoopgarh and investigation was started. After investigation charge - sheet was filed against the accused appellant Case in turn came for trial to the trial court. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused. Accused denied the charges and claimed trial. At the trial, prosecution examined P.W. 3 Harbans Kaur as an eye witness. She was the neighbour of Chhindo. She has stated in Court that she was at home at the time of incident. At about 6.00 p.m. when the Sun has set, she heard noise from the house of Chhindo. She used the bricks lying in her house and sealed those bricks and saw the incident as occurred at the house of Chhindo. She saw that accused Lal Chand was inflicting lathi blows on the head of deceased Sher Singh. She was cross -examined. It was suggested that due to height of the separating wall, one can see from her house as to what is happening in the house of Chhindo. She admitted this fact and asserted that she had seen the event by using bricks to raise height. She has admitted that the darkness has set, but there was sufficient light to see the assault. About the number of blows, she has asserted that 10 -12 blows were inflicted whereas in her police statement she stated that 5 -7 blows were inflicted. However, in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated 10 -12 blows.
(3.) ANOTHER eyewitness produced by the prosecution to support the prosecution case is P.W. 4 Phohi. She is the daughter of Chhindo. She is about 15 years of age. She being a child witness was examined by the court for competence. After judging the competency of the witness she was considered a competent witness. In her examination she stated that his father had died 10 years before. Her maternal uncle used to stop Lalia accused from coming to their house but Lalia used to come clandestinely to meet her mother. This was notwithstanding the fact that her maternal uncle used to object the same. On the day of incident, Lalia came to meet her mother, her maternal uncle objected and Lalia gave lathi blows to the deceased. After the incident, she went to the house of Revant Ram Sarpanch and when she came back, she found that her maternal uncle died. She went to the house of Ranjeet Singh. In her cross -examination she has admitted that Sher Singh consumed liquor. At the time of incident, he was drunk so was the accused. In her cross -examination, she withstood the test of cross -examination and has not deviated from basic story.;