- (1.) THE present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19/10/2006 rendered by the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Bharatpur camp at Deeg in Sessions Case No.09/2006 (State Vs. Jaswant Singh @Fakru) whereby, the accused -appellant has been convicted for offence u/S.302 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced, as under: - for offence u/S.302 IPC: - Life Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1000/ - and in default thereof, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. for offence u/S.3/25 of the Arms Act: - Simple Imprisonment for three years pay a fine of Rs.1000/ - and in default thereof, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.
(2.) ACCUSED -appellant Jaswant Singh @Fakru was tried by the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Bharatpur camp at Deeg for causing murder of Baldev Singh. As per prosecution, on 08/03/2005 at about 1.00 p.m., Baldev Singh S/o Singara Singh (PW5) complainant was going on motorcycle along with Milkeet Singh (PW8) grand -son of the complainant. It is stated that on the said day at about 4.00 p.m., present appellant fired a short from countrymade pistol at Baldev Singh and caused his death.
(3.) SHRI Rajesh Sharma, counsel appearing for the appellant before starting his argument has submitted that appellant being a poor person could not engage the counsel and, therefore, the counsel was provided to the appellant by the Legal Aid Service Authority. Counsel for the appellant to fortify above submission has drawn our attention to the order dated 19/10/2005, which reads, as under: - Counsel for the appellant submits that Vishan Singh (PW1) and Bhuri Singh (PW2) were examined. Opportunity was given to the accused to cross -examine them and accused had not cross -examined those witnesses. It is contended that at that time, counsel for the accused was not present in court. So far as Vishan Singh (PW1) and Bhuri Singh (PW2) are concerned, Vishan Singh (PW1) had attested the inquest proceedings vide Ex.P1 and Bhuri Singh (PW2) had attested the arrest memo vide Ex.P2. Nothing hinges upon these two witnesses and in fact, opportunity was also granted to the accused to cross -examine them. He did not raise any plea that counsel was not available therefore, cross -examination be deferred. Therefore, we are of the view that so far as non -cross -examination of Vishan Singh (PW1) and Bhuri Singh (PW2) is concerned, same has caused no prejudice to the appellant. Furthermore, an application u/S.311 Cr.P.C. was filed at the subsequent stage and appellant had not raised any plea that Vishan Singh (PW1) and Bhuri Singh (PW2) be recalled for cross -examination.;