Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) On the fateful night of May 12, 2002 Chandan Singh was shot dead while he was proceeding on a new Hero Honda Motor Cycle from village Nadbai to Useer. The appellants, three in number, were indicted for the alleged crime before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bharatpur, who vide judgment dated October 17, 2003 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : Surendra Singh U/s. 302 IPC : To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s. 392 IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s. 3/25 Arms Act : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-, in 1 default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Khargo @ Khargendra Singh and Hoshiyar Singh U/s. 302/34 IPC : Both to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s. 392 IPC : Both to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.1000/-. in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution case runs as under:- On May 13, 2002 at 8 AM Sumran Singh (Pw.6) submitted a written report (Ex.P-10) at Police Station Nadbai with the averments that in the preceding night around 9-10 PM his nephew Chandan Singh, along with Bacchu Singh, left village Nadbai for User on Hero Honda Motor Cycle. Bachhu Singh however got down at village Luhasa and Chandan Singh proceeded further. No sooner did Chandan Singh cross village Luhasa, certain miscreants opened fire at him and killed him. Leaving dead body in a pool of blood, the miscreants took away motor cycle with them. On that report case under sections 302 and 394 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body was performed, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellants were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bharatpur. Charges under sections 302, 302/34, 397/34 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 34 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec.313 CrPC, the appellants claimed innocence. Two witnesses in support of defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. A look at the impugned judgment demonstrates that learned trial court while convicting the appellants has placed implicit reliance on the testimony of Jagdish Prasad (Pw.28) who saw the appellants standing together with scooter No.UP 85 B0569 on the way between village Luhasa and Manjhi. Circumstances of recovery of 12 Bore Katta (countryimade pistol), key of motor cycle and scooter at the instance of appellant Surendra Singh were taken into consideration whereas appellants Khargo and Hoshiyar Singh were convicted because recovery of golden chain and ring allegedly belonging to deceased got effected on the basis of their disclosure statements.
(3.) Admittedly there is no ocular version of the incident and the prosecution entirely bases its case on circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants canvassed before us that the circumstances relied on by the prosecution have not been satisfactorily established and that in any event the circumstances said to establish against the appellant do not provide , a complete chain to bring home the guilt against the appellants.;