D.N. Thanvi, J. - (1.) By this instant appeal, three accused appellants namely Dharmendra Singh alias Joni alias Raju alias Veeru, Nindra Singh alias Jai and Nagraj alias Sarjeet have challenged their conviction and sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anpugarh, District Sri Ganganagar dated 17.07.2002, whereby, all the three were convicted and sentenced as under: Accused Dharmendra Singh: All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In nutshell the facts leading to this appeal are that on 11.08.2001 at 11.30 A.M., One Tarsem Singh father of accused appellants No. 1 and 2 namely Dharmendra Singh and Nindra Singh respectively, made an oral report at Police Station Karanpur that he married twice. His first wife namely Kuldeep Kaur died 15 years back with whom he got three issues namely appellants Nindra and Raju alias Dharmendra and on daughter Prassan Kaur. After the death of his first wife, he married Rati Kaur alia Ratan Kaur, with whom, he got two sons namely Buta Singh and Roopa Singh. Roopa Singh died about two months back. His son Raju alias Dharmendra of the first wife aged 20 years is vagabond since childhood and used to live outside the house. His another son Buta Singh from the second wife is living at 17FF and he along with his wife Rati Kaur and son appellant Nindra Singh are residing at 28H. On the last Sunday, he and his wife were at the residence, then Gurjeet Singh son of Jassa Singh came and asked to attend and telephone. Upon this, his wife attended he telephone and came back and told that Ravi son of Buta Singh is ill and they have called. He sent his wife by giving Rs. 40/ - and told her that he would come later after arranging for the money. On the next day when he left for 17FF and reached Karanpur at 9 A.M. and talked with Buta Singh about the condition of Ravi, Buta Singh told that Ravi is alright. When he asked Buta Singh that his mother had been called at 17FF on account of Ravi's illness, then Buta Singh denied it. He also told that mother had not reached. Thereupon, he and Buta Singh reached at 18FF where they had relationships. He got doubt on his son Raju and went for his search with another son. When they got the information that Raju is at 25PS. he along with Nindra. Buta Singh and Mangi Lal of his village went there by hiring a jeep, where they found Raju and asked him about the mother. Initially he did not disclose anything, but later on, when he was threatened, he disclosed that he has killed Rati Kaur on the last Sunday and her dead body is lying near R.B. Canal. Raju took them at R.B. canal and showed the dead body, which was partially cut and eaten by animals. He identified the dead body of his wife from her clothes etc. When Raju was asked about the reason for killing her step mother, he told that her step mother had seen him with a girl whom he had killed, whereupon they gave beating to Raju and left the place. Upon this, the police registered a case under Ss. 302 and 201 IPC and commenced investigation. During investigation, three more persons were found to be culprits namely two other appellants and one Sukhvindra Singh from the statement of Rajendra PW -7, a taxi driver, who saw the incident. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the four accused namely three appellants and one Findi alias Sukhvindra. After hearing the arguments on charge, accused were charged under Sec. 302, 364 read with 120B, 302 read with 120B and 201 read with 120B IPC to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. The statements of the accused were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. They led no defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge acquitted Findi alias Sukhvindra Singh for the charges leveled and convicted and sentenced the three appellants as above.
(2.) Learned counsel for the accused appellants has submitted that there is a material improvement in the case by implicating all the four accused in the commission of crime. According to the learned counsel, only Raju was suspected to have killed his step mother on the basis of his extrajudicial confession but later -on police has implicated rest of the three accused persons including the appellants on the version of taxi driver, Rajendra PW -7, whose court statements are self contradictory and do not inspire confidence. According to the learned counsel, the dead body was also not properly identified and three appellants have been falsely implicated in the case.
(3.) Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned trial court.;