GOVERDHAN BARDHAR,J. - (1.) Vide this order, above mentioned appeals would be disposed of.
(2.) Appellants had faced trial in FIR No. 28 dated 9th March, 2011 registered at Police Station Rupangarh, District Ajmer under Section 365 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Later, offence under Section 302 IPC was added after the murder of the victim. Prosecution story, in brief, as per the FIR, is that on 9 th March, 2011 at about 12 noon, complainant had reached Saini Dhaba, Rupangarh Road, Bye-pass Sursura alongwith Bhanwar Sinodiya. Balbha Ram, who was sitting in a Henna colour un-numbered Bolero vehicle signaled Bhanwar to come towards him. Bhanwar Sinodiya got down from his own vehicle and went towards the Bolero vehicle. They talked for some time and thereafter Bhanwar sat in the Bolero with Balbha and complainant Bhagchand was asked to follow them. However, the Bolero vehicle was driven at a fast speed on Mega Highway and they lost sight of the vehicle. Abdul Gaffar called Bhanwar on his mobile phone but he did not reply. Thereafter, complainant made a phone call to Balbharam and he said that they were coming back in 5 minutes. When the complainant again made a phone call, he said that they are coming back within fifteen minutes. Complainant told Balbha Ram that he wanted to talk to Bhanwar. Balbha Ram said that he would make him to talk to Bhanwar and disconnected the phone. Thereafter both the phones were switched off. They had searched for Bhanwar Sinodiya but could not locate him. Hence, the FIR was lodged on the basis of complainant Bhagchand. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the Appellants under Section 302 read with Section 120B and 364 IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(3.) In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 65 witnesses. Appellants, when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. Trial court vide impugned judgment dated 11.4.2014 convicted appellant Kailash Dhakan qua offence punishable under Section 302/120B IPC. Appellants Shahjad and Sikander Ali were convicted qua the offence punishable under Section 302/120B, 364/120B IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act. Appellant Balbha Ram was convicted under Section 302/120B, 364/120B/34 IPC and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act. Appellant Madan Lal was convicted under Section 302/120, 364/120B/34 IPC. Appellant Heera Lal was convicted qua the offence punishable under Section 302/120B and 364/120B/34 IPC. Vide impugned order, appellant Kailash Dhakan was awarded imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3000/-under section 302/120B IPC. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, he would further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Appellants Shahjad and Sikander Ali were ordered to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/120B IPC with fine of Rs. 3,000/-. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, they would further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. They were sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 364/120B/24 IPC with fine of Rs. 3,000/-. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, they would further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Under Section 3 read with Section 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, they would further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Appellant Balbha Ram was awarded imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section 302/120B IPC. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, he would further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. He was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 364/120B/24 IPC with fine of Rs. 3,000/-. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, he would further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Under Section 3 read with Section 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, he would further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Appellant Madan Lal was awarded imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section 302/120B IPC. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, he would further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. He was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 364/120B/24 IPC with fine of Rs. 3,000/-. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, he would further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Appellant Heeralal was awarded imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section 302/120B IPC. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, he would further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. He was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 364/120B/24 IPC with fine of Rs. 3,000/-. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, he would further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the appellants Balbha Ram and Heera Lal, has submitted that initial version of the prosecution was with regard to abduction of Bhanwar Sinodiya. At that time no suspicion had been raised qua his murder. There was no enmity or bad-blood between the parties. Abduction means when a person is taken away by deceit or by force but in the present case both the ingredients were missing as Bhanwar Sinodiya had himself sat in the vehicle of the accused as stated by the prosecution witness. Appellants had no motive to commit the murder of the deceased. Both the parties had attended the inauguration of the Dhaba. There was no dispute with regard to demand of money between the purchaser and seller of the land. Jora Ram had agreed to pay Rs. 51 lacs to Kailash Dhakan. Thus, deceased was on the side of the accused as he had agreed to get their payment of Rs. 51 lacs from Jora Ram. Prosecution story that accused had conspired to murder Bhanwar Sinodiya was not established because in case the accused wanted to commit the murder of Bhanwar Sinodiya, they would not have abducted him from a public place in a broad day light by hiring killers to do the job. The route plan Ex. P.30 to Ex. P.37 was prepared on the alleged joint statements of accused Madan Lal and Sikander. The said joint statement of the accused was not admissible in evidence. A damaged bullet was recovered from the Bolero and the said fact showed that there was a stray firing in the vehicle. The CDRs exhibited on record with regard to call details of accused and prosecution witnesses were not admissible in evidence as the requisite certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was not obtained by the Investigating Agency. Recoveries effected from the accused were also not admissible in evidence as most of the recoveries had been effected by the police officials and no independent witnesses had been joined at the time of recoveries. ;