SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1. 8. 1998 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 14/95 -State vs. Raghuveer Singh & others, whereby the appellant Rajender was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and further simple imprisonment for one month, for default in payment of fine, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and further simple imprisonment for one month, for default in payment of fine. Both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarized below: On 24. 10. 1991, Smt. Omi Devi w/o Sahabram submitted a report in writing a the Police Station, Sadulshahar at 7. 45 A. M. It was stated in the report Ex. P. 19 that at about 7. 15 A. M. Sahabram went out side for the purpose of easing the call of nature. At that time Omi Devi w/o Sahabram (the first informant), was returning from the `nohara' after milching the cow. She saw that near the toilet Rajender Bhadu and Raghuveer Singh, both of whom were armed with pistols, and Jagroop Singh, who was armed with `gandasi' and two other persons who were wearing turbans and had `gandasis' with them, were standing. Wife of Rajender Bhadu was also there and she was saying "enemies should not escape". Meanwhile, Rajender Bhadu entered in the toiler and with his pistol fired a shot at the head of Sahab Ram who was sitting in the toilet Raghuveer Singh also fired a shot. The first informant Omi Devi raised alarm and then her son Binder and brother Ved reached the spot. Thereafter, neighbours Rajendra, Mohan also reached the spot. At that time two persons wearing turbans were standing there. It was alleged in the First Information Report that murder of Sahab Ram was committed on account of enmity between Sahab Ram and Jagroop Singh, the cause of which was that Sahab Ram had contested an election. It was also mentioned in the First Information Report that, after the incident, Sahab Ram was taken to the hospital by the first informant Smt. Omi Devi and her son Binder and at the hospital the husband of first informant was declared dead. On the basis of the report Ex. P. 19 submitted by Smt. Omi Devi, at the Po-lice Station, Sadulshahar, the police registered a criminal case under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and the First Information Report No. 240 of 1991 (Ex. P. 18) was registered at the Police Station. The investigation was commenced. Post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted. After investigation, the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Sadulshahar submitted a report under Section 173 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sadulshahar. The learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sadulshahar committed the case to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh. Challan had been filed by the police against three persons, namely, Raghu-veer Singh, Manohar Lal and Rajender. Consequently, three persons Raghuveer Singh, Manohar Lal and Rajender were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Raghuveer Singh was charged under Section 302 read with Section 130-B and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Manohar Lal was charged under Section 302 read with Section 120-B and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Rajender was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. All the three accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them.
(3.) THE prosecution examined Mahendra Singh (PW 1), Bahadur Ram (PW 2), Ved Praksh (PW 3), Dinesh Kumar (PW 4), Smt. Omi Devi (PW 5), Dr. Harshvard-han (PW 6), Om Prakash (PW 7), Laxmi Narayan (PW 8), Jagdish Singh (PW 9), Mahaveer Prasad (PW 10), and Rajendra Kumar (PW 11) in support of the prosecution case. THE accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Sunil Kumar (DW 1) and Satnam Das (DW 2) were examined in defence. After hearing arguments of the counsels for the parties and taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution as well as the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Manohar Lal and Raghuveer Singh of the charges framed against them. Accused Rajender was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and he was sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act as mentioned above. The appellant Rajender has filed this appeal against his conviction as well as sentence. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case, there is no satisfactory evidence against the appellant; the appellant has been falsely im-plicated on account of enmity and evidence produced in defence to show that on the day and time of incident he was admitted in the hospital, has not been properly appreciated. The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the accused-appellant Rajender be acquitted of the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. ;