IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1251 OF 2001 (OLD NO.55 OF 1990) Sunder Lal S/o Budhi Lal, R/o Vill. Budhali Majykot, Patti Chauras, P.S. Kirtinagar, Distt. Tehri Garhwal ……… Appellant Versus The State ……… Respondent Dated: September 9, 2008 Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State. HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This appeal preferred by the appellant u/s 374(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.5.1989 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No.1/1988, State Vs. Budhi Lal & Sunder Lal, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant/accused Sunder Lal for the offences punishable u/s 365 and 379 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) and sentenced him to undergo two years’ R.I. u/s 365 I.P.C. and one year’s R.I. u/s 379 I.P.C. It was also directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. However, co-accused Budhi Lal was acquitted of the charge levelled against him by the trial court. 2. I have heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State and perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief the prosecution story is that on 21.10.1987 at about 6 or 7 a.m. Sabal Singh (P.W.6), aged about 9-10 years, was taking his goats to graze in the forest of village Budali, P.S. Kirtinagar, District Tehri Garhwal. When he had gone a short distance from his house, then appellant/accused Sunder Lal arrived there with a rope and armed with a sickle (DARANTI). He asked Sabal Singh to accompany him with four goats. Then the appellant/accused Sunder Lal and Sabal Singh proceeded for Srinagar. Yodha Singh (P.W.5), Khushal Singh, Devendra (P.W.2) and Sunder Singh Bisht informed the father of victim Sabal Singh namely Mohan Singh that they have seen victim Sabal Singh along with appellant/accused Sunder Lal and co-accused Budhi Lal (acquitted by trial court) at Srinagar, and Sabal Singh was also having some goats with them. Then the complainant Kundan Singh Bisht (P.W.1) started searching his brother Sabal Singh (victim) at Srinagar and nearby places of Srinagar but he could not get success. This information was given by Mohan Singh to his son Kundan Singh (P.W.1) at Dehradun on 22.10.1987. After that the complainant also came to know that four goats were sold at Srinagar by these accused persons. With the same averments, the First Information Report, i.e. Ext.Ka.1 was lodged by Kundan Singh (P.W.1) at Police Station Kirtinagar, Tehri Garhwal on 24.10.1987 at 4:30 P.M. On the basis of this FIR, Head Moharrir Bhanwar Singh prepared the Chik FIR, i.e. Ext.Ka.2. The necessary entry was also made in the G.D., the copy of the G.D. is Ext.Ka.3. The investigation of this case was entrusted to P.W.7 Karan Singh, Station Officer of Police Station, Kirtinagar, who during the course of the investigation has recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, has filed charge sheet i.e. Ext.Ka.4 against appellant/accused Sunder Lal and co- accused Budhi Lal u/s 379/364 I.P.C. 4. It appears that after receiving the charge sheet, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal has committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 19.1.1988 after giving necessary copies to the appellant/accused and another co-accused as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal on 25.2.1988 has framed the charge against the appellant /accused Sunder Lal u/s 364 and 379 I.P.C and the charge against co-accused Budhi Lal u/s 364 I.P.C. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant/accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Kundan Singh, complainant and brother of victim, P.W.2 Devendra, who had seen Sabal Singh along with the appellant/accused Sunder Lal in Gola Market, Srinagar, P.W.3 Babu Ram, who has purchased three goats from the appellant/accused Sunder Lal on 21.10.1987, P.W.4 Mohd. Yaseen, who has purchased one goat from appellant/accused on 21.10.1987, P.W.5 Yodha Singh, who had seen appellant /accused in the morning at about 6:30 a.m. on 21.10.1987 while going towards the forest and he had also seen appellant/accused Sunder Lal along with victim Sabal Singh at 10-10:30 a.m. while going towards the market, P.W.6 Sabal Singh, victim of the case and P.W.7 Karan Singh, Investigation Officer of this case. 7. After that the statements of the appellant/accused and another co-accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence was put to each of them in question form, who have denied the allegations made against each of them. However in defence, they did not produce any oral or documentary evidence. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the entire evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 05.05.1989 convicted and sentence the appellant/ accused as above. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant/accused Sunder Lal has preferred the present appeal. 9. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Kundan Singh, who has stated that the appellant/accused Sunder Lal and his father Budhi Lal were well-known to him and the victim Sabal Singh is his brother who is aged about 9-10 years. He has further stated that on 22.10.1987, his father had come to Dehradun and informed him that on 21.10.1987 at about 6 a.m., his younger brother Sabal Singh had gone to forest to graze his ten goats. At about 11 a.m., witnesses Devendra (P.W.2), Yodha Singh (P.W.5) and Khushal Singh informed him (Mohan Singh, father of the victim) that they have seen victim Sabal Singh along with the appellant/accused Sunder Lal and another co- accused with four goats at Gola Market, Srinagar and they were selling the goats. His father had gone to the market to search his brother but neither his brother nor the goats was found. Then he went to his house in the evening at about 4-5 p.m. and there also he along with his father searched his brother and goats but all were in vain. After that on 24.10.1987, he lodged the First Information Report Ext.Ka.1 in the Police Station. After searching his brother for so many days, he reached Delhi through Rishikesh. At Delhi Railway Station, he found his brother along with appellant/accused Sunder Lal. When he reached near them, then Sunder Lal ran away from the place of occurrence leaving Sabal Singh on the spot. He also tried to catch appellant/accused Sunder Lal but he could not get success. Then, he came to Kirtinagar Police Station along with his brother on the next day and handed over his brother to the Station Officer. He found his brother along with appellant/accused Sunder Lal after 20-21 days of the said incident at Delhi Railway Station. This witness was cross- examined at length by the defence counsel but nothing has come out from his evidence. The evidence of this witness is reliable and believable. 10. P.W.2 is Devendra, who has stated that the appellant/accused Sunder Lal and co-accused Buddhi Lal were well-known to him and the victim Sabal Singh and his father Mohan Singh was also known to him. On 21.10.1987 at 9-10 a.m., he had seen appellant/accused Sunder Lal along with victim Sabal Singh at Gola Market of Srinagar and four goats were also in their possession. He had asked appellant/accused Sunder Lal that from where he has taken these goats, then he replied that he had purchased these goats from Mohan Singh for Rs.1,400/- Out of these four goats, appellant/accused Sunder Lal sold one goat to the son of Shakur. When he asked him to come home then he told him that he would come by 12 o’clock bus. Then he narrated this incident to Mohan Singh, father of Sabal Singh. The appellant/accused and the victim belongs to the same village. 11. P.W.3 is Babu Ram, who has stated that one day before Deepawali at about 10-11 a.m., he had purchased three goats from the appellant/accused Sunder Lal for Rs.1,000/-. He has also given photo copy of the receipt of purchase of these goats to the Investigation Officer. 12. P.W.4 is Mohd. Yaseen, who has stated that on 21.10.1987, he had purchased one goat from appellant/accused Sunder Lal in Rs.250/-. Receipt of the purchase of goat was also written. He has further stated that at that time, one boy was also there with the appellant/accused Sunder Lal who was not known to him. 13. P.W.5 is Yodha Singh, who has stated that on 21.10.1987 at about 6:30 a.m., when he was going to answered the call of nature in the morning, he saw victim Sabal Singh while going towards forest along with his goats. While returning after answering the call of nature, then he saw that appellant/accused Sunder Lal was also going behind victim Sabal Singh towards the forest. After that he had gone to Srinagar. At about 10-10:30 a.m., he had seen appellant/accused Sunder Lal along with Sabal Singh going in the Srinagar market. After that he came to his house. 14. P.W.6 is Sabal Singh, who is victim of the case. It is pertinent to reproduce the statement of the victim recorded in the trial court, which reads as under:- “iz'u & dgk¡ [kM+s gks \ mrj & dksVZ esaA iz’u & dksVZ esa fdl fy, vk, gks \ mrj & c;ku nsus ds fy,A iz’u & viuh mez tkurs gksA mrj & th gk¡A iz’u & fdruh mez gS A mrj & 10 lkyA iz’u & lp cksyk tkrk gS ;k >wBA mrj & lpA iz’u & tkurs gks dle ysuk fdl dks dgrs gSaA mrj & Keeping quite. iz’u & dle [kkdj c;ku lp nsuk pkfg, ;k >wBA mrj & lpA Oath not given :- c;ku & (At this stage Prosecution counsel suggested that the witness must be given oath for which the defence counsel opposed. Oath has been administered to the witness subject to the objection of the defence counsel.) l’kiFk c;ku & iz’u & ihNs ns[kks ;s yksx dkSu dkSu [kM+s gSa buds uke tkurs gks & (The witness looked behind and then said) - cq)hyky o lqUnj yky iz’u & ;s fdl xk¡o ds jgus okys gSaA mrj & cqMkyhA iz’u & rqEgkjs xk¡o ds jgus okys gSaA mrj & th gk¡A iz’u & rqe Ldwy esa i<+rs gks \ fdl Dykl esa i<+rs gks \ mrj & gk¡ Fourth esaA iz’u & ;g crkvks dc dh ckr gSA rkjh[k ekywe gSA mrj & 21-10-87 dhA iz’u & le; crkvksA mrj & 6&7 ctsA iz’u & lqcg fd 'kkeA mrj & 'kkeA iz’u & D;k gqvk Fkk ml le;A mrj & eSa 10 cdfj;k¡ taxy pjus ds fy, ys tk jgk FkkA ?kj ls FkksM+h nwj tkdj eq>s lqUnjyky feykA mlds gkFk esa jLlh vkSj njkarh FkhA mlus esjs ls dgk fd esjs lkFk pkj cdfj;k¡ ysdj py ugha rks rsjh xnZu dkV nwaxkA fQj pkj cdfj;k¡ ysdj Jhuxj x;sA iz’u & Jhuxj dgk¡ x;sA mrj & 3 cdfj;k¡ ckcwjke cwpj ds ikl csp nhA iz’u & fdlus csphA mrj & lqUnjyky usA iz’u & pkSFkh cdjhA mrj & ldwj ds yM+ds ;klhu dks csphA iz’u & rc D;k gqvkA mrj & fQj nsosUnz feyk lqUnjyky us mls MkVdj Hkxk fn;kA iz’u & fQj D;k gqvkA mrj & xksyk cktkj eas fQj lqUnj yky dks cq)hyky feykA nksuksa dh vkil esa ckrphr gqbZA iz’u & rc D;k gqvkA mrj & fQj lqUnjyky eq>s xkM+h esa _f"kds’k ys x;kA iz’u & _f"kds’k ys tkdj D;k gqvkA mrj & fnYyh dh Bus esa fcBkdj fnYyh ys x;kA iz’u & fnYyh ys tkdj D;k gqvkA mrj & dHkh jsyos LVs’ku dHkh cl vìs ij j[krk Fkk vkSj Mjkrk Fkk fd fdlh dks dgsxk fd cdfj;ka pqjkdj ykus okyh ckr dgsxk rks rsjh xnZu dkV nasxsA iz’u & mlds ckn fnYyh esa D;k gqvkA mrj & 20&21 fnu ckn esjk cM+k HkkbZ dqUnuflag jsyos LVs’ku ij feykA iz’u & tc rqEgkjk HkkbZ feyk rks D;k gqvk \ mrj & lqUnjyky us esjk gkFk idM+ j[kk Fkk esjs HkkbZ dks ns[kdj lqUnj yky gkFk NksM+dj Hkkx x;kA iz’u & lqUnjyky ds Hkkxus ds ckn D;k gqvkA mrj & mlds vxys fnu esjk HkkbZ eq>s dhfrZuxj Fkkus yk;kA XXXXX XXXXX For both the accused (2) iz'u & cq)hyky lqUnjyky rqEgkjs xkao esa D;k dke djrs gSaA mrj & esjs dks irk ughaA iz’u & ;s rqEgkjs xkao esa iM+ksl esa jgrs gSaA mrj & esjs ?kj ds uhps jgrs gSaA iz’u & vkius vius ?kj ds uhps fdrus lkyksa ls jgrs ns[kkA mrj & tc eSa nsgjknwu ls vk;k rc ns[kkA iz’u & nsgjknwu ls dc vk;s FksA mrj & esjs dks 3&4 lky gks x;s nsgjknwu ls vk;s gq,A iz’u & nsgjknwu esa D;k djrs Fks \ mrj & i<+rk FkkA iz’u & nsgjknwu ls vkus ds ckn D;k dke djrs ns[kk bu yksxksa dksA mrj & lqUnjyky rks pksjh pkjh djrk gSA cqnhyky D;k djrk gS irk ughaA iz’u & cq+)hyky o lqUnjyky gkftj yksgkj gSaA mrj & yksgkj gSaA iz’u & lqUnjyky us fdl fdl ds ?kj esa vkSj dc dc pksjh dhA crk ldrs gksA mrj & ;g ugha crk ldrk A iz’u & vkius fdl vk/kkj ij dg fn;k fd lqUnjyky pksjh djrk gSA mrj & eSaus lquk Fkk fd rhu pkj ckj blus b/kj m/kj pksjh dhA iz’u & rqEgkjh ;k rqEgkjs ifjokj dh ?kVuk ls igys lqUnjyky o cqnhyky ls nq’euh rks ugha FkhA mrj & th ughaA iz’u & 21-10-87 dks 6&7 cts lqcg taxy esa lqUnjyky vkidks dgka ij feykA D;k uke gS ml txg dkA mrj & Nhyk dk xSjA iz’u & ;g txg xkao ls fdruh nwj gSA mrj & 2&3 fd0eh0A iz’u & ;gka xkao ds vkSj yksx Hkh ?kkl ydM+h ysus o i’kq pjkus tkrs gSaA mrj &Keeping quite. iz’u & ;g txg ¼Nhyk dk xSj½ xkao ds lHkh yksxksa dh pjku pqxku dh txg gS ;k flQZ rqEgkjhA mrj & xkao ds lHkh yksxkas dh pjku pqxku dh gS gekjh gh ughaA iz’u & ftl le; lqUnjyky vk;k rqe cdfj;k¡ ys tk jgs Fks fd pqaxk jgs FksA mrj & eSa cdfj;k¡ paqxk jgk FkkA iz’u & fdruh nsj gks x;h Fkh cdfj;ksa dks pqaxkrsA mrj & vk/kk ?kUVk gks x;k FkkA iz’u & ,slk rks ugh fd tc rqe cdfj;k¡ pqaxkus ds fy, tk jgs gks rc rqEgsa jkLrs esa lqUnjyky feyk gksA mrj & ,slk ugha gS eSa cdfj;k¡ paqxk jgk FkkA iz’u & ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa fdlh iqfyl vf/kdkjh ;k deZpkjh us vkils iwNrkN dh FkhA mrj & th ughaA iz’u & vktrd Hkh iwNrkN ugha dhA mrj & (Hesitant) ughaA iz’u & vnkyr esa vkt c;ku fn;k fd cdjh pjkus ys tk jgk Fkk rc lqUnjyky feyk vkSj vkt gh dgk fd tc cdjh pjk jgk Fkk rc feykA bu nksuksa esa dkSulh ckr lgh gSA mrj & jkLrs esa pjkrs pjkrs ys tk jgk Fkk blfy, ,slk dgkA Dt. 27.9.88 – Continued on Oath --> iz'u & lqUnjyky tgka ij vkidks feyk vkSj tgka ls Jhuxj igqaps ml chp ds jkLrs esa lqUnjyky vkidks idM+ dj ys x;k ;k lkFk lkFk ys x;kA mrj & idM+dj ys x;kA iz’u & lqUnjyky us rqedks nksuksa gkFkksa ls idM+k ys pyk Fkk ;k ,d gkFk lsA mrj & ,d gkFk lsA iz’u & rqEgkjk D;k idM+k FkkA mrj & esjk gkFk idM+k Fkk vkSj ys x;k FkkA iz’u & tgka ls rqEgsa idM+k Fkk vkSj Jhuxj tgka ys x;k mu nksuksa txgksa ds chp esa nwjh D;k gSA mrj & ugha ekyweA iz’u & og nwjh FkksM+h gS ;k cgqrA mrj & eq>s og nwjh cgqr yxhA iz’u & ml chp esa xkao iM+s gksaxs vkneh vk tk jgs gksaxsA mrj & xkao iM+s FksA iz’u & dkQh xkao iM+s gksaxsA mrj & thA iz’u & bu xkaoksa esa vkneh ns[ks FksA mrj & thA iz’u & rqeus fdlh ls dgk gksxk fd ;g eq>s idM+dj ys tk jgk gSA mrj & th ughaA iz’u & cdfj;ksa dks [kqyk&[kqyk [knsM+ dj ys tk jgk Fkk ;k cka/kdjA mrj & cka/kdj ys tk jgk FkkA iz’u & pkjksa cdfj;k¡ ,d gh jLlh esa cka/kh Fkh ;k vyx vyxA mrj & ,d jLlh ds pkj VqdM+s djds cdfj;ksa dks cka/kk FkkA iz’u & pkjksa jLlh mlh us idM+h Fkh ;k rqeus Hkh idM+h FkhA mrj & mlh us pkjksa jLlh idM+ j[kh FkhA iz’u & Jhuxj dkQh cM+k cktkj gSA mrj & gk¡A iz’u & bl ?kVuk ds igys Hkh vki Jhuxj x;s vkSj yksxksa dks igpkurs gksaxsA mrj & gk¡A tks xkao ds vkneh vkrs Fks cktkj esa mUgha dks igpkurk FkkA iz’u & Jhuxj esa iqfyl Fkkuk gSA mrj & th gk¡A iz’u & Jhuxj esa rqeus fdlh dks crkus ;k Fkkuk esa tkus dh dksf’k’k dhA mrj & mlus eq>s Mjk j[kk FkkA iz’u & tc mlus 3 cdfj;k¡ ckcwjke dks csph ml le; Hkh og rqEgsa o cdfj;ksa dh jLlh idM+s FkkA mrj & th gk¡A iz’u & tgk¡ ij mlus ckcwjke dks cdfj;k¡ csph ml le; ogk¡ ij dkQh yksx FksA mrj & rhu pkj vkneh FksA iz’u & os rhu pkj vkneh rqEgkjs djhc gh [kM+s FksA mrj & th ughaA nwj nwj FksA iz’u & fdruh nwjh ij FksA mrj & ftruh ;gk¡ ls cjkenk dh nwjhA (Ld. Counsel counted the space and stated that the distance is about 4 steps) iz’u & tc mlus 3 cdjh csph vkSj [kjhnnkj ls :i;s ys fy, ml le; Hkh lqUnj yky rqedks vkSj cdfj;ksa dks idM+s jgkA mrj & th gk¡A iz’u & iSls lqUnjyky us vius gkFk esa fy, Fks ;k rqeusA mrj & lqUnjyky us vius gkFk esa fy, FksA iz’u & iSls ysus ds ckn :i;s lqUnjyky us fxus gksaxsA mrj & eq>s irk ughaA iz’u & tc rqEgsa rqEgkjs xkao dk nsosUnz feyk rks rqeus mlls vfHk;qDr }kjk rqEgsa idM+us o cdfj;ksa dks ykus dh ckr dgh FkhA mrj & th ughaA iz’u & xksyk cktkj esa tc nsosUnz feyk ml le; D;k le; jgk gksxkA mrj & 10&11 cts fnu dk le; FkkA iz’u & tc cq)hyky feyk rc D;k le; jgk gksxkA mrj & eq>s cq)hyky ugha feykA iz’u & cq)hyky dks vkius ml fnu dgha Jhuxj esa ns[kk Hkh FkkA mrj & tc lqUnjyky cq)hyky dks feyk nksuksa dh vkil esa ckrphr gqbZA iz’u & ml le; vki dgk¡ Fks tc lqUnjyky o cq)hyky feys FksA mrj & eSa mu nksuksa ls nwj FkkA iz’u & fdruh nwjh ij jgs gksaxs rqeA mrj & bruh nwjh ij Fkk ftruk ;gk¡ lkeus nhoky ls ckgjA (Defence counsel and the DGC say that the distance may about 25’-30’) iz’u & lqUnjyky o cq)hyky dks fdrus le; rd ckrphr djrs ns[kkA mrj & djhc 10 & 15 feuV rdA iz’u & lqUnjyky o cq)hyky dh ckrphr ds le; tgk¡ ij vki [kM+s Fks og vke lM+d Fkh vkSj ogk¡ ls yksx vk tk jgs FksA mrj & vkneh fudy jgs FksA iz’u & tc cq)hyky o lqUnjyky ckrsa dj jgs Fks vkSj rqedks lqUnjyky us jksd j[kk Fkk rc rqe Hkkxs D;ksa ugha vFkok fdlh ls dgk D;ksa ughaA mrj & lqUnjyky esjh rjQ ns[k jgk Fkk blfy, eSa Hkkx ugha ik;kA mlus eq>s Mjk j[kk Fkk blfy, fdlh ls eSaus crk;k Hkh ughaA iz’u & dS cts ysdj pyk Fkk _f"kds’k ds fy,A mrj & nksigj esa 1&1-30 ctsA iz’u & _f"kds’k fdrus cts igq¡psA mrj & 3&4 cts 'kke dks _f"kds’k ig¡qps FksA iz’u & _f"kds’k fdl txg mrjs FksA mrj & Bus vMMs ijA iz’u & _f"kds’k ls Bus esa cSBdj fnYyh py fn;sA mrj & thA iz’u & bl ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa eSftLVªsV egksn; us rqEgkjk c;ku fy;k FkkA mrj & th fy;k FkkA iz’u & eSftLVªsV egksn; ds le{k c;ku esa vkius ,slk dgk Fkk fd & At this stage the DGC raised the objection that the Prosecution does not relied upon the statement u/s 164 CrPC and this witness in this case as such so long the defence do not treat that document as their own. It cannot be said that the said document is on record and so long the document is not on record and is not relied by the Prosecution the witness cannot be confronted with the contents of the document. Objection sustained. iz’u & At this stage Ld. Counsel for defence made application for an opportunity for arguments for confronting the statement u/s 164 CrPC to the witness. Put tomorrow. Further cross examination deferred. Dt – 15-3-89 – Further cross of P.W.6 resumed on oath. ¼3½ eSaus Magistrate egksn; dks eqyfteku }kjk Jhuxj ls _f"kds’k cl }kjk ys tkus okyh ckr ugha crkbZ FkhA eSausa Magistrate egksn; dks vfHk;qDr lqUnjyky }kjk eq>s Bus ls ys tkus dh ckr ghs ugha crkbZ FkhA Magistrate egksn; dks eSaus ?kVuk 21-10-87 dks lqcg 6&7 dh gksuh crkbZ FkhA eSaus Magistrate egksn; dks xksykcktkj Jhuxj esa lqUnjyky dks cqf)yky feyk o nksuksa dh vkil esa ckrphr okyh ckr crk;kh FkhA xokg dks 164 CrPC dk c;ku i<+dj lquk;k x;k ftlesa ;g ckr ugha fy[kh gS lqudj dgk eSa bldh otg ugha crk ldrkA eq>s ;kn ugha fd fnYyh esa Bus vMMs ij j[kus dh ckr eSauas Magistrate egksn; dks crkbZ Hkh ;k ughaA eSauas lqUnjyky }kjk eq>s fnYyh eas ;g /kedh nsus fd cdfj;k¡ pqjkus okyh ckr fdlh dks dgsxk rks rsjh xnZu dkV nsaxs okyh ckr Magistrate dks crkbZ Fkh mUgksaus D;ksa ugha fy[kh bldh otg ugha crk ldrkA eSaus Jhuxj esa lqUnjyky dks viuh rjQ ns[kus dh otg ls u Hkkx ikus o eq>s Mjk j[kk Fkk blfy, fdlh dks ugha crk;k Fkk] okyh ckr Magistrate egksn; dks ugha crkbZ FkhA eSa bldh dksbZ otg ugha crk ldrkA Magistrate egksn; us esjs c;ku vius gkFk ls fy[ks FksA ¼4½ fnYyh jsyos LVs’u o Bus station ij cgqr lkjs vkneh jgrs FksA bl ?kVuk ls igys eSa fnYyh x;k ;k jgk ugha FkkA ml le; gekjk dksbZ vkneh fnYyh ugha jgrk FkkA jsyos LVs’ku ls Bus vMMk tgk¡ eq>s j[kk Fkk 10&12 fd0eh0 gSA esjs HkkbZ us jsyos LVs’ku ij tc lqUnjyky esjk gkFk NksM+dj Hkkxk rks esjs HkkbZ us lqUnjyky dk ihNk ugha fd;kA esjs HkkbZ us lqUnjyky ds ekeys esa dkbZ 'kksj ugha epk;k FkkA fnYyh esa esjk HkkbZ dqUnuflag tc eq>s jsyos LVs’ku ij feyk Fkk rks ge mlh fnu ?kj vk x;s FksA ;g xyr gS fd lqUnjyky us dHkh eq>s /kedkdj ;k Mjkdj e; cdfj;ksa dks vius lkFk ugha ys x;k gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd mlus gekjh 4 cdfj;ka u csph gksA ;g xyr gS fd cq)hyky gesa Jhuxj esa u feyk gksA ;g dguk Hkh xyr gS fd esjk HkkbZ eq>s lqUnjyky ds lkFk ls ubZ fnYyh jsyos LVs’ku ls u yk;k gksA ;g xyr gS fd eqyfteku ls geus [ksrhckM+h dk dk;Z djus dks dgk gks vkSj mUgksaus dk;Z djus ls bUdkj fd;k gksA bl otg ls ;g >wBk eqdnek fd;k gksA 15. P.W.7 is S.O. Karan Singh, Investigating Officer of this case, who has stated that on 24.10.1987 he was posted at Kirtinagar as Station Officer. FIR Ext.Ka.1 was lodged in the Police Station and on the basis of this FIR, Head Moharrir Bhanwar Singh prepared the Chik FIR, i.e. Ext.Ka.2. The entry was also made by him in the GD, copy of GD is Ext.Ka.3. During the course of the investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, he filed a charge sheet Ext.Ka.4 against the appellant/accused Sunder Lal and another co-accused Budhi Lal. 16. After that the statements of the appellant/accused and another co-accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence was put to each of them in question form who has denied the allegation made against each of them. In defence, they have not produced any oral or documentary evidence. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused has submitted that as per the evidence discussed above, the prosecution