Makhan Ram vs State of Punjab

R.P. Nagrath, J.—These are the separate appeals, one filed by Makhan Ram son of Gulzara Ram, and the other jointly filed by Daljit

Kumar @ Dulla son of Sarna Ram and Pappu @ Hans Raj son of Geju @ Gurmej Singh, against their conviction and sentence passed by learned

Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2005 vide judgment dated 21.09.2007, holding them guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and

302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity ''IPC''). Makhan Ram, appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for

life u/s 302 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half year, and u/s 302 read

with Section 34 of IPC, for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six

months. Similar sentences have been awarded to appellants, Daljit Kumar @ Dulla and Pappu @ Hans Raj. By this common judgment, both the

appeals are being decided as these arise out of the judgment dated 21.09.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The charges

against the appellants were for offences under Sections 148, 302, 302 read with 149 of IPC as they were allegedly the members of an unlawful

assembly consisting of these accused, and Ricky son of Kewal Ram, Seebo wife of Gulzara Ram, Kulwinder Kaur wife of Jaswinder Singh, but

the later three have been acquitted of the charges framed against them by the trial Court, by giving them benefit of doubt.

The substantive charge against Makhan Ram, appellant and Ricky (since acquitted) was for offence u/s 302 IPC, for intentionally causing the

death of Amar Nath @ Maddi and the other co-accused for offence u/s 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The other substantive charge was against

Daljit Kumar and Pappu @ Hans Raj, appellants, in the other appeal, for offence u/s 302 IPC for intentionally causing the death of Rajji wife of

Amar Nath, and the other accused for offence u/s 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

The first information report was registered on the statement of Sarabjit Kaur (PW-2), wife Ram Lubhaya (PW-5), brother of Amar Nath,

deceased. Amar Nath was residing with his family, in the house built in the fields. On 27.09.2003, the she calf of buffalo of Amar Nath, entered the

fields of Makhan Ram, appellant. Makhan Ram, appellant beat up the animal, and Rajji (deceased) wife of Amar Nath enquired from Makhan

Ram, appellant, regarding beating of the calf. The appellant retaliated by beating Rajji and pulling her from long hair. Amar Nath came out of the

house but the appellant went away. Amar Nath and Rajji, (both the deceased) went to the house of Sarabjit Kaur (PW-2) and narrated the

incident. Sarabjit told them that the panchayat be convened. Amar Nath and Rajji started from her house for a gathering of Panchayat. Sarabjit

and her husband Ram Lubhaya (PW-5) followed them. When Amar Nath and Rajji (deceased) reached near the house of Chanan son of Gurditta

at about 1.30 p.m., Makhan Ram, appellant armed with ''Datar'', Ricky (since acquitted) with ''Kirpan'', Daljit Kumar, appellant with ''Takua'',

Pappu also armed with ''Datar'' accompanied by Seebo (since acquitted) mother of Makhan Ram appellant, and Kulwinder Kaur (since

acquitted), his sister-in-law came from the opposite side. Seebo and Kulwinder Kaur aforesaid exhorted their companions to catch hold of Amar

Nath and Rajji and kill them. At this, Makhan Ram, appellant and Ricky, (since acquitted), attacked Amar Nath, whereas Dulla and Pappu

attacked Rajji with their respective weapons. Both the appellants killed the victims there and then. Sarabjit Kaur and her husband raised hue and

cry, whereupon the culprits fled from there alongwith their respective weapons. Many people had gathered at the spot, on hearing the noise.

Sarabjit Kaur left her husband at the spot to guard the dead bodies, proceeded to report the matter to the Police, when at the T-point Nagar,

the Police party headed by Jagjit Singh, Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Phillaur met her, where her statement was recorded and the same was

sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex. PG/2) was registered.

The Police party reached the spot and prepared the inquest reports of the dead bodies (Ex. PC & PF). The pair of ''Chappals'' (foot wear)

belonging to Amar Nath, were converted into parcel and sealed. The rough site plan (Ex. PN) was also prepared by the Investigating Officer, in

which the points, where the dead bodies of Amar Nath and Rajji were lying and the witnesses had seen the occurrence, were indicated. The dead

bodies were then sent for the postmortem examination in the hospital.

Makhan Ram, appellant was arrested on 04.10.2003 and in pursuance to the disclosure statement (Ex. PO) made by him, recovery of ''Datar''

was made from the eastern corner of the residential house, for which, the rough sketch was prepared and it was taken into possession vide memo

(Ex. PQ). It was, however, the prosecution story that ''Datar'' was not bearing the stains of blood. In the similar fashion, the recoveries of ''Kirpan''

and ''Takua'' were allegedly made in pursuance to the disclosure statements suffered by Ricky (since acquitted) and Daljit Kumar, appellant. On

completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was presented before the Area Magistrate, Phillaur.

The record would show that the charge-sheet was presented against Makhan Ram, appellant, Ricky and Seebo, whereas Daljit Kumar,

Kulwinder Kaur and Pappu @ Hans Raj were mentioned in column No. 2 of the charge-sheet, but five of them were presented before the Area

Magistrate alongwith the charge-sheet, who committed the case to the Court of Session as the offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by it. The

statement of Sarabjit Kaur was recorded during the trial and on the application of prosecution filed u/s 319 of the Cr.P.C. Pappu @ Hans Raj was

also summoned to face trial alongwith the other accused.

The prosecution in support of its case examined 7 witnesses.

During their examination u/s 313, Cr.P.C., the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against

them. Makhan Ram, appellant, pleaded as under:-

Deceased Amar Nath was a smuggler and used to smuggle Narcotics prohibited under the NDPS Act. The land of Amar Nath was adjacent to

my land and said Amar Nath used to keep the narcotics in my land or crops. I have been telling him not to do so and had also been complaining to

the police but the police was not very keen to take any action against said Amar Nath.

On the day of alleged occurrence, Amar Nath had deposited the narcotics in my fields and when he refused to lift the narcotics from my fields, I

told him that I would file a complaint with the police. While I was on my way to Police Station, I was way-laid by Amar Nath deceased, and his

wife while they were armed with sharp edged weapons. They started giving injuries to me and in self defence I gave injuries to them. I myself went

to the Police Station and informed what had happened. I was also having injuries and I asked the S.H.O. to get me medically examined but the

SHO detained me in the Police Station intentionally upto 04.10.2003 so that my injuries be healed. It is also wrong that I ever made any disclosure

statement or that I got recovered any weapon. I have been wrongly and falsely implicated in this case by the Police because deceased Amar Nath

was very thick with the police being a smuggler in narcotics.

Ricky, accused (since acquitted) pleaded that during the days of occurrence, he was a student of 10+1 standard in Shaheed Bhagat Singh

Memorial College, Banga. He was residing with his mother and sister in village Heon, which is at a distance of 1-1/2 km. from Banga. He was

residing with his aunt as his father had gone to the United States of America. On the date of occurrence, he attended the College from 9.00 a.m. to

2.00 p.m. and also attended the function in connection with the birthday of Shaheed Bhagat Singh, held on that day. He was detained by the Police

on 29.09.2003 from village Heon and falsely implicated.

Daljit Kumar, appellant pleaded that he has been implicated falsely in the case. Pappu @ Hans Raj, appellant pleaded that his father Geju @

Gurmej Singh was a witness of prosecution, in a case under the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against Ram Lubhaya,

PW-5, the brother of the deceased, and for that reason he has been falsely implicated, otherwise he was found innocent during the enquiry

conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective).

The appellants examined 8 witnesses in defence and out of them Davinder Pal, DW-3, Satya, DW-4 and Kuldip Singh, DW-7, teacher in the

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Memorial College, Banga, were examined to establish the plea of alibi of Ricky, accused (since acquitted). This appellant

also examined DW-8 Kuljit Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (D), who held the enquiry and found Ricky accused, innocent and on that

account directed the SHO-Incharge of the Police Station to file supplementary challan in the Court. Learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar acquitted

aforesaid three of the accused and convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 302, 302 read with Section 34 IPC and awarded the

sentences as aforesaid.

The evidence produced by the parties may now be briefly described.

PW-1, Dr. Kamaljit Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Phillaur, conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Amar Nath

@ Maddi on 28.09.2003 and found 15 injuries on his person. The injuries have been described in detail by the trial Court in paragraph no. 25 of

its judgment. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage, due to the injuries on the person of the deceased, which

were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary cause of nature. The probable duration between the injuries and death was

immediate and between death and postmortem examination 24 hours. Copy of postmortem examination report is Ex. PB.

This doctor also conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Rajji wife of Amar Nath and found the following injuries on her

person:-

(i) Incised wound 18 cms x 2.5 cms x 3 cms present on lower part of left side of the head and left side of the face, extending from left cheek

interiorly cutting left maxillary bone extending backward cutting the left ear at its middle level, left mastoid bone and left occipital bone upto the

middle of occipital protuberances posteriorly on dissection, underlying meninges and brain matter were found lacerated. Liquid blood was found in

the posterior cranial fossa.

(ii) A horizontal incised wound 8 cms x 1 cm x 2.5 cms present on upper part of left side of the neck just below the left ear extending from under

surface of the mandible just anterior to angle of left mandible anteriorly and passing posteriorly upto the nape of the neck. Carotid blood vessels,

internal jugular vein, nerves, and muscles of the neck in this region were found cut.

The cause of death in her case was also shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries described above, which were ante-mortem and sufficient to

cause death in the ordinary cause of nature. Copy of the postmortem report is Ex. PD.

The nature of the injuries on the person of both the deceased would show, how brutally Amar Nath and Rajji were killed. The injuries on the

person of Amar Nath were mostly on the vital part and with sharp edged weapons.

Sarabjit Kaur (PW-2), is the complainant, who has testified the occurrence as reported to the Police. According to her, Makhan Ram,

appellant and Ricky (since acquitted) started inflicting injuries on the person of Amar Nath, whereas Pappu and Dulla caused injuries on the person

of Rajji. Dulla, according to her was armed with ''Takua'', whereas Pappu was armed with ''Datar''.

PW-3, Kirpal Singh, Draftsman, prepared the scaled site plan (Ex. PH) on 18.12.2003.

PW-4, HC Harjinder Pal Singh, tendered his formal affidavit (Ex. PJ). He was posted as MHC in the Police Station and sealed parcels of

case property were deposited with him.

PW-5, Ram Lubhaya, is husband of Sarabjit Kaur (PW-2), who supported her testimony. In his presence, the Police lifted the blood stained

earth from near the dead bodies and these were prepared into separate parcels. These parcels and the parcel of the ''Chappel'' (footwear) of

Amar Nath, were taken into possession vide separate recovery memos.

PW-6, ASI, Raj Kumar, then posted as Head Constable was entrusted with the dead bodies of both the victims, for postmortem examination

in the Civil Hospital. After the postmortem was conducted, the clothes of both the deceased were handed over to the Investigating Officer, who

put them into sealed parcel and prepared a memo (Ex. PM) in this regard.

PW-7, Inspector, Jagjit Singh, is the Investigating Officer, who arrested Makhan Ram, appellant on 04.10.2003 and on the same day

recovery of ''Datar'' from his possession, pursuant to his disclosure statement, was made. In the similar fashion recovery of ''Kirpan'' was made

from the possession of Ricky (since acquitted) on 05.10.2003. He also stated that Daljit Kumar, appellant also made a disclosure statement in

pursuance whereof recovery of ''Takua'' was made from his possession on 05.10.2003. After preparing the rough sketches of the weapons,

separate recovery memos were prepared. However, no importance was placed upon this part of the prosecution story by the learned Sessions

Judge, but this will not make any dent to the version, as weapons were neither having the blood stains nor were sent for the examination to the

Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Ex. PBB is the report of the Assistant Director, FSL, finding that the clothes of the deceased were stained

with human blood. The parcels of the blood stained earth, were also reported to be stained with human blood. Appellant Pappu @ Hans Raj was

not arrested by the Investigating Officer because in an enquiry conducted by DSP (D), he was found innocent.

Learned Senior Counsel would attack the conviction of Makhan Ram, appellant on the following grounds:-

(i) It is impossible to believe that for a minor dispute of calf, entering the fields of the appellant, he would attack the victims just to prevent them

from convening a panchayat.

(ii) the defence plea, that Amar Nath, deceased, used to place the contraband articles in the fields of Makhan Ram, appellant, who was objecting

against using his land for this purpose and threatened to report the matter to the Police, and when the appellant was attacked by the deceased

armed with weapons, in exercise of right of private defence, the appellant caused injuries on the person of deceased, is more probable;

(iii) Makhan Ram, appellant was detained by the Police on the same day i.e. 27.09.2003, but his formal arrest was shown only on 04.10.2003, so

that, the injuries caused on his person by Amar Nath could heal up;

(iv) despite the fact that the place of occurrence was thickly populated locality, no independent witness from the village has been examined and

there are only interested witnesses, who are relatives of the deceased to support the prosecution case;

(v) there is delay in lodging the FIR with Police; and.

The conviction of Daljit Kumar and Pappu @ Hans Raj, appellants has been assailed on the following contentions:-

(i) Their case is parameteria with that of Ricky, co-accused, who has since been acquitted;

(ii) Pappu @ Hans Raj, appellant has been implicated because his father was a witness against Ram Lubhaya (PW-5), the husband of the

complainant (PW-2) in a case under NDPS Act, 1985;

(iii) These appellants were found innocent in the enquiry conducted by DW-6, Gurmit Singh, retired Superintendent of Police;

(iv) There was otherwise no motive alleged against these appellants to commit murder of Amar Nath and Rajji; and.

(v) The defence witnesses have supported the plea of innocence of these appellants.

The above contentions have been repelled by the learned State Counsel, submitting that the evidence of the prosecution is convincing, reliable

and trust-worthy and there is no delay in lodging the FIR.

According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the occurrence took place at about 1.30 p.m. but the statement of Sarabjit Kaur was

recorded at 4.30 p.m. and, thus, there was sufficient time to concoct a version with due deliberation.

We find from the record that there is no delay in lodging the FIR with the Police, which is rather prompt. In the FIR (Ex. PG), it was recorded

that Sarabjit Kaur was accompanied by one Jabru for going to report the matter to the Police. This fact is also recorded in the proceedings of the

Police (Ex. PG/1) below her statement. Jabru, aforesaid was, however, given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the appellants. In

the cross-examination, Sarabjit Kaur stated that they had waited for the bus for sometime but since the bus was not available, Jabru borrowed a

scooter from someone, for going to the Police Station, and the Police party met them in the way at T-point of village Nagar.

On seeing the brutal murder of Amar Nath and his wife Rajji, committed in their presence, the close relatives must be greatly shocked and

considerable time was supposed to be consumed in the normal course to reconcile and then to proceed to the Police Station. Learned counsel for

the appellants vehemently contended that there was telephone facility available in the village and also the STD booth, and the Police could be

instantly informed by such a mode of communication. The witness stated that they did not think of informing Police telephonically, and that is

always the immediate reaction of the rustic villagers, because their only concern is to meet the Police as soon as possible for reporting the incident.

It was also natural for Sarabjit Kaur, to go to the Police, because male relative, who witnessed the occurrence, namely; Ram Lubhaya (PW-5),

was required to be left at the spot to guard the dead bodies. Ram Lubhaya, (PW-5) stated that till the time Police came he remained at the spot.

According to Sarabjit Kaur, it took about half an hour in reaching the Police Station and informing the incident to the police. The Police met her at

about 3.00 p.m. According to Sarabjit Kaur, Police came to the spot at about 5.00 p.m., and Inspector Jagjit Singh (PW-7) stated in the cross-

examination that he reached the spot at about 4.30 p.m. The recording of the FIR with such a promptitude would not leave any scope of attacking

the version as tainted or enabling the complainant and her husband to rope in appellants Daljit Kumar and Pappu @ Hans Raj, falsely. Record also

shows that the FIR reached the Area Magistrate at 6.30 p.m. on the same day. It was broad day light and there was no question of the witnesses,

not able to identify the culprits.

On the motive part of the version, Sarabjit Kaur stated that the occurrence took place at about 12''O clock, when calf of Amar Nath

(deceased) entered the fields of Makhan Ram, appellant and Rajji was assaulted. The above incident was told to her by the victims. The plea of

Makhan Ram, appellant that Amar Nath @ Maddi, used to place narcotics in his fields is unreliable. There is nothing on record to suggest that

Amar Nath was ever involved, in any case of dealing in narcotics. The defence witnesses examined by the appellants, do not speak about any such

dispute ever arising between Makhan Ram, appellant, and Amar Nath (deceased). Sarabjit Kaur in the cross-examination stated that she does not

know, if Amar Nath had been dealing in illicit liquor. She, however, categorically denied the suggestion that on the day of occurrence, Amar Nath

had placed the illicit liquor and narcotics in the fields of Makhan Ram, appellant. Ram Lubhaya (PW-5) similarly denied such a defence plea. No

record of the Police Station was summoned to show that any case was ever registered against Amar Nath (deceased) under the NDPS Act or the

Excise Act. From the above discussion, the prosecution successfully proved the motive part of the story.

In support of the plea of exercise of right of private defence, the learned counsel for the appellant would refer the cross-examination of Sarabjit

Kaur (PW-2), wherein she admitted that Makhan Ram, appellant presented himself before the Police on the same day at the Police Station. She,

however, does not remember the time of arrival of Makhan Ram, appellant but he was not brought to the place of occurrence by the Police.

According to the Investigating Officer and prosecution story, Makhan Ram, appellant was arrested on 04.10.2003. On the strength of this

contradiction, the plea of Makhan Ram, appellant that he was illegally detained about for a week, so that, the injuries on his person may heal up, is

sought to be supported. It is not the defence story that when the appellant was produced in the Court, he had shown the injuries on his person to

the Magistrate, so that, he could be medically examined in order to find even the traces of slightest physical harm to his body. Had there been any

semblance of injury on his person, the above argument could be considered, but in this case, the nature of injuries found on the person of

deceased, would show how brutally they were killed by sharp edged weapons and that was apparently a planned attack.

It was suggested to Sarabjit Kaur that Makhan Ram, appellant, snatched ''Datar'' from Amar Nath, deceased and caused them the injuries in

exercise of right of private defence. This plea has been belied by Gian Kaur (DW-2) examined in defence. She stated that at the time of

occurrence, Makhan Ram, appellant had a ''Datar'' and Amar Nath was armed with a ''dang''. The plea of Makhan Ram, appellant, in his

examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was that both Amar Nath and Rajji, deceased were armed with sharp edged weapons and started giving injuries to

him.

In view of the foregoing discussion, there is absolutely nothing to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the eye-witnesses, who have been

extensively cross-examined, without being able to bring any contradiction much less material, to challenge their veracity. It is submitted that the

conduct of the witnesses especially Ram Lubhaya (PW-5), that he did not intervene to save his brother, would make his presence suspicious. In

the circumstances in which the appellants brutally killed the victims, would suggest that no human being, would dare intervene when the appellants

were behaving like desperadoes. The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer (Ex. PH) depicts the points, where the witnesses were

standing at the time of occurrence, upon which they have not been confronted. Even no question has been put to Ram Lubhaya (PW-5), as to why

he could not attempt to intervene and, therefore, appellants cannot take advantage of such a hypothetical contention. It was also contended that

these witnesses have not attested the inquest report. That is also not expected from close relatives of the victims in the circumstances, to sign the

inquest reports, prepared by the police, in respect of the dead bodies.

Reference can be made to the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Balraje @ Trimbak Vs. State of Maharashtra, , wherein it was held

that:-

30....When the eyewitnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper

to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed

pragmatically. The court would be required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed towards

the accused. But if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible,

there is no reason to discard the same.

We also find that it is quality and not quantity of evidence that is relevant for coming to the right conclusion.

On behalf of Pappu @ Hans Raj, appellant, it is submitted that he has been implicated falsely because his father was a witness in a case under

NDPS Act, 1985 against Ram Lubhaya (PW-5). Ram Lubhaya (PW-5) in the cross-examination stated that Geju @ Gurmej Singh, father of

Makhan Ram, appellant, was cited as a prosecution witness in a case under NDPS Act against him, but Geju was not examined by the

prosecution in that case. Both Sarabjit Kaur and her husband Ram Lubhaya stated that he (Ram Lubhaya) was acquitted in the said case and that

statement has not been contradicted. Therefore, there is no force in the contention that witnesses were inimical towards Pappu @ Hans Raj,

appellant. It is also not known as to when that case was registered against Ram Lubhaya (PW-5) and how long before, Ram Lubhaya (PW-5)

was acquitted of the said charge.

Even, Daljit Kumar, appellant tried to bring a plea of ulterior motive to implicate him in this case. Sarabjit Kaur (PW-2) stated in the cross-

examination that Nimma is the younger brother of her husband but she does not know if Nimma was suspecting Dulla to be a police informer or

that he was behind the detection of the narcotics from Nimma aforesaid. This defence plea was not reiterated in the cross-examination of Ram

Lubhaya (PW-5), who was the best person, for providing answer to any such apprehension. No material to support such a defence was otherwise

brought in defence nor it was reiterated by him during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

We are of the view that when such a shocking incident had taken place and two of the close relatives of Ram Lubhaya and Sarabjit Kaur,

suffered instant death, because of brutal killing, the witnesses could not coin a story on the basis of non-existing motives as pleaded by Pappu and

Dulla to falsely implicate them for the crime. According to Sarabjit Kaur (PW-2), Dulla, appellant, is a member of the Gram Panchayat and is

practicing as a doctor. It is, thus, not possible for the witnesses to falsely implicate such a person for a heinous crime.

The reliance basically was placed upon the enquiry report that was conducted by Gurmit Singh, Superintendent of Police (since retired). No

importance can be attached to such an enquiry report, as the statements of witnesses had already been recorded during the investigation of the

case. Gurmit Singh, S.P. (retd) (DW-6) in the cross-examination stated that he did not confront the witnesses examined by him, with the

statements of complainant and her witnesses. He conducted the enquiry on the basis of the application (Ex. DC), filed by Gian Chand and others,

and the other application, Ex. DD made by Piari, mother of Daljit Kumar @ Dulla, appellant. It was alleged in these applications that these

appellants were not present at the time of occurrence. However, the fact that the prosecution witnesses were inimical on account of any case under

the NDPS Act against Ram Lubhaya, (PW-5) and his brother, Nimma, was not stated in these applications.

It is not a case, where appellants, Pappu @ Hans Raj and Daljit Kumar are in any way related to Makhan Ram, appellant, so as to contend

that the relatives of Makhan Ram, appellant have been falsely implicated alongwith the real culprit.

The other contention that the case of appellants Daljit Kumar and Papu @ Hans Raj should be considered in parameteria, with that of Ricky,

has no substance, in view of the convincing evidence produced by the prosecution to prove their involvement. Ricky (since acquitted) was possibly

able to prove the plea of ''alibi'' by showing that he was away from the village on the date of occurrence, and basically on that ground it is found

that charge against him cannot be held beyond doubt. Therefore, the acquittal of Ricky cannot provide any advantage to the appellants, against

whom there is convincing and reliable evidence of the prosecution, to prove their guilt beyond suspicion.

It is also found that the investigation was held in a transparent way. Inspector Jagjit Singh (PW-7) in the cross-examination stated that when he

reached the spot, there were 15 to 20 persons present and he interrogated them all. Sarabjit Kaur (PW-2) stated that when they raised an alarm,

many people were attracted later on.

The defence witnesses were examined in support of the contentions that only Makhan Ram, appellant was present at the spot and not the other

appellants, namely; Daljit Kumar and Pappu @ Hans Raj. Harbans Lal (DW-1), Chowkidar of the village stated that, his wife told him about a

lady and one person lying murdered in front of the house of Niranjan Dass. He saw the dead bodies and went to inform Sarabjit Kaur, who told

that her husband had gone to take fodder and she would be calling him. In our view the witness is unreliable as being a Chowkidar, it was rather

his duty to inform the police or the Sarpanch of the village. He, stated that he did not make any application to the Police that false case has been

registered against the appellants.

Gian Kaur (DW-2) stated that a quarrel took place between Makhan Ram, appellant and both the deceased. At that time, none else was

present. This would rather corroborate the testimony of Sarabjit Kaur that the neighbourers were attracted to the place later on. The witness stated

that Makhan Ram, appellant was armed with ''Datar'', which is contrary to the version of the appellant himself during his examination u/s 313, Cr.

P.C that he snatched the weapon from Amar Nath, deceased.

Sheela (DW-5), another defence witness stated that it was about 1.30 p.m., when she came out of her house and saw Makhan Ram, appellant

and the victims quarrelling and Makhan Ram, appellant was causing injuries to them. She stated that she informed the Sarpanch of the village and,

thereafter, relatives of Amar Nath and Rajji, deceased, came there. She further stated that none else was present at the time of occurrence. It is

very easy to procure such number of persons, to make negative statement to help their favourites. None of these witnesses, however, stated as to

why Daljit Kumar and Pappu @ Hans Raj, appellants have been falsely implicated. From the discussion, we find that defence evidence is not

trustworthy and worth putting any weight to discard the prosecution version proved by convincing and cogent evidence. From the foregoing

discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered against the appellants by the trial Court are based on the

correct appreciation of evidence produced by the prosecution. Accordingly, the findings recorded by it are upheld. Consequently, finding no merit

in the appeals, the same are dismissed.