Rajinder Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

Amar Dutt, J.—Criminal Appeal Nos.701-DB, 671-DB, 696-DB of 2003 have been filed by various appellants to challenge the conviction and sentence recorded against them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda on 7.8.2003 and Criminal Revision No.2350 of 2003 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellants.

Investigation in the case was started on an application being made by Chhoto daughter of Bachittar Singh of village Kamalu before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda asserting that on 19.11.1989, at about 7.00 A.M., she along with her brother Shiv Raj Singh and his wife Balbir Kaur, was present in the fields situated in the revenue estate of village Bangi Kalan, where they had constructed a house, when Jagdish Singh, Hardip Singh sons of Kaur Singh, Rajinder Singh Jaggar Singh sons of Sewa Singh, Sewa Singh son of Amar Singh, Mander Singh son of Chhota Singh, Sandhura Singh son of Bachan Singh, Gurdip Singh son of Kheta Singh and Tari son of Naranjan Singh all residents of village Kamalu came there on a jeep and tractor. All of them were armed with deadly weapons including double barrel guns. Out of fear. Shiv Raj Singh had hidden himself in a room meant for storage of Toori (Chaff) but all these persons had set ablaze the said room with the result that Shiv Raj Singh came out of the room whereafter he was kidnapped by them with an intention to kill him. The matter had been reported in Police Station, Raman, but no action had been taken as the accused are influential. It was further asserted in the aforesaid application that while leaving the spot, these assailants had taken away 14 Kgs. of cotton, 2 Kgs. of Kinnus, cement, girder etc. and, therefore, a case under Sections 364,436,379,148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered.

During the investigation, Amar Singh and Gurdev Singh residents of village Goniana Khurd also got recorded their statements to the effect that they had seen the accused along with Avtar Singh, Hardip Singh and Ujagar Singh on 19.11.1989 in the fields of Shiv Raj Singh and at that time his legs were tied by the accused. Jeet Singh and Ajaib Singh were left at the spot to take care of them and during the investigation, the police came to the conclusion that Shiv Raj Singh was kidnapped by the accused and they had not only killed him but also succeeded in stalling the investigation. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared the visual site plan and took into possession the damaged tractor belonging to the complainant party. The damage caused to the tractor by the accused was also got assessed and after completion of the investigation, a challan was put in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate, who committed the same for trial to the Court of Sessions.

The Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 148, 364, 302, 379 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code against accused, namely, Sewa Singh, Jagdip Singh, Gurjit Singh, Kuljit Singh, Sarabjit Singh, Harjinder Singh, Avtar Singh, Hardip Singh, Jit Singh and Ajaib Singh and when they pleaded not guilty to the charge, the prosecution was called upon to lead its evidence.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Chhoto complainant, whereafter an application u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved for summoning Gurdeep Singh, Sandhura Singh, Sukhmander Singh and Rajinder Singh, who had been placed in column No.11, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda on 19.9.1994. A revision was preferred against this order, which was allowed by this Court on 21.5.2002 whereafter fresh charges under Sections 148,364,302,379 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against all the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and the prosecution was called upon to lead evidence in support of its case.

In order to bring home charge, the prosecution examined Chhoto PW1, Balbir Kaur PW2, Anil Kumar PW3, Gurcharan Singh PW4, Sohan Singh PW5, Major Singh, Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga PW6, DSP Chaman Lal PW7, HC Balwant Singh PW8 and ASI Atma Singh PW9.

When incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused for obtaining their explanation, all of them pleaded false implication. Sewa Singh took the following plea:-

I am innocent. I have been falsely involved due to enmity. I had contested elections of Sarpanch with Jugraj Singh brother of Chhoto PW and husband of Balbir Kaur PW at two times and at one time I was defeated from Jugraj Singh and in an other election Jugraj Singh was defeated from me. My son Jaggar Singh alias Sarbjit Singh was an eyewitness in the murder case of the sons of Jagdeep Singh who deposed in that case in which case Jugraj Singh and others were convicted and sentenced. Niranjan Singh brother of Chhoto PW also lodged false FIR against me and my aged father and others vide FIR No. 17 dated 28.7.94 u/s 447/427/148/149 IPC in which we were acquitted by the learned JMIC, Talwandi Sabo. I was illegally detained in this case and got released by Warrant Officer appointed by Hon''ble High Court. Once Niranjan Singh brother of Chhoto PW had made a false complaint against me which was filed and he was prosecuted u/s 182 IPC.

Sarabjit Singh appellant took the similar stand.

Jagdip Singh appellant took up the following plea:-

I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated due to enmity and misguided suspicion. On 20.8.78, I and others were coming from Maur to Talwandi Sabo and when we reached Talwandi Sabo, Jugraj Singh and Shiv Raj Singh sons of Bachittar Singh of village Kamalu, Distt. Bathinda, caused injuries to me, and in this respect, case FIR No. 189 dated 20.8.78 under Sections 307/326/323/34 IPC was registered in PS Raman. One Mohinder Singh son of Ishar Singh of vill.Kamalu, Teh.Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda was murdered by Atma Singh and Sukhdev Singh sons of Gumam Singh, Jugraj Singh, Niranjan Singh sons of Bachittar Singh, brothers of Chhoto PW of vill.Kamalu, Distt. Bathinda, and in that case myself, Chhota Singh, father of Mander Singh, accused and my father had also received injuries. I had lodged FIR No. 177 dt.27.9.85 under Sections 302/307/324/148/149 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act, PS Raman and in that case, myself, Chhota Singh and my father Kaur Singh appeared as eye witness. The accused were convicted.

My sons Sodagar Singh and Gurtej Singh were murdered by said Jugraj Singh, Naginder Singh and others, before the present occurrence. In this case, FIR was lodged by my brother Hardeep Singh and Hardeep Singh and Ujagar Singh alias Sarbjit Singh sons of Sewa Singh of Vill. Kamalu appeared as eye witnesses in that case and accused were convicted.

Niranjan Singh also lodged FIR against me and others i.e. lodged FIR No. 17 dt.28.9.94 PS Raman under Sections 148/149/447/427 IPC in which we were acquitted.

I along with Sewa Singh, Mander Singh, Sandhura Singh and Tari alias Avtar Singh co-accused were detained by the police of PS Raman. We were harassed and tortured in the Police Station, Raman on 6.12.89 by the police and the Warrant Officer appointed by the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh got us freed. Myself and Hardeep Singh co-accused and others were detained, harassed and tortured in PS Raman since 24.8.90, after our illegal arrest. We were freed by the Warrant Officer appointed by the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh and were got released by the Warrant Officer so appointed by the Hon''ble High Court on 5.9.90. During this period, we were harassed and tortured by the police because the police coerced us to make confession in the case.

Myself and Hardeep Singh son of Kaur Singh co-accused and others were arrested by the police in this case on 20.9.90 and at the time of arrest we were medically examined and we had no injury on our person. We were remanded to police custody till 24.9.90 and during the remand period, the police including Chaman Lal SHO, Atma Singh ASI, HC Balwant Singh, Constable Harbans Singh and Dalip Singh tortured us and caused injuries to me and Hardeep Singh since we had told the police that we are innocent in this case and we were medically examined on 24.9.90 of the injuries sustained by us at that time at the hands of above said police officials. The above said police officers caused injuries to Hardeep Singh and caused fracture of vertebra and he remained as indoor patient in the hospital for 21 days.

I have been falsely involved in this case. A complaint was also filed in the Court of JMIC, Bathinda, in this respect. During our remand period in police custody, false case vide FIR No.59 dt.22.9.80 u/s 353 IPC PS Raman was registered against me and my brother Hardeep Singh and we were acquitted, in this case. The police tortured us in Police Station and got my signatures of the police station on blank papers.

Hardip Singh took the same position as taken by Jagdip Singh.

Avtar Singh accused took the following defence:-

I am innocent, I was prosecution witness against Jugraj Singh brother of Chhoto PW and his son Naginder Singh and others of the murder of Saudagar Singh and Gurtej Singh sons of Jagdip Singh, accused. So, I have been falsely implicated in this case due to that reasons. I have been falsely implicated in this case.

The plea taken by Gurdeep Singh reads as under:-

I am innocent, I have been falsely implicated in this case being the real nephew of Mohinder Singh, who had been murdered by Jugraj Singh and Niranjan Singh etc. brothers of Chhoto PW. 1 pursued that case from the prosecution side and Jugraj Singh etc. were convicted by the learned trial Court. Due to that grudge, I had been inducted as accused. During investigation, I was found innocent and the police got discharged me, Rajinder Singh, Sandhura Singh and Mander Singh co-accused from the Magistrate. At the time of alleged occurrence, T was not present in the Village Kamalu or in the revenue limits of Vill.Bangi Kalan.

The plea taken by Sandhura Singh accused is reproduced hereunder:

I am innocent. I have been living alone separately and I have been falsely implicated in this case. I have been living separately from the other accused. My father Badan Singh had caused injuries to Bachittar Singh, father of Chhoto PW.

Sukhmander Singh alias Mander Singh stated as under:-.

I am innocent. I have been falsely involved in the said case. I have been living separately. My father Chhota Singh had appeared as witness against Jugraj Singh and Niranjan Singh and others in the murder case of Mohinder Singh in which they were convicted by the trial Court. My father had also appeared as witness in the case u/s 307 IPC in which accused Jugraj Singh and Shiv Raj Singh had caused injuries to Jagdeep Singh. I have been falsely implicated due to enmity. I was married at Vill. Rori with the daughter of Harnek Singh son of Ishar Singh of Vill. Rori, From 16.11.89 to 27.11.89 I remained at Vill. Rori in the house of my father-in-law in connection with election. Nachattar Singh son of Bhag Singh, neighbourer of my father-in-law and Dev Singh Panch of the village Rori and also remained with me during this period in connection with election.

Similarly, Rajinder Singh accused took the following plea:-

I have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and misguided suspicion because my father has contested election of Sarpanchship against Jugraj Singh and my brother Ujjagar Singh alias Sarbjit Singh had appeared as eye witness in the murder case of Gurtej Singh and Sudagar Singh, against Jugraj Singh and his son Naginder Singh and they have been convicted in this case. I have been living separately from my father at Raman since 1985.I am innocent.

The position taken by Gurjit Singh, Kuljit Singh, Ajaib Singh, Jit Singh and Harjinder Singh need not be adverted to by us because these people have already been acquitted.

In defence, the appellants examined Dr.Khem Raj Bansal, Pathologist DW1, HC Ramesh Kumar DW2, Dr.Kuldeep Rai DW3 and after tendering in evidence copies of some documents, closed their defence.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against Gurjit Singh, Kuljit Singh, Ajaib Singh, Jit Singh and Harjinder Singh and acquitted them of the charges framed against them on the ground that their names did not figure in Ex.PA, the earliest communication addressed to the President of India by Chhoto PW in the shape of a telegram. However, Sewa Singh, Hardeep Singh, Jagdeep Singh, Rajinder Singh, Ujjagar Singh alias Sarbjit Singh, Sukhmander Singh alias Mander Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Sandhura Singh and Avtar Singh alias Tari appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-

(i) u/s 148 IPC

RI for one year only.

(ii) u/s 302/149 IPC

RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter shall have to further undergo RI for six for months.

(iii) u/s 364/149 IPC

RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 ;000/- each. In default of payment of fine the defaulter shall have to further undergo RI for two months.

(iv) u/s 436/149 IPC

RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter shall have to further undergo RI for two months.

(v) u/s 427/149 IPC

RI for six months each only.

Hence, the present appeals.

We have heard Mr.A.P.S.Deol, Mr.N.S.Gill, Mr.Parminder Singh and Mr.Gulshan Sharma appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr.Jayender S.Chandail, appearing on behalf of the complainant and have carefully gone through the record.

The first version about the incident is available in the telegram Ex.PA, which is stated to have been sent by Chhoto PW2 to the higher authorities. A perusal thereof shows that the basic details as brought out in the application Ex.PB, which was eventually moved by Chhoto before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda remain the same. In the telegram the date and the time of the incident is fixed as 7.00 A.M. and the place of occurrence is the field of Chhoto where she is stated to be present with her brother Shiv Raj Singh and her sister-in-law Balbir Kaur. The telegram further indicates that nine persons came there armed with fire arms and other lethal weapons on a tractor and a jeep. On seeing these persons Shiv Raj Singh due to fear had gone into the Toori Room, which was put on tire by these nine persons. This fire is stated to have forced Shiv Raj Singh to come out of the room where after he was abducted by these nine persons, who are identified as Jagdeep Singh, Hardeep Singh sons of Kaur Singh, Rajinder Singh, Jaggar Singh sons of Sewa Singh, Sewa Singh son of Amar Singh, Mander Singh son of Chhotta Singh, Sandhura Singh son of Badan Singh, Gurdeep Singh son of Chhotta Singh, Sandhura Singh son of Badan Singh, Gurdeep Singh son of Kheta Singh and Tari son of Niranjan Singh. The witness further indicates therein that officials of Police Station, Raman were in league with the aforementioned persons, who are powerful Akalis on which account the police officials have refused to take any action. The telegram requests the President of India to depute some highly placed honest officer. This telegram was given on 22nd of November, 1989 at 2.45 P.M. On 25.11.1989 Chhoto PW had given a typed petition to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda indicating therein the names of the persons who had come to the fields and set on fire the room meant for storying wheat chaff and when Shiv Raj Singh had moved out of the room, he had been taken away to some unknown place. This application is more detailed and reiterates the names of Jagdeep Singh, Hardeep Singh sons of Kaur Singh, Rajinder Singh, Jaggar Singh sons of Sewa Singh, Sewa Singh son of Amar Singh, Mander Singh son of Chhotta Singh, Sandhura Singh son of Badan Singh, Gurdeep Singh son of Kheta Singh and Tari son of Niranjan Singh, as the persons who set the room containing chaff on fire in which Shiv Raj Singh had taken refuge and they being mixed up with the police were standing in the way of the registration of the F.I.R. and thereby frustrating all attempts to know whereabouts and welfare of Shiv Raj Singh.

According to the appellants, the trial Court had been influenced by the fact that Ex.PA had been sent on the date of the incident itself to the President of India but while doing so it has not decided the objection raised by the defence regarding the admissibility of the aforesaid piece of evidence. According to the appellants, once Ex.PA is ruled out of consideration, ''the prosecution version, as was crystalised in Ex.PB, the complaint filed by Chhoto PW to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, cannot be relied upon as the possibility of its being the result of deliberations, which have resulted in framing all the accused, whose animosity towards the family of Shiv Raj Singh has been brought out in abundance, cannot be ruled out. While there is no doubt that in the judgment, the trial Court has not dealt with this argument but the same does not in any way advance the appellants'' case because a perusal of the statement of Chhoto PW2, which reds as under: -

I narrated the occurrence to the police but they did not pay any heed. We waited for about 2 days the police but it did not visit the spot and thereafter I came to Gol Digi, Bathinda and gave the telegram to the President of India the certified copy of which is Ex.

PA (Objected to on the ground of admissibility). Objection kept open.

Shows that the objection was confined to the admissibility of the document and the defence was in no way challenging the authenticity of the certified copy, which was brought on the record. Ex.PA is a certified copy of the text of the telegram, which the sender thereof is entitled to get as per Rule 166 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, which have been framed by the appropriate Government u/s 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and since it has been issued by an authority under the statutory provisions, it would be proof of the text of the message, which was sent by Chhoto on 22.11.1989 for onward transmission to the President of India. It would, therefore, be admissible in view of Sections 75,76 and 77 of the Evidence Act. We, thus, have a case in which though the formal F.I.R. was lodged only on 19.12.1989 on the direction of the Superintendent of Police (D) after the complaint of Chhoto had been marked to him by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda yet the basic details of the entire occurrence stood crystalised in the complaint forwarded by this witness in the form of telegram Ex.PA. In these circumstances, the grouse of the appellants to the effect that they were implicated in the case by Chhoto and Balbir Kaur on account of the animosity which existed between the two parties cannot be accepted as the defence has not brought on record any evidence to prove that the mental state of Shiv Raj Singh, which according to them, had resulted in his leaving his house for unknown destination for reasons best known to him.

In this state of affairs, where the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution is being challenged only on account of the bad blood between the two parties, which is being projected as a motive for false implication, the failure of the defence to bring on record any proof of what had impelled Shiv Raj Singh to leave village Kamalu, leave us with no option but to scrutinize the testimony of Chhoto and Balbir Kaur for any defects that may have been brought out in cross-examination. Both these witnesses have in their statements given the details of the occurrence in which on 19.11.1989 at about 6.30 A.M. when Shiv Raj Singh, his wife Balbir Kaur and Chhoto had gone to their fields in village Bangi Kalan, Jagdish Singh, Hardip Singh sons of Kaur Singh, Rajinder Singh, Jaggar Singh sons of Sewa Singh, Sewa Singh son of Amar Singh, Mander Singh son of Chhota Singh, Sandhura Singh son of Bachan Singh, Gurdip Singh son of Kheta Singh and Tari son of Naranjan Singh had come to their fields. They had come in a jeep and a tractor and on seeing them Shiv Raj Singh had gone into the room meant'' for storage of chaff, which the accused had set ablaze which act had forced Shiv Raj Singh to come out of the room. The appellants had lifted Shiv Raj Singh, put him in the jeep and gone away from the spot. Shiv Raj Singh had not been seen thereafter. The police had, during the investigation through memo Ex.PF collected ashes of wheat which corroborated the statement of the witnesses regarding the setting up of the room on fire. The setting ablaze of the room where Shiv Raj Singh had hidden also indicates the common object shared by all the appellants of killing Shiv Raj Singh and the fact that they look away Shiv Raj Singh would, in these circumstances warrant an inference that he had been abducted with a view to murder him. Thereafter nothing has been heard of Shiv Raj Singh. Although the investigating agency has recorded the disclosure statement Ex.PK of Jagdip Singh appellant, which reads as under:-

Before, the below noted witnesses-accused Jagdip Singh above said made statement before me that on 19.11.1989 I along with my other companions of our village had thrown the dead body of Shiv Raj Singh son of Bachittar Singh Jat r/o Kamalu after murdering him in the Bhakra Canal about 200 Karams ahead from canal bridge and undeveloped passage Khokar to Makha and can demarcate that place.

the fact that Jagdip Singh had subsequently pointed out the place where, according to him, the body of Shiv Raj Singh had been thrown into Bhakra canal would be of no consequence in the absence of the recovery of the dead body from the canal. We, therefore, have a case in which from the statements of the eye witnesses, it is proved that Jagdish Singh, Hardip Singh sons of Kaur Singh, Rajinder Singh, Jaggar Singh sons of Sewa Singh, Sewa Singh son of Amar Singh, Mander Singh son of Chhota Singh, Sandhura Singh son of Bachan Singh, Gurdip Singh son of Kheta Singh and Tari son of Naranjan Singh had set on fire the room where Shiv Raj Singh had locked himself up in order to save himself from the wrath of the appellants and when he came out they had lifted him and taken away whereafter he has not been seen. These circumstances, in our opinion, would necessarily warrant the invocation of the presumption u/s 106 of the Evidence Act as it is only the accused who would be able to tell the Court as to what happened to Shiv Raj Singh after his abduction, as has been held by the Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others etc., which reads as under: -

The pristine rule that the, burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offence would be the major beneficiaries as the society would be the casualty.

Presumption of fact is a inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule 1 law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical collusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the Court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. In relation to the facts of the case.

In this context the principle embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be utilised. The section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be draw regarding the existence of certain other facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the Court to draw a different inference.

The defence has, in the present case, not made any attempt to throw light upon what happened to Shiv Raj Singh once he was abducted from the spot and, therefore, the case of the prosecution against the persons sent up for trial has been assessed on the basis of the statements made by Chhoto and Balbir Kaur PWs. The trial Court has, after scrutinizing the evidence, accepted the testimony of these witnesses in regard to the incident in which the appellants armed with deadly weapons had come to the agricultural land of the complainant party in village Bangi Kalan and eventually after succeeding in smoking out Shiv Raj Singh from the room in which he had stored chaff had forcibly removed him from the place on the vehicles on which they had transported themselves to the place of occurrence. From these circumstances and the failure of the defence to explain what had happened after forcible removal of Shiv Raj Singh by the appellants, the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the charges against them have been proved.

The grouse of the appellants against the view taken by the trial Court is basically focused around the failure of the prosecution to recover any corpus delicti as also the fact that whatever story is available with the police is highly belated version of the incident which does not in any way implicate the appellants and, therefore, should not have been relied by the trial Court for convicting them.

There is no way in which a Court of law can doubt the validity of the submissions put forth by the counsel representing the various accused yet a factor which over shadows all these objections is the inability of the defence to knock out the substratum of the case which the prosecution had set out against it. Village Kamalu where the occurrence had taken place probably hosts a small and well knit community, which is strongly divided into two or more groups on account of the interests of the persons involved. The incident had evidently taken place on 19.11.1989 and Shiv Raj Singh is stated to have been abducted by the nine persons named in the FIR. In case none of these persons had anything to do with the incident, there is no earthly reason why they would have named them as persons responsible for the abduction of Shiv Raj Singh. The fact that the appellant have been named as persons responsible for forcibly taking Shiv Raj Singh into their custody and removing him from the place of occurrence shows that at this point of time they were not at all motivated to kill Shiv Raj Singh. The FIR is registered as a case of abduction with the motive to kill Shiv Raj Singh. All that can be said is that Shiv Raj Singh was taken away on 19.11.1989 and since then his where abouts are not known. The Court below has only relied upon the circumstance/ability of the prosecution to pin-point details where the dead body had been dumped for coming to the conclusion on the basis of presumption available in Section 114 of the Evidence Act to hold that the appellants alone were responsible for his death as in case that was not so, the appellants would have turned heaven and earth and made all attempts to explain where the deceased had been evaporated immediately after the occurrence by filing an appropriate application before the trial Court.

On behalf of the appellants, on the basis of the failure of the investigating agency to recover the dead body of Shiv Raj Singh, a submission has been put forth to the effect that there is no proof of Shiv Raj Singh having been done to death by them. We have hereinbefore held that there was sufficient material on the record to infer that Jagdeep Singh, Hardeep Singh, Rajinder Singh, Ujjagar Singh, Sewa Singh, Mander Singh, Sandhura Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Avtar Singh alias Tari son of Naranjan Singh had gone to the fields of Shiv Raj Singh and set on ablaze the room in which he was storing chaff where upon seeing them hide himself and after they had succeeded in smoking him out of the room had forcibly removed him on the tractor where after he has not been heard of. We have also come to the conclusion that these circumstances by themselves were sufficient to prove the charge u/s 364 of the Indian Penal Code. In these circumstances when in a disclosure statement made by Jagdeep Singh he had pointed out the place where they had thrown the dead body of Shiv Raj Singh in the Bhakra Canal. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act as explained in Mir Mohammad Omar''s case (supra) would be sufficient enough to shift the onus on to the appellants to explain where Shiv Raj Singh had disappeared, if he had not actually been killed by them. It is this presumption, which has been relied upon by the trial Court for convicting Jagdeep Singh, Hardeep Singh, Sandhura Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Sewa Singh, Sarabjit Singh, Rajinder Singh, Sukhmander Singh and Avtar Singh son of Niranjan Singh of the charges framed against them. The fact that there existed inter se the parties a history of inimical relations on account of which the appellants party had suffered would provide adequate motive for the crystallisation of the plan to kill Shiv Raj Singh, who had appeared in cases against the appellants'' party and carried it out with ruthless precision to achieve their ghastly object only strengthens the prosecution case against the appellants.

For the reasons recorded above, all the three appeals filed by the appellants as well as the revision petition filed by Jaswinder Singh fail and are dismissed.