IMPORTANT POINT
If a witness is found to be independent and reliable and is believed to be present during the occurrence then his evidence cannot be rejected on sole ground that his name had not been mentioned in F.I.R.

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik. J.-Appellant Babu Singh along with his younger brother Sadhu Singh stood charged under Section 302 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. for hatching a conspiracy at Calcutta to kill their younger brother Jagrup Singh and killing said Jagrup Singh in their own house in village Tiranji Khera in Punjab on 6.11.1981. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on discussion of the evidence on record came to hold that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the charge under section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly co-accused Sadhu Singh was acquitted. But on the evidence of PW 14 who was the servant of the deceased and who had come from Calcutta with him as well as other corroborating evidence convicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. On appeal being carried by the accused appellant the High Court of Punjab and Haryana maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 748-DB of 1982. Hence the present appeal.

2. The prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R. lodged by Bant Singh, PW 5 father of the appellant is that the deceased as well as two accused persons were doing their business at Calcutta and there was some dispute amongst them. In December, 1981 deceased Jagrup Singh and appellant Babu Singh had come from Calcutta. On 6.12.1981 when Jagrup Singh was sleeping after taking his meal and father Bant Singh was in the courtyard, appellant Babu Singh picked up a Takua and entered into the room where Jagrup Singh was sleeping and dealt two to three blows on the head of Jagrup Singh. Bant Singh then raised an alarm which attracted his wife Ram Kaur (PW 6) and daughter-in-law Gurmeet Kaur to the scene of occurrence. The appellant, however, left the place of occurrence after inflicting blows on Jagrup Singh and Jagrup Singh succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Bant Singh then informed the Sarpanch, Gurbux Singh, PW 16 who came to the place of occurrence and thereafter Bant Singh left for the Police Station along with Sarpanch and lodged a report at 11.15 P.M. which was recorded by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, PW 18 and was treated as the First Information Report, Exhibit P-G/1. The Said PW 18 immediately went to the spot, prepared the inquest report, Exhibit P-B, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and recorded the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses. The investigation of the case was taken over from him by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PW 24 on 8.12.1981 who also recorded the statements of several prosecution witnesses and then ultimately arrested appellant Babu Singh on 22.12.1981. On completion of investigation he submitted the charge sheet and on being committed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, the accused persons were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1982. Though prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses in support of the prosecution case, PWs 5, 6 and 14 were supposed to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. PW 16 is the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat. Gurbux Singh, PW 16 accompanied Bant Singh to the Police Station for lodging of F.I.R. PW 23 was a member of Punjab Vidhan Sabha to whom Jai Narayan, PW 14 had told at 8.30 P.M. on the date of occurrence about the murder of Jagrup Singh and requested him to inform the family member of the deceased at Calcutta on telephone and he accordingly had rang up and told the same to Karan Singh, PW 8. PWs 18 and 24 are the two investigating officers. PW 1 is the doctor who had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Jagrup Singh. PWs 7 and 22 are the eye witnesses to an alleged conspiracy between Babu Singh and Sadhu Singh at Calcutta to do away with the deceased Jagrup Singh. The other prosecution witnesses are the formal witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on discussion of evidence of PWs 7 and 22 came to hold that they are not reliab