JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and conviction imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak in his judgment dated 6.11.1995 made in Sessions Case No. 93/93 as confirmed by the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh made in Crl. Appeal No. 590-DB/95 dated 18.1.2001.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case against the appellants is:

The deceased Chander Has and the appellants were related. They had some inter-se dispute in regard to some property, therefore, the prosecution has alleged that the appellants on 14.4.1993 took away the deceased from his house in the presence of his wife Birmati examined before the trial Court as PW 2. Ever since then the Chander Has was not seen alive. It is stated that on 17.4.1993 said PW 2 along with a relative of Chander Has, namely, Dharambir Singh PW 8 went to the Police Station at Sampla and submitted a written application to the SHO in regard to missing of the said Chander Has. It is the further case of the prosecution that though the SHO of the said Station by name Chand Mohammad, ASI recorded a complaint and registered the same in the daily diary of the Station di