IMPORTANT POINTS
Minor discrepancies are bound to occur in any trial; and have to be ignored.
Questions not put to witnesses in cross-examination cannot be raised later.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. Chauhan,J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.1.2010, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal appeal No.499-DB of 2001, affirming the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat dated 4.9.2001/7.9.2001, passed in Sessions Trial No.49 of 2000 by which and whereunder the appellant alongwith one Jagbir Singh stood convicted under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/-each. They had further been convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years RI and a fine of Rs.1,000/-each. In default of payment, further undergo RI of six months.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:

A. That one Ram Chander (PW.13), brother of Suraj Mal (since deceased) alleged that his brother Suraj Mal was missing from 21.6.1995 and his dead body was found on 26.6.1995 floating in the canal after recovery of his chappal on the path to canal near the bridge. Initially, the report in this respect was lodged on 25.6.1995 as a missing person by the mother of the deceased, namely, Smt. Bharto Devi (PW.8) at Police Station, Mathlauda, Panipat. On 28.6.1995, an FIR was lodged at 8 A.M. under Sections 302/201/120B/34 IPC on the basis of complaint made by Shri Ram Chander (PW.13), brother of deceased alongwith one Balbir Singh who had also gone to search the deceased on a motorcycle and that on reaching canal bridge of Kavi village, they saw one chappal, one saw, two pieces of blade, some blood and two pieces of meat lying on the path and the dead body lying on the surface of the river.

B. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, the matter was investigated and during investigation it is alleged that Jagbir Singh, co-accused had illicit relationship with Sudesh Rani (wife of deceased) and deceased’s wife was also involved and all of them had conspired to remove the deceased from the way. The appellant also had a grudge on account of marriage of Sudesh Rani with the deceased and there had also been incident of “maar peet” between them and some cases are pending also. Thus, investigation revealed that the deceased was killed on intervening night of 21.6.1995/22.6.1995 by the appellant and Jagbir Singh, co-accused at the instance of Sudesh Rani and threw away the dead body in the canal.

C. After conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 302/201/120B IPC against the appellant, Jagbir Singh, co-accused and Sudesh Rani. The proceedings were committed to the Sessions Court and charges were framed vide order dated 17.1.1996.

D. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and on conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat convicted the appellant alongwith Jagbir Singh, co-accused for the offences referred to hereinabove and sentenced them accordingly. However, Sudesh Rani was acquitted of all the charges.

E. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.499-DB of 2001 before the High Court while Jagbir Singh, co-accused filed Criminal Appeal No.520-DB of 2001. Both the appellants were heard together and their appeals had been dismissed by way of impugned judgment and order.

Hence, this appeal.

3. So far as co-accused Jagbir Singh is concerned, he has filed separate appeal in this court, i.e. Criminal Appeal No.2232 of 2010, but his advocate refused to argue the case. So we have adjourned the matter to be heard in ordinary course. In such a fact-situation, the appeal of Mahavir Singh – appellant is heard.

4. Shri Sanjay Sharawat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there could be no motive for committing the offence so far as the appellant is concerned. It was alleged that co-accused Jagbir Singh has developed illicit relations with the wife of deceased. The courts below committed an error in applying the last seen theory. Th