IMPORTANT POINT
False Statement in Court – Eye witness to murder turned hostile – Direction issued to Trial Court to proceed against eye witness for offence of perjury.

A.B. CHAUDHARI, J

1. By this common judgment, above said all the appeals are being disposed of.

2. The appellants, in CRA-D-917-DB of 2013, CRA-D-834-DB of 2013, CRA-D-971-DB of 2013 and CRA-D-1029-DB of 2013 have put to challenge the judgment/order dated 04.07.2013/08.07.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, in Sessions Case No.88 of 19.10.2007, by which appellants, namely Shiv Kumar son of Ram Naresh, Kanav Arora son of Krishan Kumar Arora, Ishwinder Singh son of Amarjeet Singh and Mandeep Singh son of Sukhwinder Singh, were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each; and also convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 449 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each.

FACTS

3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was that the informant/complainant-Kamlesh reported to the police station officer, Sector 26, Chandigarh that he was working as a Peon with Rajesh Rattan and Associates and Chartered Accounts, a firm, in SCO No.46, 2nd Floor, Sector 42, Chandigarh, for the last 7-8 months. On 22.05.2007 at about 6:30 P.M., two Hindu gentlemen aged about 25/30 years came to his office and talked with his employer Rajesh Goyal, the deceased. He served them water. After about 15/20 minutes, one Sikh boy and one clean shaven boy, aged about 30/32 years also came to the office. Rajesh Goyal gave a plain paper to the complainant for making photostat. At that time, one boy out of two who were already sitting in the office came out and gave him a piece of paper for photostat. When he was making the photostat, the Sikh boy and clean shaven boy went inside the cabin of Rajesh Goyal. The Sikh body and other boy came outside and after obtaining photostat copy, again went inside and one of the boy who had come earlier, stood by him near the cabin and after some time, he heard some noise of quarrel in the cabin of Rajesh Goyal. He, therefore, saw from the windowpane that two clean shaven boys had caught hold of Rajesh Goyal and were slapping and giving fists blows to him. The Sikh boy was having a knife gave its blow on the neck of Rajesh Goyal, who fell down and the fourth boy pulled the complainant asking him to keep quiet. After some time, all the three boys who were inside came out having blood on their hands and clothes and they asked water from him. The complainant brought water in three glasses and they took the water and washed their hands. Before leaving, they threatened the complainant that if he raised any raula, he will meet the same fate. Thereafter, they ran away and he saw Rajesh Goyal dead on the floor with blood. The complainant immediately called Sangeet Singla, the partner of Rajesh Goyal and informed him. It is on this information, offence under Section 302, 452, 506/34 of IPC was registered. During investigation, the investigating agency prepared site-plan and got the postmortem conducted. Accused-Mandeep Singh alias Lali son of Sukhwinder Singh, resident of House No.609, Phase- X, Mohali (Punjab), Kanav Arora son of Krishan Kumar Arora, resident of House No.1143, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh, Shiv Kumar son of Ram Narain, resident of House No.650, Adarsh Nagar, Naya Gaon, District Mohail (Punjab) and Ishwinder Singh son of Amarjeet Singh, resident of House No.1232, Sector 21, Chandigarh were arrested on 23.05.2007. After completion of investigation, the challan was presented in the Court of JMIC, Chandigarh.

4. Thereafter, the trial before the Sessions Court commenced and since the charge was denied by the accused persons. The prosecution witnesses were exami