Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 17.8.2016, upon case bearing No. 35 of 1998/2016, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Through the above said verdict, the learned trial Judge concerned, convicted the accused, for the commission of offence punishable, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPG. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order, drawn on 22.8.2016, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPG read with Section 34 IPG, besides also imposed, upon the convict sentence of fine, as comprised in a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. However, the period of detention undergone by the convict, during the investigations, and, trial of the case, was, in terms of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., rather ordered to be set off from the above imposed sentence(s) of imprisonment. It was also ordered, that the fine, if realized, be apportioned in such a manner, that Rs. 10,000/-be paid to the State Exchequer towards cost of proceedings, and, Rs. 40,000/- be paid to the LRs of the deceased as compensation.

2. The accused-convict becomes aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of conviction, besides also, becomes aggrieved from the consequent therewith sentences of imprisonment, and, of fine as became imposed, upon him, by the learned convicting Court concerned, and, hence has chosen to institute thereagainst the instant criminal appeal, before this Court.

Factual Background

3. The genesis of the prosecution case, becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex. PH/1 is assigned. The narrations carried in Ex. PH/1, are that on 22.7.1998 complainant Balbir Singh son of Chanan Singh, Caste Rajput resident of Dudiawali, got recorded his statement to the police to the effect that on 22.7.1998 he and Bishan Singh reached in National College to see Shivdut and Raj Kumar son of Pokhar Dass r/o Talwara Khurd and they met there. Thereafter, they all proceeded towards Canteen for taking tea, and, when they reached near Science Block at about 2-05 P.M., accused Naresh Godara armed with 12 bore Double barrel gun, Vikas Kukna armed with 12 bore double barrel gun. Rajan son of Sheo Ram armed with a pistol and Rajdeep son of Harbhajan Singh armed with a sword came there. Naresh Godara raised a 'lalkara' to teach a lesson to Shiv Dutt for causing injuries to his brother Hanuman, and, for opposing them in election. On this, accused Rajan fired from his pistol upon Shivdutt but Shivdutt saved himself. Thereafter, Naresh Kumar and Vikas fired from their respective guns on Shivdutt which struck in the chest and stomach of Shiv Dutt and he fell on the ground. Thereafter, the complainant, Bishan Singh and Raj Kumar raised an alarm, and, then three assailants namely Naresh Kumar, Vikas and Rajan ran away with their respective weapons from the spot while accused Raj deep fled away after throwing sword at the spot. Thereafter, Shiv Dutt was shifted to General Hospital, Sirsa where after half an hour he was succumbed to his injuries. Postmortem on the dead body of Shiv Dutt was got conducted from General Hospital, Sirsa. On the statement of the complainant, FIR under Sections 302, 34 IPG and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act was registered against all the accused.

Investigation proceedings

4. During the course of investigation, it was found that Jasbir Singh son of Ranbir Singh and Kirpa Ram son of Duni Chand had also participated in the occurrence, and, accused Raj deep was not present at the scene of occurrence and was not involved. Sections 148 and 149 IPG were added. Accused Naresh, Vikas, Rajan, Jasbir and Kirpa Ram were arrested. Accused Naresh in pursuance of his disclosure statement got recovered a double barrel gun. Accused Vikas got recovered a pistol of .315 bore from his possession. After conclusion of investigations, the investigating officer concerned, proceeded to institute a report