JUDGMENT

Per: Hon. Rajiv Sharma, J.

Since the common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, the same have been taken up together and decided by this common judgment.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 30/31.8.2012 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in S.T. No.306 of 2006, whereby the appellants/accused were charged with and tried for the offences u/s 364/302/201 IPC. At the end of trial, accused Ganga Singh, Phool Singh and Jaswant Singh were convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment u/s 302/34 IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment.

3. Accused Ganga Singh, Phool Singh and Jaswant Singh were further convicted and sentenced to undergo three years' R.I. with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence u/s 201 IPC and in default of payment of fine, three months' additional rigorous imprisonment was awarded.

4. Accused Ganga Singh, Phool Singh, Jaswant Singh and Chet Ram were further convicted and sentenced to undergo ten years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence u/s 364 IPC and in default of payment of fine, six months' additional rigorous imprisonment was awarded.

5. However, accused Chet Ram was acquitted from the offence of Section 302/34 and 201 IPC.

6. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW1 Amar Singh has lodged the FIR on 6.9.2006 to the effect that the marriage of his son Jaswant Singh was arranged by accused Ganga Singh with his sister in law PW2 Kamla Devi. The father in law of his son had no male issue. His son started living in the house of his in-laws. Ganga Singh did not like it. He used to threaten Jaswant Singh that he would not permit him to grab the land of his father in law. On 31.8.2006, accused Ganga Singh, Jaswant, Phool Singh and Chait Ram came at the field at 3 PM. His son and daughter in law were also in the field. On the pretext of some work at Bazpur, they took Jaswant with them. Thereafter, his son did not come back. In the FIR, he has raised the suspicion that Ganga Singh along with his companions has killed his son to grab the land of his father in law.

7. Investigation was started. Accused were arrested. Accused confessed that they had killed Jaswant Singh by strangulating him. They also made a disclosure statement on the basis of which the dead body and the rope used in strangulation of Jaswant Singh was recovered. Body was sent for post-mortem. Cause of death as per the post-mortem examination was asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation.

8. Investigation was carried out and Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

9. Prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of prosecution. The accused/appellants were convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence these appeals.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He further argued that the material facts were not put to the accused during examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

11. Learned State Counsel supported the judgment dated 30/31.8.2012.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and record very carefully.

13. PW1 Amar Singh deposed that the marriage of his son Jaswant Singh was solemnized/arranged by accused Ganga Singh with his sister in law Kamla Devi 10 years back. Kamla Devi had no brothers. They were eight sisters. His son went and started living with his father in law. His father in law owned 5½ acres of land. On 31.8.2006, he along with his son and daughter in law were in the field. Accused came on the spot and took Jaswant Singh on the pretext that there was some work at Bazpur. His son accompanied them. This incident happened in their presence. Accused were arrested and the body was recovered at their instance. In his cros