JUDGMENT
Sat Pal, J.
1. By this judgment we are disposing of three appeals bearing No. 235-DB of 1994, 238-DB of 1994, 245-DB of 1994, one Revision Petition bearing No. 294 of 1995 and Cri. Writ Petition No. 130 of 1995. Cri. Appeal NAo. 235 of 1994 has been preferred by appellant Amarjit Singh, Cri. Appeal 245 of 1994 has been preferred by appellant Ravail Singh and Cri. Appeal No. 238 of 1994 has been preferred by appellants Jasbir Singh and Preet Mahinder Singh against judgment dated 11-5-1994 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Paliala. All these appellants have been convicted for the commission of murders of Trilochan Singh and Inderjit Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each (in default of payment of fine they shall further undergo RI for a period of two years). The said appellants have further been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC for committing murderous assault on the person of Harmohinder Singh and have been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5007- each (in default of payment of fine, each of them shall further undergo RI for a period of one year). They have also been convicted under Section 384 read with Section 34, IPC and have been further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year. However, the substantive sentences under Section 384/34, IPC and under Section 307/34 IPC were ordered to run concurrently with life imprisonment.
2. Cri. Writ Petition No. 130/1995 has been filed by appellant Amarjit Singh Under Article 226/227/14/21 of the Constitution of India and in this writ petition the prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 11-5-1994 (Annexure P-1 to the writ petition) order dated 27- 4- 1994 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala in the main Sessions case and order dated 26-5-1994 (Annexure P-3 to the writ petition) passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Cri. Misc. 7254-M of 1994.
3. Cri. Revision No. 294 of 1995 has been preferred by the complainant-Gurmohan Singh against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala in favour of co-accused Gurvinder Singh alias TimmaandSurinderSingh alias Bittu. It has also been prayed in the revision petition that the above mentioned four appellants namely, Amarjit Singh, Jasbir Singh alias Kalla, Ravail Singh and Preet Mahinder Singh be also convicted and sentenced for the offences with the aid of Section 149, IPC and for the offence under Section 148, IPC,
4. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that appellant Ravaii Singh and Man Singh are real brothers and there was enmity between Ravaii Singh and his sons on the one side and Man Singh and his sons on the other side. The cause of the dispute is with regard to house No. 128/8. Mohalia Purbian, Patiala a part of which was in occupation of a tenant namely Amrit Lai and the remaining part was in possession of Man Singh and his sons. It is also alleged that Ravail Singh and his sons had tried to take forcible possession of this house on January 14, 1990 and complaint was lodged with the police by Man Singh. Pursuant to this complaint, proceedings under Section 107/151, Cr.P.C. were initiated by the police against Ravail Singh and his sons. A civil suit with regard to this house is also stated to be pending in the Civil Court. As per prosecution, on 21-2-1990 at about 9.30p.m. Ravail Singh and his five sons, namely, Amarjit Singh, Preet Mahinder Singh, Jasbir Singh (all appellants herein), Gurvinder Singh alias Timma and Surinder Singh alias Bitt constituted an unlawful assembly outside the house belonging to Man Singh and his sons with common intention to commit the murders of Man Singh and his sons. Ravail Singh was armed with mini Kripan, Amarjit Singh was also armed with mini Kripan, Preet Mahinder Singh alias Pappu was armed with mini kripan, Jasbir Singh alias Kalla was armed with a daggar, Surinder Singh alias Bittu was armed with a daggar and Gurvinder Singh alias Timma was armed with a small kripan. it is further alleged that Ravail Singh and his sons knocked at the door of the room in which Flour Mill was installed and thereafter two sons of Man Singh, namely, Trilochan Singh and Inderjit Singh who were sitting inside after having their meals along with the other members of the family, came out of the house and they were attacked by Ravail Singh and his sons with their respective weapons, Hearing the Shrieks of Inderjit Singh and Trilochan Singh, two other sons of Man Singh namely Gurmohan Singh (PW-8) and Harmahinder Singh (PW-7) came out in order to rescue their brothers Trilochan Singh and Inderjit Singh and they saw that Ravail Singh and his sons were causing injuries with their respective weapons to their brothers Trilochan Singh and Inderjit Singh and both these brothers fell on the ground as a result of the injuries inflicted on them. Harmahinder Singh was also captured by Ravail Singh and his sons and he also received multiple injuries. In the meanwhile their father Man Singh came out with his gun and he fired 2/3 shots in the air, as a result of which Ravail Singh and his sons fled away from the scene. While fleeing, Jasbir Singh alias Kala snatched the gun from Man Singh. Thereafter Gurmohan Singh (PW-8) took his three brothers Trilochan Singh, Inderjit Singh and Harmahinder Singh to the Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. He reached in the hospital at 10.00 p.m. There Trilochan Singh and Inderjit Singh were declared dead and Harmahinder Singh was admitted in the hospital for treatment.
5. On receipt of information from the hospital, AS I Desh Raj, HC Satpal Singh and other members of the police party of Police Station Kotwali Patiala arrived in the hospital at about 11.00 P.M. SHO of the police station, namely, Inspector Harmahinder Pal Singh (PW-16) who had gone to the railway station, Patiala in connection with patrolling, received a gusti message that a dispute had taken place in Mohalla Purbian and two persons had been murdered and one injured and on receipt of this message, he also reached Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, where ASI Des Raj and other members of the Police party had just arrived. Inspector Harmahinder Pal Singh submitted application Ex. PW9/A before the doctor seeking his opinion as to whether injured Harmahinder Singh was fit to make a statement at 11.00 P.M. The doctor gave his opinion Ex. PW9/B that the patient was unfit to make the statement because he was under the effect of sedation. Thereafter Inspector Har Mahinder Pal Singh recorded the statement Lex. PM of Gurmohan Singh (PW-8) who was also an eye-witness to the occurrence. On the basis of the statement of Gurmohan Singh PW-8, formal FIR Ex. PM/2 was recorded at 12.30 AM (night intervening 21/22-2-1990) under Section 302/307/148/149, IPC at Police Station Kotwali Patiala. The recording of the FIR was completed at 1 .30 A.M. The special report of the case was delivered to the Illaqua Magistrate at 3.10 AM on the said night. Inspector Harmahinder Pal Singh prepared inquest report Ex. PC on the dead body of Inderjit Singh and inquest report Ex. PF on the dead body of Trilochan Singh at 8.00 A.M. on 22-2-1990. He sent request Ex. PB for postmortem of deceased-lnderjit Singh and request Ex. PC for post-mortem of deceased-Trilochan Singh.
6. Inspector Harmahinder Pal Singh visited the place of occurrence on 22-2-1990 at 11.00 AM and lifted bloodstained earth and made it into the sealed cover and put his seal bearing inscription HPS on it. This was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW13/A. One scooter bearing No. PCI – 7233 which was left behind by the accused, was also taken into possession vide recovery Ex. PW13/B. Rough site plan Ex. PW16/3 with marginal notes was also prepared on 22-2-1990. Harmahinder Pal Singh recorded statement of injured Harmahinder Singh under Section 161, Cr.P.C. on 22-2-1990 when he was declared fit to make a statement vide opinion of the doctor Ex. PW16/5. given on the application Ex. PW16/4.
7. PW-1 Dr. Hardeep Singh Mann conducted post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of Inderjit Singh and Trilochan Singh on 22-2-1990. He found following 15 stab injuries on the body of Inderjit Singh :
1. There were fourteen stab wounds on the chest and abdomen. One measuring 5 x 2cm, two measuring 3 x 2cms, eleven measuring 2x2cms each. Clotted blood was present in all the wounds and there was gaping of wounds. Margins of the wounds were swollen, clean and incised.
2. One stab wound 3 x 2 x 4cm depth on outer aspect of middle of right arm. On dissection of chest and abdomen the chest and abdominal cavities contain blood. The right pleural cavity contained blood. The right lung was injured, small intestine was congested. Right lobe of liver was injured. Spleen was injured.
As per his report Ex. PA, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. As per his opinion, cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from these injuries. As per report stomach contained indigested food. He also found following 15 stab injuries on the person of deceased Trilochan Singh :-
1. Five incised wounds on palmar aspect of right hand over the proximal phalanx of each finger. All the wounds were in one line except that on the thumb.
2. Incised wound 3 x 1 cm on the back of right hand near the wrist. On dissection, underlying soft tissues were cut.
3. Stab wound 3 x 2 cm on the right side of neck, 3cm below the right ear. Underneath muscles, soft tissues and blood vessels were cut.
4. Stab wound 1 x 1 cm on right side of back, 5cm from midline and just above medial end of clavicle injuring the oesophagus and blood vessels.
5. Stab wound 3 x 1 cm on right side of chest, 7 cm below right nipple and 15 cm from midline, on dissection there was injury to liver.
6. 3x 1 cm stab wound on right side of abdomen. 13cm below injury No. 5 and 12 cm from midline. On dissection underlying soft tissues and intestine (sic).
7. Stab wound 2 x 1cm on right side of abdomen and 11 cm below injury No. 6, 5 cm from mid 1 inc. On dissection the wound enters into abdomen and intestine were injured.
8. Stab wound 2 x 1 cm on the left side of abdomen, 9cm from midline. 7 cm above the anterior superior iliac spine.
9. Stab wound 3 x 1cm on left side of chest, 12cm from midline, 10cm below the left nipple over the chest. It enters into chest cavity which contained blood, left pleural cavity contained blood and the left lung was injured.
10. Stab wound 3.2cm on front of left forearm in the middle. On dissection the underlying musscles and blood vessels were cut.
11. 3 x 2cm stab wound in the right axilla, wound enters into the chest cavity injuring the right lung.
8. Sealed parcels of the bloodstained earth, clothes of the deceased were sent to the office of Chemical Examiner and vide report Ex. PXX, the Chemical Examiner declared human blood on these articles and the Serologist found human blood on all these articles vide report Ex. PYY.
9. On the abovementioned allegations, the appellants along with Gurvinder Singh alias Timma and Surinder Singh alias Bittu were challaned in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, who committed the said persons to the Court of Session to face trial under Sections 302/307/148/149 read with Section 34, IPC, vide commitment order dated 17-7-1990. The learned Sessions Court vide his order dated 19-12-1991 framed charges against all the said persons under Sections 148, 149, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 384 and 384/149, IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses, namely, Dr. Hardeep Singh Mann PW-1 who conducted postmortem on the bodies of Trilochan Singh and Inderjit Singh, Dr. KG Goel PW-2 who examined and treated the injured Harmahinder Singh (PW-7), Dr. Avtaar Singh PW-3, Ravail Singh PW-4, Indresh Khanna Draftsman PW-5, Harmahinder Singh PW-7 (eye-witness), Gurmohan Singh-complainant PW-8 (eyewitness), Dr. Bir Singh PW-9 who proved the treatment given to the injured PW-7 in the hospital by late Dr. Surinder Singh, ASI Gian Singh PW-10, Bakshish Singh HC PW-12, ASI Desh Raj PW-13 and Investigating Officer, Inspector Harmahinder Pal Singh PW-16. Prosecution also tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. PL – affidavit of C. Sampuran Singh (PW-6), Ex. PW11/A affidavit of C. Karnail Singh, Ex. PW 14/A affidavit ofC. Darshan Singh (PW-14), Ex. PW 15/A affidavit of C. Beant Singh PW-15. Prosecution also tendered into evidence Ex. PZ/ 1 copy of order of the Court, Ex. PXX report of the Chemical Examiner and Ex. PYY report of the Serologist.
11. Statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code of all the above mentioned accused were recorded. All the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in prosecution evidence were put to them. Accused denied those circumstances. In defence the accused examined C. Malkiat Singh DW-1, RL Mahindru Bank Manager DW-2, Satnam Singh Sandhu Bank Manager, DW-3, Narinder Singh Walia DW-4 and Gopal Krishan Sharma Document Expert as PW-5. Documentary evidence placed on record by the accused was Exs. DA to DZ, DA A to DKK, Ex. XXX/1 to XXX/14 and DW5/A which is the report of the handwriting expert. In the impugned judgment it has been stated that out of these documents, learned counsel for the accused referred only Exs. DX/2, DX/3 and DHH, DX/2 and DX/3 are the corresponding entries of commencement and completion of the FIR and Exhibit DHH is the copy of the voter list to show that residence of one of the accused Amarjit Singh was separate from his father.
12. The learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide his impugned judgment convicted Ravail Singh, Amarjit Singh, Preet Mohinder Singh and Jasbir Singh alias Kala for committing the offences punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each; in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. He convicted the said accused also under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, each of these convicts shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. All the aforesaid four convicts have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 384 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, however, acquitted the other two accused, namely, Gurvinder Singh alias Timma and Surinder Singh alias Bittu by giving them the benefit of doubt.
13. Mr. Ghai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants Jasbir Singh and Preet Mohinder Singh drew our attention to Exhibits PB and PE which are true translation/ copies of the applications submitted by the IO to the Medical Officer for conducting post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of Inderjit Singh and Tarlochan Singh and submitted that in these applications, the names of the accused have not been mentioned. He also drew our attention to Exhibits PC and PF which arc the inquest reports of the deceased and submitted that even in the inquest reports, the names of all the accused have not been mentioned. There it has been stated that Ravail Singh and his sons armed with small kripans and Daggers attacked Trilochan Singh and Inderjit Singh but the names of the sons of Ravail Singh have not been mentioned. He submitted that even in Exhibit DX/2 which is the D.D. report regarding commencement of the FIR and Exhibit DX/3 which is the DD report recorded after the completion of the FIR, the names of the eye-witnesses, the names of the deceased, namely Inderjit Singh and Trilochan Singh, the name of the injured Harmahindcr Singh, the place of occurrence and the weapons used by the accused have not been mentioned whereas Under Punjab Police Rule 24.1, all these facts are required to be mentioned in these documents. He, therefore, contended that the absence of the abovementioned particulars in the documents Exhibit PC, PF, PE, PH, DX/2 and DX/3 clearly show that the case of the prosecution was highly doubtful and the involvement of all the members of the family of Man Singh clearly shows that a false case was registered against the appellants.
14. The learned counsel further submitted that according to the prosecution case, the occurrence happened at 9.30 P.M. on 21st February, 1990 and injured Harmohinder Singh, who is the eye-witness was brought to the hospital at 10.00 P.M. by PW-8 Gurmohan Singh who is another alleged eye-witness. The statement of the complainant-Gunnohan Singh PW 8 was completed at 12.15 A.M. (midnight) on 22nd February, 1990 and the formal FIR was recorded at 12.30 A.M. The special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at-3.10 A.M. through Constable Beant Singh, whereas the distance between the police station and the residence of the Illaqa Magistrate was 21/2 kms. He submitted that there was no explanation whatsoever for the delay in recording the FIR after lapse of three hours from the time of the occurrence and further there was no explanation for the delay in delivering the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate. He, therefore, submitted that during this period, the prosecution fabricated the story and had involved Man Singh and all his sons. He further submitted that the version of the prosecution that the injured Harmohiinder Singh was not fit to make a statement at 11.00 P.M. on 21-2-1990 and, therefore, the statement of his brother Gurmohan Singh was recorded at 11.00 P.M. had no legs to stand as Dr. KG Goyal (PW-2) in his statement had clearly staled that the patient was conscious when he was brought to the hospital at 10.00 P.M. and after examination when he was sent to ward III. He further submitted that the alleged remarks recorded at 11. P.M. on 21st February, 1990 by the Doctor on the Bed-head ticket Exhibit PW9/E that the “patient not fit to make statement because of sedation” have been interpolated as the alleged remarks are in different ink and pen and also in different handwriting. He, therefore, contended that non-explanation of delay in the FIR and the delivery of the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate creates suspicious circumstances against the prosecution story.
15. The learned counsel also submitted that the injuries inflicted on injured Harmohinder Singh were self-inflicted to introduce this person as an eye-witness and to make out a false case against the appellants. In this connection, he drew our attention to the cross-examination of Dr. Goyal at page 91 and submitted that the doctor had clearly stated that there was no bone injury on the body of this injured. He submitted that even the clothes of the injured were not taken into possession by the police and were not produced in the Court at the trial of the case. He, therefore, contended that the evidence of this witness cannot be relied upon for conviction of the appellants.
16. The learned counsel further submitted that as per facts stated in the FIR Man Singh, father of the convicts is alleged to have fired two shots in the air and thereafter the convicts along with other two sons of Man Singh are alleged to have run away. It was further alleged by the prosecution that the gun of Man Singh was snatched by convict Jasbir Singh but no investigation was directed on this point nor the gun was recovered. He submitted that even otherwise it cannot be believed that a person whose two sons are being murdered would fire in the air and would not fire on the attacking party. He, therefore, contended that the prosecution story was totally false.
17. The learned counsel further submitted that no specific injury has been attributed to any of the convicts and in view of this fact also, the conviction of the appellants was not sustainable. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Bhag Singh v. State of Punjab 1992(I)RCR 145.
18. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the site plan, Exhibit PK and submitted thai as per (hi1 case of ihe prosetMiiion ihe accused had knocked outside the Flour Mill which was closed at that time and behind this FlourMill, there is the house of some other person and as per the site plan the accused were residing in the adjacent house, so it is not possible as to how Inderjit Singh and Trilochan Singh heard knock which were given on the doors of the Flour Mill. He also submitted that as per the prosecution case, three I i ve cartridges were recovered from the pocket of deceased Inderjit Singh but there was no explanation regarding these cartridges. He, therefore, submitted that the genesis of the occurrence had been suppressed in this case and this creat suspicion regarding the involvement of the convicts.
19. The learned counsel further submitted that accused Gurvinder Singh and Surinder Singh have been given benefit of doubt by the learned trial Court on the same evidence which is the basis for convicting the appellants. He, therefore, contended that in view of this fact, the appellants were also entitled to be given the benefit of doubt and ought to have been acquitted.
20. Shri Kiranjit Singh and Mrs. A.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Rawail Singh and the appellant Amarjit Singh who is also the writ petitioner in Cr. W.P. No. 130 of 1995, reiterated the submissions made by Mr. Ghai and further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, Mann Singh who is the father of the deceased and is the real brother of convict Rawail Singh, was present at the time of occurrence and he is alleged to have fired two shots in the air from his gun. Mr. Kiranjit Singh submitted that said Mann Singh, however, has not been examined by the prosecution with some ulterior motive and failure to examine him has caused serious reflection ori the case of the prosecution. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Habib Mohd. v. State of Hyderabad 1954(1) SCR 475 : 1954 Cri LJ 338.
21. He further submitted that the inquest reports Exhibits PC and PF, did not contain the names of all the accused and it was mentioned therein that Rawail Singh and his sons had attacked the deceased with their respective weapons. Similarly, D.D. Reports Exhibits DX/2 and DX/3 which pertained to commencement and completion of the FIR did not contain the names of the eye-witnesses or the weapons used by the accused and it also did not contain the names of the deceased and the injured. He, therefore, contended that this contravened the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Punjab Police Rule 24.1 and as such the uncorroborated testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses PW 7 and PW8 could not be relied upon for convicting the appellants. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments :
(i) Bagh Singh v. State of Punjab 1992(1) RCR 145;
(ii) Chand Singh v. State of Punjab 1992(2) Chand LR 299;
(iii) Balak Singh v. State of Punjab 1975 Cri L Journal 1734 : AIR 1975 SC 1962.
22. The learned counsel further submitted that there was unexplained delay in recording the FIR in this case. He submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, injured Harmohinder Singh had reached the Hospital at about 10.00 P.M. on 21 st February, 1990 and in terms of the statement of Dr. K.G. Goyal who examined him, he was conscious at lO.OOP.M.anditwasonlyat 11. P.M. that he was given sedative and as such he was not 111 to make a statement. He, therefore, contended that between 10.15 P.M. and 11 P.M., the statement could have been recorded by the I.O. who was also present in the hospital at that time. He further submitted that the special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 3.10A.M. though the FIR was recorded at 12.30 AM and as such there was an explained delay of about 2 hours in delivering the special report as the distance between the Police Station and the residence/of the Illaqa Magistrate is 21/2 Kms.
23. The learned counsel also submitted that the visceras of the deceased were not sent for chemical examination. He also submitted thai the evidence of the Bank Manager who was examined as defence witness clearly shows that Ihc complainant who was the real brother of the deceased wanted to grab the amount lying in the Bank account of his deceased-brother though as per law the widow of the deceased-brother was entitled to have the amount. Il was, therefore, contended that the alleged eye-witnesses PW 7 and PW 8 could have murdered their deceased-brother to grab the amount lying in their names in the Bank.
24. In support of the averments made in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the order dated 10th May, 1994 vide which the learned trial Court had closed the defence of the writ petitioner was illegal and was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel submitted that in fact operation of the aforesaid order dated 10th May, 1994 had been stayed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 7254-M of 1994. The learned counsel further submitted that though the learned Sessions Judge was informed about the contents of this order of the learned single Judge at 3. P.M. on 10th May, 1994 itself, but still the learned Sessions Judge pronounced the judgment on 11th May, 1994. The learned counsel also submitted that vide order dated 22nd March, 1994, the learned Sessions Judge had rejected the applications Hied by the writ petitioner under Section 311, Cr.P.C. for recalling certain prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination and the case was adjoured to 27th April, 1994 for defence evidence of the writ petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that on 27th April, 1994, the writ petitioner, however, could not examine his defence and on 27th April, 1994, me learned Sessions Judge was informed that the writ petitioner had already challenged the order dismissing the application of the writ petitioner filed under Section 311, Cr.P.C. in the High Court by way of Revision Petition and said Revision Petition was fixed for hearing on 18th May, 1994. The learned Sessions Judge, however, closed the defence of the writ petitioner on 27th April, 1994 itself and adjourned the case to 10th May, 1994 to enable the writ petitioner to produce the copy of the stay order, if any, passed by the High Court. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order dated 10th May, 1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge be quashed and the writ petitioner be given an opportunity to examine his witnesses before the learned trial Court.
25. Mr. Dhaliwal, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, however, submitted that in the present case, there was promptness in recording the first information report. He submitted that the occurrence happened at 9.30 P.M. on 21 st February, 1990. The injured PW 7 Harmohinder Singh was brought to the Hospital by his brother Gurmohan Singh, (PW8) who is the complainant at 10.00 P.M. The doctor immediately sent a telephonic message to P.S. Kotwali. The message was received by Des Raj, A.S.I. (PW. 13) and he immediately informed the SHO H.P. Singh (PW 16) by Q.S.T. message as the S.H.O. at that time was busy at the Railway Station on official duty. He further submitted that PW 16 reached the Hospital at about 11. P.M. and he immediately sought the opinion of the doctor as to whether the injured PW 7, Harmohinder Singh was in a position to give statement. He submitted that the doctor gave the opinion that the injured was not in a position to give the statement because of sedation. He further submitted that it was in these circumstances that the I.O. recorded the statement of the other eyewitness, (PW 8) Gurmohan Singh, and as per the records, the statement of PW 8 was concluded at 12.15 A.M. on 22nd February, 1990 and immediately thereafter the recording of the FIR commenced at 12.30 A.M. and it was completed at 1.30 A.M. on 22nd February, 1990. He further submitted that the special report also reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 3.10 A.M. on 22nd February, 1990. He, therefore, contended that in view of these facts it cannot be said that the two eyewitnesses PW 7 Harmohinder Singh (injured) and PW 8 Gurmohan Singh were not present at the place of occurrence.
26. The learned counsel further submitted that the fact that in the inquest reports, Exhibits PC and PF,the names of the eye-witnesses and the weapons used by the accused were not mentioned, was not of much relevance as the inquest reports i were prepared at 8 A.M. on 22nd February, 1990 whereas the FIR which contained all material facts with regard to the names of the deceased/ injured, the names of the eye-witnesses and the weapons used by the accused, was recorded at 12.30 A.M. on 22nd February, 1990 which was based on the statement of the eye-witness Gurmohan Singh (PW 8) and this statement was concluded at 12.15 A.M. He submitted that on the same grounds the non-mentioning of the .names of the eye-witnesses, deceased/injured, weapons of the accused in the DD Reports Exhibits DX/2 and DX/3 were also of not much relevance.
27. The learned counsel submitted that PW 7 Harmohinder Singh had suffered four injuries including three injuries on the chest “and these injuries cannot be alleged as self-inflicted. In this connection, he drew our attention to the Bed Head ticket Exhibit PW 9/E and submitted that as per this ticket, the injured was even operated upon on the same night and this fact has been proved by Dr. Deep Singh (PW. 9). The learned counsel also submitted that there was no chance of mistaken identity of the accused as all the accused were closely related to the eye-witnesses. He submitted that even as per the scale plan Exhibit PK, there was light at the Pole which was 15 ft. from place of occurrence at point A and there was light at Point B just near the place of occurrence.
28. The learned Deputy Advocate-General further submitted that the ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses was fully corroborated by the medical evidence and even the time of occurrence is also proved from the fact that the food in the stomach of the deceased was found semi-digested v when the post-mortem was conducted on the dead-bodies of the deceased. He submitted that part of the earth lifted from the place of occurrence was also sent for examination and as per examination report, it contained human blood. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that both the eye-witnesses have corroborated each other’s statement on all material facts and minor discrepancies in the evidence, if any, should not be taken into consideration as evidence was recorded after lapse of two years of the date of occurrence. As regards the attempt of the complainant to withdraw money from the Bank belonging to his deceased brothers, the learned counsel submitted that this is a subsequent event and should not be taken into consideration.
29. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
30. It is an admitted fact that the convict Rawail Singh is the real brother of Mann Singh whose sons Inderjit Singh and Tarlochan Singh were killed and Harmohinder Singh (PW 7) was injured. Rawail Singh and his five sons, namley, Amarjit Singh, PreetmohinderSingh,JasbirSingh alias Kala, Gurbinderr Singh alias Timma and Surinder Singh alias Bittu were challaned by the Police under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 384 and 384/149, I.P.C. for the murder of Inderjit Singh and Tarlochan Singh and for causing injuries to PW 7 Harmohinder Singh. From the evidence of PW 7 and PW 8, it has also been proved that some litigation with regard to the house allegedly owned by Mann Singh and his sons, part of which is under occupation of the tenant Amrit Lai, their tenant, was pending between Rawail Singh and his brother Mann Singh. It has further been proved by these witnesses that in Januarry, 1990, Rawail Singh and his sons tried to occupy that house forcibly and on the report lodged by Mann Singh, proceedings under Sections 107/151, Cr.P.C. were initiated against Rawail Singh and his sons. This was the motive which led to the attack by Rawail Singh and his sons on Mann Singh and his sons on 21 st February, 1990.
31. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that Tarlochan Singh and Inderjit Singh, sons of Man Singh were murdered on 21 st February, 1990, though it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the injuries of PW 7 Harmohinder Singh were self-inflicted. Even otherwise, PW. 1, Dr. Hardeep Singh, who conducted the post-mortem on the bodies of Inderjit Singh and Tarlochan Singh, on 22nd February, 1990, has proved in his evidence that 14 stab wounds were found on the chest and abdomen of Inderjit Singh and one stab wound was found on the outer aspect of middle of right arm; and stomach contained undigested food. He further proved that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Similarly the said witness found on the person of Tarlochan Singh- decased five incised wounds on palmar aspect of right hand; one incised wound on the back of right hand near the wrist, 2 stab wounds on the right side of neck; one stab wound on the right side of chest, two stab wounds on the right side of abdomen; one stab wound on the left side of abdomen, one stab wound on the left side of chest; one stab wound on the front of left forearm; and one stab wound in the right axilla entering into the chest cavity injuring the right lung. This witness further proved that the cause of death in this case was haemorrhage and shock resulting from the injuries and all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The stomach of this deceased contained undigested food; small intestines and their, contents contained partially digested food and large intestine and their contents contained faecal matter and gases. The details of the injuries inflicted on the two deceased have been given in the earlier part of the judgment.
32. Injured Harmohinder Singh (PW7) was examined by Dr. K.G. Goyal on 21-2-1990 at 10 P.M. This witness in his statement proved four injuries’ found on the person of Harmohinder Singh, details of which have been given in the earlier part of the judgment. As per statment of (PW 2) an incised wound with fresh bleeding of 1.5 cm x 1 cm was found on front of left side of chest and an incised wound 3 cm. x 1.5 cm. in middle into depth and injury to internal structure to be assessed by surgeon, was found below the above wound and fresh bleeding was present on this wound. The doctor also found an incised wound elliptical in shape, oblique in direction 4 cm. x 1.5 cm. in middle into depth and internal injury to be assessed by the surgeon, on the left lateral part of the chest and fresh bleeding was present. The 4th injury found by the doctor was an incised wound elliptical in shape 2 cm x 1 cm. in middle into depth and internal injury to be assessed, on palmer aspect of right index finger 1.5 cm. from tip and fresh bleeding was present on this wound. It was also proved by this witness that the probable duration of injuries was within 6 hours and kind of weapon used was sharp weapon. He also proved that the said injured was admitted in the Survery Ward III. From the statement of PW. 9, Dr. Deep Singh, it is proved that the injured Harmohinder Singh was not fit to make a statement at 11 P.M. because he was under sedation. He also proved the operation note Exhibit PW 9/F signed by Dr. Surinder Singh. In his cross-examination the said doctor stated that Dr. Surinder Singh had expired about one year hack. From the statement of PW 2, Dr. K.G. Goyal and P.W.9. Dr. Deep Singh, it is clear thai the injured Ilarmohinder Singh (PW 7) had also suffered many injuries for which he was even operated upon. Keeping in view the said injuries and evidence of PW 2 and PW.9. we are of the considered opinion that there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that these injuries were self-inflicted.
33. It has clearly been proved by the two eyewitnesses, namely PW 7 Harmohinder Singh (who himself was injured) and PW 8, Gurmohan Singh that the appellants knocked the door of the house which contained Flour Mill, occupied by Mann .Singh and his sons at about 9.30 P.M. and when Inderjit Singh and Tarlochan Singh came out of the house, they were attacked by Rawail Singh and his five sons, mentioned hereinabove. It has also been proved by these two witnesses that on hearing the shrieks of Tarlochan Singh and Inderjit Singh, they came out and one of them Harmohinder Singh was also attacked by the accused. There after their father came out with rifle. He fired 2/3 shots in the air and then Rawail Singh and his sons fled away from (he scene. Dr. K.G. Goyal (PW 2) in his statement, has proved thai injured Harmohinder Singh (PW 7) was brought to Rajindra Medical Hospital, Patiala by his younger brother Gurmohan Singh (PW 8) at 10 P.M. and the injured was examined by him at ! 0 P.M. on 21 st February. 1990. Dr. Goyal (PW 2) in his cross-examination, has stated that he informed Police Station Kotwali on telephone at about 10.15 P.M. PW 13 Des Raj, ASi, who was posted a! P.S. Kotwali on that day, in his statement has proved that on receipt of the telephonic message from the hospital, he immediately informed Harmohinder Pal Singh, SHO P.S. Kolwali (PW 16) about the message received by him. It may be stated here that it has been proved by PW 16 that at the time when he received the ,QST message, he was on the Railway Station Patiala in connection with patrolling. Both ASI Des Raj (PW 13) and Harmohinder Pal Singh SHO (PW 16) reached the hospital at about 11 P.M. PW 9 Dr. Deep Singh has proved the endorsement of Dr. Surinder Singh thai injured Harmohinder Singh (PW 7) was not fit to make the statement at 11 P.M. because of sedation. !t may be relevant to point out here that Dr. Surinder Singh had expired about one year before the date when Dr. Deep Singh was examined, it was in these circumstances that PW ift Harmohinder Pal Singh recorded the statement Fxhibit PM of Gurmohan Singh. PW 8, who is I he other eyewitness as per the case of the prosecution. From Bxhibit PM. we find that the statement of Gurmohan Singh was completed at !2.I5 A.M. on 22nd February, 1990. On itie basis of this statement, FIR Exhibit PM/2 under Sections 302, 307, 148/149. IPC was recorded by ASI Gurbax Singh. From the FIR Fxhibil PM/2 and DD Report No. 38, dated 22nd February, 1990 (Fxhibit DX/2) we find that recording of the FIR commenced at 12.30 A.M. on 22nd February, 1990 and DD Report No. 39 (Exhibit DX73) further shows that the recording of the FIR was completed at 1.30 A.M. on 22nd February, ! 990. PW 15 Constable Beynt Singh has proved that the special report with regard to the aforesaid FIR was delivered to the lliaqa Magistrate on 22nd February, 1990. Exhibit PM/2 further shows that special report was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate at 3.10 A.M. on 22nd February, 1990. It was also be relevant to point out here that PW 15 Constable Beam Singh, in his cross examination, had stated that the distance between PS Kotwali and the residence of the Ilaqa Magistrate was about 21/2 3 kms. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that in this case the Police tried to record the statement of the injured Harmohinder Singh (PW 7) at 11 P.M. and when he was not found fit to make a statement, the statement of the other eye-witness P.W. 8 Gurmohan Singh was recorded at 11. P.M. on.22nd February. 1990. The recording of the statement was completed at 12.15 A.M. on 22nd February, 1990 and immediately thereafter the recording of the FIR commenced at 12.30 A.M. and it was completed at 1.30 A.M. on 22nd February, 1990 and the special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 3.10 A.M. From -this, it is clear that the FIR was recorded promplty and no time was lost in delivering the special report at the residence of the Ilaqa Magistrate.
34-35. From the statements of PW 7 Harmohinder Singh and PW 8 Gurmohan Singh, who are the eye-xvitnesses to the occurrence, we find that both the witnesses have proved that on 21st February, 1990 at about 9.30 P.M. they along with their two brothers Tarlochan Singh and Inderjit Singh (deceased) and their father Man Singh were sitting in their house when there was a knock at the door of the house in which the Hour Mill is installed. On hearing the knock, their brothers Inderjit Singh and Tarlochan Singh opened the door of the room in which Flour Mill is installed and in the meantime they heard the noise “Mar ditta. Mar diita” and on haring this noise, they ran twoards the door of the Chakki and saw Rawaii Singh and his five sons whose names have been mentioned hereinabove. armed with small kirpans and daggers causing injuries 10 Tarlochan Singh and Inderjit Singh with their respective weapons and both of their said brothers had fallen on the ground as a result of those injuries. PW 7 Harmohinder Singh tried to inlerveiK* on which Rawail Singh and his son Amarjil Singh attacked him and caused injuries OH his chest with small kirpans which they were carrying. Meanwhile, their father Man Singh who was armed with a gun came out to save them and he fired 2/3 shots in the air. Then all the accused left the spot but while leaving, Jasbir Singh alias Kala snatched the gun from their father. It was also stated by them that this occurrence was witnessed by their sister-in-law Inderjit Kaur. PW 8 Gurniohan Singh stated that lie took his brothers Tarlochand Singh Inderjit Singh aiitU.Harmohindcr Singh to Kajindra Hospital, Patiala and reached there at about 10 P.M. on the same day. The statements of these two witnesses are consistent on all material facts. The ocular account of the occurrence as given by these two eye-witnesses PW 7 and PW 8 is also consistent with medical evidence and the injuries received by the two deceased and injured PW 7.
36. PW 16 Harmohinder Pal Singh. SHO. PS Kotwali. Paiiala reached (he Hospital at about 11 P.M. on receipt of the information about the occurrence and inmmediately he contacted the doctor to ascertain as to whether injured Harmohinder Singh was fit to make a statement and after he was told by the doctor thai Hannohiiidei Singh was not fit to make the stale-men!, he started recording Ihe statement of the other eye-witness PW 8 GUI iiiolian Singh and his statement was concluded at 12,15 A.M. on 22nd Fcbruarv 1990. The FIR had been recorded promptly at 12.30 AM and the recording of the FIR was completed at 1.30 A.M. and the special report has been delivered to the Ilaqa Magistrate at 3.10 A.M. on the same day. Thus there is no delay in recording the statement of the eyewitness, in recording the FIR and in delivering the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate. As stated earlier, the sealed parcel of the blood stained earth which was lifted by PW 16 from the place of occurrence on 22nd February, 1990 along with the clothes of the deceased was examined by the Chemical Examiner and vide his report Exhibit PXX he declared human blood on these articles and the Serologist also found human blood on these articles vide report Exhibit PYY.
37. On a close scrutiny of evidence of the abovemeniioned iw eye-witnesses PW 7 and PW 8 and otherevidence discussed herein above. we arc satisfied that Rawail Singh and his five sons whose names have been mentioned above were tinned with small kirpans and daggers find they had gone to the place of occurrence on 21st February, 1990 at 9.30 PM with common object to cause murderous assault on Mann Singh and his sons and had caused multiple injuries to Inderjit Singh and Tarlochan Singh and Harmohinder Singh (PW 7) w ilh their respective weapons; and said Tarlochan Singh and Inderjit Singh died as a result of these injuries.
38. Now we deal with the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.
39. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the statutory provisions of law. namely Sections 154 and 174 Cr.P.C. and Rule 24.1 “of the Punjab Police Rules have not been complied with in this case inasmuch as in the inquest reports, Exhibits PC and PF. the names of the accused have not been mentioned, and further in the daily diary reports Exhibits DX/2 and Exhibit DX/.V which pertained to the commencement of Ihe FIR and completion of the FIR, the names of the eyewitnesses, the names of the deceased, the name of the injured and the place of occurrence are missing. We, however, do not,.find any substance in this contention, The time of DDR entry Exhibit DX/ 2 is 12.30 A.M. and the time of DDR entry Exhibit DX/3 is 1,30 A, M, when the recording of the FIR was completed. As staled hereinabove. there was no delay in recording the statement of the eye-witness PW 8, in recording the FIR and in delivering (he special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate. The Investigating Officer reached the hospital at 1 ! P.M. on receipt of the information about the occurrence; tried to record the statement of the injured immediately but since the injured was unfit to make the statement, he recorded the statement of the eye-witness PVV 8, whose statement was completed at about 12,15 a.m. on 22nd February, 1990 and the said statement was sent to the Police Station along with a ruqqa. Then on the basis of this statement, recording of the FIR commenced at 12.30 AM which was completed at 1.30 A.M. on the same day. In view of the promptness in the recording of the FIR and the delivery of the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate, we have no hestitation in concluding that the presence of FW 7 Harmohind’er Singh (injured) and FW 8 Gurmohan Singh at the scene of the occurrence is not unnatural. On the same ground we are of the view that it will not have any bearing on the merits of the case if the Police Officer who recorded the DDR Exhibit DX/2 and DX/3, omitted to mention the names of the deceased and the names of the eye-witnesses. In any case, the aforesaid names have been duly mentioned in the FIR which was recorded promptly as stated herein-above. In this connection reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in State v. Hukam Chand, ILR (1974) 1 Delhi 419, wherein it was observed that the provisions of Section 154, Cr.P.C. were meant to secure an assurance in respect of certain report having been made at certain time and if these guarantees are otherwise present, the omission of the concerned police officer to record the substance in daily diary, cannot be considered to be of much significance. The same view was taken by a Di vision Bench of this Court in Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab 1978 Cri Law Times 194 : 1978 Cri LJ 187 and a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Mukesh alias Muki v. The State 1995 (2) Cri LJ 1769. In a recent judgment Hardev Singh v. Harbhej Singh 1997 (1) JT (SC) 29 : AIR 1997 SC 1487 the llon’ble Supreme Court has also taken the same view. The Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case Bhag Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants on this point, is of no assistance to the appellants as in that case there were material discrepanciesJbetween the ocular account of the occurrence and the medical evidence.-hi (he present case there is no such discrepancy and the ocular account of the eye-witnesses PW 7 and PW 8 is consistent with the medical evidence.
40. As regards the omission in the inquest reports, reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme court in Khuj ji alias Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1991 SC 1853 : 1991 Cri LJ 2653. in this case, three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court approved the following observations made in an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Fedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1975 Supp SCR’84 : 1975 Cri LJ 1062.
A perusal of this provision would clearly show that the object of the proceedings under Section 174 is merely to ascertain whether a person lias died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted appeared to us to be foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174. In these circumstances, therefore, neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police -to have mentioned these details in the inquest report.
41. From these judgments, it is now settled that il is not necessary for the Police to mention in the inquest report the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted. Even otherwise, the inquest reports were recorded on the next day of the occurrence i.e. 22nd February 1990, many hours after the special report had been delivered to the Ilaqa Magistrate. On the same ground, the omissions alleged in applications PE and PH arc of no relevance.
42. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that since accused Gurvinder Singh and Surinder Singh have been given the benefit of doubt by the learned trial Court, the appellants were entitled to be given the benefit of doubt, we do not find any force in this contention. From the impugned judgment, we find that Gurvinder Singh was acquitted by the learned trial Court- on the ground that his right arm below the elbow was amputated and at the time of the occurrence, position of the arm was the same and the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that it was doubtful matter whether he was able to wield weapon attributed to him in the present occurrence. Accused Surinder Singh alias Bittu was also given the benefit of doubt by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that he was only a student and the evidence of the prosecution was deficient about the working of his left hand. It was on these special grounds that these two accused were acquitted by the learned trial Court and we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings given by the learned trial Court about the said two accused. The learned counsel for the appellants is, therefore, wrong to contend that these two accused were acquitted on the same evidence which is the basis for convicting the appellants. In this connection reference may be made to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Awdesh v. State of U.P. AIR 1995 SC 375, In this case also, three accused persons were acquitted taking into consideration their age and it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there was no question of extending that benefit to any of the other accused who had been convicted.
43. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that Man Singh who was also the eye-witness as per the case of the prosecution, has not been examined and the failure to examine this witness creates suspicion on the prosecution case, we are of the opinion thai (his contention is also without merit. In this connection, reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1994 SC 1443 : 1994 AIR SCW 880 wherein it was held that failure to examine the other direct witnesses could not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
44. In a recent judgment in the case of Hardev Singh (supra), the Supreme Court has held that merely because other independent witnesses were not examined, could not be a ground to discredit the evidence of other two eye-witnesses.
45. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the injuries on the person of PW 7 are self-inflicted with a view to introduce him as an eye-witness, we do not find any substance in this contention. There is enough medical evidence that this witness had received multiple injuries on the chest and he was taken to the hospital by his brother PW 8, Gurmohan Singh, immediately after the occurrence. As per the medical evidence, he had to be operated upon for the injuries suffered by him. We have, therefore, no doubt that this witness was present at the place of the occurrence and injuries were caused to him by the two appellants, namely Rawail Singh and Amarjit Singh. Besides, the evidence of this witness is fully corroborated by the medical evidence.
46. As regards the closure of the defence of the appellant Amarjit Singh, it will be necessary to refer to certain orders passed by the learned trial Court which have been included in the paper book. On 8th April, 1993 statements of three accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. were recorded and the case was adjourned to 15th April, 1993 for recording the statements of the remaining accused. On 15th April, 1993, the statements of the remaining accused were recorded and it has been mentioned in the order sheet that accused Rawail Sjngh and Amarjit Singh wanted to lead defence evidence. They were directed to produce the defence evidence on 28th April. 1993. On 28th April, 1993, no defence witness was present, and at the request of the learned defence counsel, the case was adjourned to 19th May, 1993. On 19th May, 1993, the ease was again adjourned to 3rd July, 1993 as no defence witness was present. On 3rd July, 1993, one defence witness was present but he could not be examined as the learned defence counsel wanted to examine a large number of documents brought by him and the case was adjourned to 9th July, 1993. On 9th July, 1993, one defence witness was examined and the case was adjourned to 24th July, 1993. On 24th July, 1993, the case was adjourned to 5th August, 1993 at the request of the learned defence counsel. The learned counsel for the defence. was, however, directed to produce entire evidence on the next date. It was also mentioned in the order sheet that it was a last adjournment granted to the accused. On 5th August, 1993, certain documents were tendered by accused Rawail Singh and the case was adjourned to 12th August, 1993 for further defence evidence. On 12th August, 1993, again the case had to be adjourned to 14th August, 1993 as no defence evidence was present. On 14th August, 1993, statements of three defence witnesses were recorded. No other defence witness was present on that day. However, on the request of the learned counsel for the accused, the case was adjourned to 17th August, 1993 for remaining defence evidence. On 17th August, 1993, statements of three more defence witnesses were recorded and the case was adjourned to 26th August, 1993 for further defence evidence. It was also mentioned in the order sheet that the arguments would be heard on that day. On 26th August, 1993, accused Rawail Singh closed his defence evidence. However, at the request of the learned counsel of accused Amarjit Singh the case was adjoured to 16th September, 1993 for his defence evidence. It was also mentioned in the order sheet that arguments would be heard on that day. On 16th September, 1993, the case was adjourned to 28th September, 1993 for defence evidence of accused Amarjit Singh and arguments. On 28th September, 1993, again a request was made on behalf of accused Amarjit Singh for his defence evidence and the case was adjourned to 20th October, 1993 for producing the defence of Amarjit Singh and for arguments. On 20th October, 1993, again at the request of the learned counsel of Amarjit Singh-accused, the case wad adjourned to 16th November, 1993 for his defence evidence. On 16thNovember, 1993, the learned trial Court was informed that the proceedings had been stayed by the High Court and the case was adjourned to 14th December, 1993. Finally on 17th February, 1994, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who was trying the case was informed by the learned counsel that the case had been transferred by the High Court to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. On 23rd February, 1994 the case was taken up by the learned Sessions Judge and he was informed by the learned counsel Amarjit Singh that the case should be adjourned as he wanted to file an application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.7, P.W. 8 and P.W. 16 for further cross-examination. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 2nd March, 1994. On 2nd March, 1994, the application filed by accused Amarjit Singh under Section 311, Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala and the case was adjourned to 27th April, 1994 for defence evidence on behalf of accused Amarjit Singh. From order dated 27th April, 1994, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, copy of which is available as Annexurc P-2, in (the criminal writ petition, we find that no DW was present on behalf of Amarjit Singh accused on that day. It has been mentioned in that order that more than one opportunities had been given to Amarjit Singh accused to produce his defence and since he had failed to produce any defence evidence, the defence of Amarjit Singh is hereby closed. It was in .these circumstances that the defence of Amarjit Singh-accused was closed after he was granted numerous opportunities to produce his witnesses. Keeping in view the above-mentioned facts, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge closing the defence of accused Amarjit Singh was perfectly legal and justified and we do not find any inf irmity or illegality in this order. Accordingly the contention of the appellant-Amarjit Singh on this aspect of the matter is rejected.
47. In view of the above discussion, all (he appeals filed by the appellants arc dismissed.
48. Since we have held in the earlier part of the judgment that there is no infirmity or illegality in the finding given by the learned Sessions Judge about the acquittal of Gurvinder Singh and Jasbir Singh, the revision petition filed by the complainant is dismissed.
49. Now coming to the criminal writ petition, filed by Amarjit Singh, we find that in this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11th May, 1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the order dated 27th April, 1994, passed by the learned Sessions Judge by which the defence of appellant Amarjit Singh was closed and order dated 26th May, 1994, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 7254-M of 1994 which reads as under:
The petitioner has challenged the order closing his defence in this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
During the course of hearing, it transpires that the trial had concluded and the judgment had been rendered.
I have also perused the letter of the learned Sessions Judge, Patilala, about the circumstances in which he has pronounced the judgment in this case. In this background, the petitioner, if so aggrieved, can challenge the order whereby his defence was closed, in an appeal, if he chooses to. prefer against the judgment and order of his conviction.
This petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.
50. As regards the judgment, dated 11th May, 1994 by which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced, the petitioner had challenged this judgment also in Criminal Appeal No. 235-DB/ 1994 which has been dismissed by us along with other connected appeals by this judgment. As regards the order dated 27lh April, 1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge closing the defence of the writ petitioner, we have held in the earlier part of this judgment that there is no infirmity or illegality in this order. As regards the order dated 26th May, 1994 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 7254-M of 1994. reprodueed above, we areof the considered view that this order cannot be challenged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision of law regarding the maintainability of the writ petition against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in the revision petition. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and we accordingly dismiss the same.
51. In the result, all the three appeals bearing Nos. 235-DB of 1994, 230-DB of 1994 and 245-DB of 1994, Revision Petition bearing No. 294 of 1995 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 130 of 1995 stand dismissed.
52. Ravail Singh accused-appellant who is on bail be taken into custody for undergoing the unexpired period of his sentence of imprisonment.