RAJIV SHARMA,J. - (1.)This appeal has been instituted against the judgment and order dated 08.05.2004 and 12.05.2004 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa, in Sessions Case no.19 of 2002/2003 whereby the appellants were charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 / 34 Indian Penal Code (in short ' IPC '). The appellants were convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Appellant Prem Singh died during the pendency of appeal. Hence the appeal qua him stood abated.
(2.)The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that deceased Dayal Singh was a father of PW-11 Malkiat Singh. Dayal Singh had gone to the fields of Tarlochan Singh for sinking a well on 30.06.2002. He came back to his house at village Chak Sahiban at about 08.30 P.M. along with accused Prem Singh. They were under the influence of liqour. The deceased picked up his bicycle and left the house along with accused Prem Singh informing that he would come back after some time. But he did not come back. On 01.07.2002 at about 08.30 A.M. PW Bhagwan Singh son of Balbir Singh informed PW Malkiat Singh that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the fields of Kuldeep Singh near a tubewell. PW Malkiat Singh accompanied by his younger brother Sukhvinder Singh and mother reached at the spot. They saw the dead body of the deceased lying in the fields. A brick was lying near the dead body. Police recorded his statement vide Ex.PF, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PF/2 was recorded. Police visited the spot. Blood stained brick Ex.P1 was picked up. Police also lifted blood stained earth and a piece of severed pocket of shirt. The body was sent for post-mortem. Post-mortem was conducted. The death of deceased had occurred due to the head injury and its complications. The injuries were ante mortem in nature. The investigation was completed. Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.
(3.)The prosecution examined a number of witnesses. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of prosecution. The appellants produced four witnesses in support of their case. The appellants were convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence the appeal.