JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J:­- Crl. Misc. No. 53568 of 2004 We have heard learned counsel fo the parties. Application for additional evidence has no relevance to the case as of today. The confession made by the applicant Karan Singh alias Aman Chaudhary will not be of any evidentiary value. The confession is in the form of a disclosure statement. Application is dismissed. Crl. Misc. No. 19750 of 2006 and Crl. Misc. No. 53120 of 2006 Heard. No merits in the applications and the same are dismissed. Crl. Appeal No. 612-DB of 2003 This is an appeal against the judgment dated 2.6.2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Hisar, whereby he convicted Umed Singh son of Surat Singh, Mahender Singh son of Bhale Ram, Rajender son of Beli Ram, Surat Singh son of Chellu Ram and Kaptan Singh son of Layak Singh under Sections 302/34/120-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo various terms Sections of the IPC. Sukhdev alias Sukha was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act. He was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo RI for six months. Sukhdev alias Sukha is not before us, as he’ has not preferred an appeal in this Court. Randhir Singh son of Surat Singh and Manphool Singh alias Harphool Singh son of Tokh Ram, co-accused of the appellants, were acquitted by the learned trial Court. State has not filed any appeal against their acquittal. Sukhnandan son of Sukhchain, co-accused of the appellants, was declared a proclaimed offender, during the course of trial and till date he has not been arrested to face trial. 2. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex. P20 of Partap Singh, father of the deceased, given to ASI Rajpal Singh on 23.6.1998 at 9.30 AM. at Village Juglan. Partap Singh stated, that he is an agriculturist and had one son Mahender and four daughters All his daughters were married. On 22.6.1998 he and his mother Shanti were sleeping outside in their courtyard on cots. His son Mahender was sleeping along with his family in the courtyard inside the house. On 23.6.1998 at about 4.00 A.M., a Commander jeep stopped in the lane in front of his house. He along with his wife got up to see who had come. On 22.6.1998 he and his mother Shanti were sleeping outside in their courtyard on cots. His son Mahender was sleeping along with his family in the courtyard inside the house. On 23.6.1998 at about 4.00 A.M., a Commander jeep stopped in the lane in front of his house. He along with his wife got up to see who had come. Four persons in police uniform came down from the jeep. They were carrying pistols and gun in their hands. These four persons entered in his house. They asked about his son Mahender and said that Inder Gujjar had fled away from the jail after breaking it open and he had come here. They then forcibly tried to drag Mahender outside the house. He asked them as to who they were one of them told him that they were from the police force and S. P. Sahab, was present outside. They forcibly took Mahender near the jeep. Partap Singh and his wife Shanti followed them. There they saw that Umed Sarpanch son of Surta, who was in police uniform standing there, armed with a pistol. Randhir son of Surta was armed with a carbine. Mahender son of Bhalla Ram and Rajinder son of Bedi Ram were also standing armed, with guns. All of them were residents of Village Juglan. Partap Singh and his wife Shanti recognized them. Partap Singh said that it was Umed, who was standing there. The four persons were tried to put Mahender in the jeep. An unknown person in civil clothes was sitting on the driver’s seat Partap Singh, his son Mahender and his wife Shanti Devi grappled with them, but Umed fired a shot from his pistol which hit Mahender on his right shoulder. The bullet pierced his left shoulder. On receipt of the pistol injury, Mahender fell down on the ground. Randhir, Mahender and Rajinder also fired with their respective weapons. Shanti Devi sustained pellet injuries on her left arm. She also fell down. Partap Singh tried to catch hold of Umed etc. but was not successful. Thereafter, an alarm was raised and all the four persons sat in the jeep and fled away. The motive for commission of the offence was that one year back, Vijay brother of, Umed Singh had been murdered in Rajasthan. Umed suspected that Mahender had murdered him. Partap Singh tried to catch hold of Umed etc. but was not successful. Thereafter, an alarm was raised and all the four persons sat in the jeep and fled away. The motive for commission of the offence was that one year back, Vijay brother of, Umed Singh had been murdered in Rajasthan. Umed suspected that Mahender had murdered him. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.P21 was recorded on the same day at, 10.15 A.M. at Police Station Sadar, Hisar. The special report reached the J.M.I.C, Hisar on the same day i.e. 23.6.1998 at 12.22 P.M. 3. The prosecution to prove its case brought into witness box Sanjeev Kumar Ahlmad as PW1, Dr. Suresh Kumar as PW2, Raju Draftsman as PW3, HC Miya Singh as PW4, ASI Khazan Singh as PW5, Constable Jasbir Singh as PW6, Constable Jagbir Singh as PW7, HC Chajju Ram as PW8, HC Om Parkash as PW9, Ram Singh Finger Print Expert Madhubanas PW10, Dhoop Singh Finger Print Expert Madhuban as PW11, Nar Singh Asstt. Supdt Central Jail Ambala as PW12, Constable Prem Singh as PW13, Dr. Ravinder Kumar as PW14, Sukh Ram Bishnoi Supdt. Central Jail Ambala as PW15, Bhal Singh as PW16, Inspector Udai Singh as PW17, ASI Pat Ram as PW18, SHO Jagbir Singh as PW19, ASI Ramesh Chander as PW20, Constable Vijay Pal as PW21, Ashwani Kumar Ahlmad as PW22, Partap Singh as PW23, Shanti Devi as PW24, HC Randhir Singh as PW25, Constable Mahadev as PW26, Dr. M.K.Bhadu as PW27, Zile Singh as PW28, Lal Singh as PW29, Inspector Kailash Chander as PW30, SI Surat Singh as PW31, HC Mukut Ram as PW32 and ASI Balbir Singh as PW33. Baljit Singh Warden was produced as DW1. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued, that the learned trial Court has convicted appellants Umed Singh, Mahender Singh and Rajender under Sections 302/341PC and appellants Surat Singh and Kaptan Singh for conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. Accused Sukhnandan has been declared a proclaimed offender. Accused Sukhdev was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, but has not preferred to file an appeal. Randhir Singh and Harphool Singh were acquitted by the learned trial Court. 5. Appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender on 23.6.1998 on the date and time of occurrence were in custody in Central Jail, Ambala, in a case under Section 160 IPC. Accused Sukhdev was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, but has not preferred to file an appeal. Randhir Singh and Harphool Singh were acquitted by the learned trial Court. 5. Appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender on 23.6.1998 on the date and time of occurrence were in custody in Central Jail, Ambala, in a case under Section 160 IPC. They were arrested in the present case on 30.6.1998 along with appellant Randhir, while appellant Surat Singh was arrested on 15.10.1998. 6. Allegedly, appellants Surat and Kaptan hatched a conspiracy, which has been spelt out by Zile Singh PW28. As alleged, an extra judicial confession was made before Zile Singh PW28 by appellant Surat in the presence of Balraj. Balraj has not been brought into the witness box and has been given up by the prosecution, as having been won over. As per the statement of Zile SinghPW28, he went to the house of Balraj. No independent corroboration is coming to the extra judicial confession made before Zile Singh PW28. His statement is wholly unreliable. 7. The Investigating Officer ASI Raj Pal Singh has not been examined, but his signatures were identified by ASI Balbir Singh PW33. He registered the case, prepared the inquest report and collected the blood samples. Inspector Kailash Chander PW30 is the main Inves­tigating Officer along with Inspector/SHO Jagbir Singh PW19. A part from these Investigating Officers, Inspector Udai Singh PW17, ASI Pat Ram PW18, ASI Ramesh Chander PW20 and SI Surat Singh PW31 also partly investigated the case. The Investigating Officers intentionally did not solve the case, but took the case in a wrong direction to falsely implicate the appellants. Inspector Kailash Chander PW30, the main Investigating Officer has stated in his testimony before the Court, that he did not investigate the escape of appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender from the Central Jail, Ambala till 15.10.1998. From his statement, it comes out that for four months he did not know as to who were culprits. 8. The eye witness account, as spelt out by Shanti Devi PW24, Partap Singh PW23 and Bhal Singh PW16, is not truthful. These witnesses are wholly unreliable. Site plan Ex. P100 shows that deceased was sleeping at Point C. Partap Singh PW23 and Shanti Devi PW24 were standing at Point E and firing took place at Points B and F, when Mahender was being forcibly bundled into the jeep. These witnesses are wholly unreliable. Site plan Ex. P100 shows that deceased was sleeping at Point C. Partap Singh PW23 and Shanti Devi PW24 were standing at Point E and firing took place at Points B and F, when Mahender was being forcibly bundled into the jeep. It is strange that the appellants at 4.00 a.m. in the morning came into the house from the main gate and took away deceased Mahender from Point C, which is on the other side of the house. Though allegedly the electric bulb was on and it was a moonlit night, no one from the complainant side woke up. As per FIR Ex. P21, Mahender was dragged by the appellants. Grappling had taken place and it is thereafter that appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender fired from their respective weapons, hitting Mahender and Shanti Devi PW24. As per Dr. Suresh Kumar PW2, two shots hit the deceased, but as per FIR Ex. P21, only one shot hit him. An improvement has been made by the eye witnesses in their statement before the Court, where they stated, that two shots had hit the deceased, while he was in a standing position. There is inconsistency in the ocular account and the FIR EX.P21. Shanti Devi PW24, as alleged by the prosecution, received a gun shot injury. These injuries are in fact fabricated. In MLR Ex. P78 as spelt out by Dr. M.K. Bhadu PW27, who examined Shanti Devi PW24, the injuries are with a blunt weapon. The trial Court has rightly disbelieved the injury on the person of Shanti Devi PW24. The injury has been attributed to her to make her a stamped witness. She in fact has told a lie qua the gunshot injury suffered b by her and she cannot be believed. 9. Dr. Suresh Kumar PW2 has stated that the occurrence could have taken place three hours earlier i.e. some time at about at 1.00 a.m. In FIR Ex P21, Partap Singh PW23 has stated, that he identified appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender in the headlights of the jeep, but in the statement before the Court, both the alleged eye witnesses Partap Singh PW23 and Shanti Devi PW24 have stated, that an electric bulb was on and it was a moonlit night. No neighbourer or anybody from the locality or village was examined. No neighbourer or anybody from the locality or village was examined. It seems that when the unknown assailants struck, deceased was in a lying position. The injury being of such a nature. 10. There was no motive for the appellants to commit the murder of Mahender. The motive as spelt out by the prosecution is that the brother of appellant Umed, Vijay Singh, was murdered one year back. Appellants suspected that the murder of Vijay Singh was committed by the deceased. In fact in that case, the FIR was registered against one Inder and three others. Mahender was not named in that FIR, nor was he suspected or interrogated. Partap Singh PW23 has admitted, that appellants came to their house to condole the murder of Mahender. 11. The name of both appellants Surat Singh and Kaptan Singh have not been mentioned in the FIR and the extra judicial confession has been made after a gap of four months. Appel­lants Umed, Mahender and Rajender were arrested under Section 160 IPC on 21.6.1998 and were lodged in Central Jail, Ambala. They were released on bail on 24.6.1998. Murder of Mahender took place on 23.6.1998 at 4.00 a. m. Nothing has come on record to show that appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender had escaped from the Ambala jail. Kaptan Singh Sub Asstt. Supdt. of Jail, Central Jail, Ambala could not have released the appellants for some time, so that they could commit the crime and come back to the jail. It was not solely in his hands to release the appellants, as apart from him, there are about 30 other officials who keep a check on the inmates. Dr. Ravinder Kumar PW14 has stated, that on 23.6.1998 he examined appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender at 9.30 a.m., as he had to do so, as per instructions in the Punjab Jail Mannual. 12. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that the promptness in which the FIR has been registered, clearly shows that the eye witnesses Partap Singh PW23 and Shanti Devi PW24 were present when the occurrence had taken place. Occurrence had taken place at 4.00 a.m. in the morning on 23.6.1998. Appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender were iden­tified in the lights of the jeep and an electric bulb, which was on. Occurrence had taken place at 4.00 a.m. in the morning on 23.6.1998. Appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender were iden­tified in the lights of the jeep and an electric bulb, which was on. FIR EX.P21 came into existence on the same day at 10.15 a.m. and the special report reached the JMIC, Hisar, on the same day at 12.22 p.m. Shanti Devi PW24 was injured in the occurrence. Dr. M.K. Bhadu PW27, who examined Shanti Devi PW24 has stated, that the injury on her person could be with a fire-arm. It was natural for both Partap Singh PW23 and Shanti Devi PW24 to be present in the house at 4.00 a.m. in the morning. Partap Singh PW23 is no other person than the father of the deceased and Shanti Devi PW24 is no other person than the mother of the deceased. At first, appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender could not be recognised, as they were in police uniform but when they came in front of the lights of the jeep, Partap Singh PW23 and Shanti Devi PW24 realised that Mahender had been picked up by the appellants. It is thereafter that when a hue and cry was raised, Umed opened fire with his pistol, which hit Mahender deceased. Another shot was fired, which hit Shanti Devi PW24. Even if we do not take the injury on the person of Shanti Devi PW24 into consideration, but this fact cannot be overlooked that at 4.00 a.m. in the morning, it was most natural for her to be inside her house. The extra judicial confession made to Zile Singh PW28 inspires confidence. Even if Balraj has not been produced, still the Court can rely upon his statement Balraj was given up because he was won over by the appellants. 13. Constable Prem Singh PW 13 has stated, that appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender were brought to the jail premises and handed over to appellant Kaptan Singh, who was then Sub Asstt Supdt Central Jail, Ambala. Const Prem Singh PW 13 has further stated, that these three appellants were arrested on 21.6.1998 in a case under 160 IPC. Finger Print Expert Ram Singh PW 10 has stated that the thumb impressions of appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender do not match with their thumb impressions on Register No.1 at serial Nos.2151, 2152 and 2153. Const Prem Singh PW 13 has further stated, that these three appellants were arrested on 21.6.1998 in a case under 160 IPC. Finger Print Expert Ram Singh PW 10 has stated that the thumb impressions of appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender do not match with their thumb impressions on Register No.1 at serial Nos.2151, 2152 and 2153. Accused Sukhnandan (P.O.) superimposed his own thumb impressions on the alleged thumb impressions of Umed, Mahender and Rajender so that the thumb impressions of the appellants could not be verified by an expert. The thumb impressions in dispute are Ex.P33 to Ex.P36. On the remand papers dated 22.6.1998 in FIR Ex. P1 under Section 160 IPC, Finger Print Expert Ram Singh PW10 has stated, that the thumb impressions are that of Umed, Mahender and Rajender, but on the Register No.1 of the jail the thumb impressions are not that of the three appellants. Accused Sukhnandan filled up Register No.1, as he had a good handwriting as per Dr. Ravinder Kumar PW14. 14. The conspiracy of appellants Kaptan Singh and Surat Singh is proved by the statement of Bhal Singh PW16 and the extra judicial confession made to Zile Singh PW 28. Nar Singh Assistant Supdt of Jail PW12, who was on duty, took leave on 18.6.1998. It is thereafter that appellant Kaptan Singh took over. Appellant Umed was the Sarpanch of Village Juglan. He along with his co-accused Mahender and Rajender were granted bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala in the case under Section 160 IPC on 22.6.1998. They preferred not to furnish bail bonds, for the sole reason that they wanted to show themselves to be, at the time of the commission of the offence, in Central Jail, Ambala. It is on 24.6.1998 after the murder of Mahender had been committed that they furnished the bail bonds and were released. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender have been convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and appellants Surat Singh and Kaptan Singh have been convicted under Section 120-B IPC for committing conspiracy along with appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender for the murder of Mahender. Appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender have been convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and appellants Surat Singh and Kaptan Singh have been convicted under Section 120-B IPC for committing conspiracy along with appellants Umed, Mahender and Rajender for the murder of Mahender. For convenience, hereinafter appellant Umed will be shown as A 1, appellant Mahender as A2, appellant Rajender as A3, appellant Surat Singh as A4 and appellant Kaptan Singh as A5. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.6.1998 at 4.00 a.m., appellants A1, A2 and A3 went to the house of the deceased in Village Juglan. They were in police uniform. Mahender was asleep. He was brought out and in the light of the jeep and the electric bulb he was shot by appellants A 1, A2 and A3. Partap Singh PW23, the father of the deceased and Shanti Devi PW24, the mother of the deceased saw the occurrence. In FIR Ex.P21, Partap Singh PW23 has named appellants A1, A2 and A3 and has stated, that they came in a jeep and forcibly took away Mahender to the jeep, stating that SP Sahab, who was standing near the jeep, was calling him. Mahender at that time was sleeping in the house. It was in the lights of the jeep, both Partap Singh PW23 and Shanti Devi PW24 recognised that it was Umed Sarpanch armed with a pistol and dressed up in the police uniform and Mahender armed with a gun along with Rajender were standing there. They tried to put Mahender (deceased) in the jeep. Mahender (deceased) grappled with them. Shanti Devi PW24 also assisted Mahender (deceased). Umed fired a shot from his pistol, which hit Mahender in his right shoulder and pierced through his left shoulder. Mahender (accused) and Rajender also fired from their respective weapons. Shanti Devi PW24 received pellets injuries on her left arm. In their testimo­nies before the Court, Shanti Devi PW24 and Partap Singh PW23 have named appellants A 1, A2 and A3 of coming in a jeep. They were identified by the jeep lights and an electric bulb which was on and also it being a moonlit night. They have reiterated what has been stated in FIR Ex.P21. Appellants came into the house, as the house was under construction and the door was not shut. The outer wall was in a broken state. They were identified by the jeep lights and an electric bulb which was on and also it being a moonlit night. They have reiterated what has been stated in FIR Ex.P21. Appellants came into the house, as the house was under construction and the door was not shut. The outer wall was in a broken state. Shanti Devi PW24 received injuries on her left arm. Dr. M.K.Bhadu PW27 has stated in his testimony before the Court, that the injuries on the person of Shanti Devi could be caused by a blunt weapon. Possibility cannot be ruled out that injuries were received at 4.00 a.m. on 23.6.1998. He has further stated, that the injuries could be caused by skidding of pellets. It is clear from the testimony of Dr. M.K. Bhadu PW27, that the injuries on the person of Shanti Devi PW24 were gun shot injuries. Both these witnesses Partap Singh PW23 and Shanti Devi PW24 corroborated the version given in the FIR Ex.P21. Shanti Devi PW24 is a stamped witness. At 4.00 a.m. in the morning, it was natural for both Partap Singh PW23, the father of the deceased and Shanti Devi PW24, the mother of the deceased to be in the house. They in fact are natural witnesses. The testimony of these witnesses is truthful and convincing. 16. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 23.6.1998 at 4.00 a.m. FIR Ex.P21 came into existence on the same day i.e. on 23.6.1998 at 1 0.15 a.m. The special report reached the JMJC, Hisar at 12.22 p.m. on 23.6.1998. Names of the accused are given. Appellants A1, A2 and A3 are mentioned. Weapons of offence and the nature of injuries on the person of deceased and on Shanti Devi PW24 have been spelt out. There is no delay in lodging of the FIR and this itself is going a long way in proving the case of the prosecution. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued, that the prosecution has failed to prove that appellants A1, A2 and A3 left the jail premises on 22.6.1998 to commit the offence, nor have been able to prove the conspiracy of appellants A4 and A5. Appellant A1, who is the mastermind, along with appellants A2 and A3 hatched a conspiracy with applicants A4 and A5 to eliminate Mahender. Appellant A1, who is the mastermind, along with appellants A2 and A3 hatched a conspiracy with applicants A4 and A5 to eliminate Mahender. Appellants A1, A2 and A3 got registered FIR Ex.P1 against themselves under Section 160 IPC on 21.6.1998, which is bailable offence. On 22.6.1998 they were produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate” Ambala. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granted them bail, but they did not furnish bail bonds inspite of all three were in a position to do so. Umed is the Sarpanch of Village Juglan. He could easily have asked some­ one to furnish bail bonds for himself and for his coaccused A2 and A3. Constable Prem Singh PW13 has stated in his testimony before the Court, that on 22.6.1998 he was deputed to produce accused Umed, Mahender and Rajender before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, in a case registered against them vide FIR No. 216, dated 21.6.1998 under Section 1601PC. He took the accused to the Court. Ram Singh Junior Engineer and Yashwant Singh followed them. They were ordered to be sent to Central Jail, Ambala by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Accordingly, he lodged them in Central Jail, Ambala at 12.46 p.m. They asked Ran Singh, Junior Engineer and Yashwant Singh to get the accused released on bail since the offence was bailable, but they said that they would get them admitted to bail later on. These persons followed Umed to the jail. 18. If appellants A1, A2 and A3 wanted themselves genuinely involved in a small fight, they would have got themselves bailed out. They could have asked Ran Singh Junior Engineer and Yashwant Singh to stand surety for them, But as rightly pointed out by learned State Coun­sel, they had a different plan in their mind and wanted to show themselves to be in Central Jail, Ambala, when the murder of Maheder was committed. It is here that appellant A5, who was then the Sub Asstt. Supdt. of Jail, came on to the scene. In fact appellant A5 maneuvered things in such a way that appellants A1, A2 and A3 were not taken into custody by the authorities of Central Jail. Ambala. Going through register No.1 and the statement of Finger Expert Ram Singh PW10, the thumb impressions on register No.1 at Serial Nos. Supdt. of Jail, came on to the scene. In fact appellant A5 maneuvered things in such a way that appellants A1, A2 and A3 were not taken into custody by the authorities of Central Jail. Ambala. Going through register No.1 and the statement of Finger Expert Ram Singh PW10, the thumb impressions on register No.1 at Serial Nos. 2151,2152 and 2153, which is the admission ,register of prisoners, are not those of appellants A1, A2 and A3. To cover this up, so that the thumb impressions of appellants A1, A2 and A3 could not be identified by the Finger Print Expert, these thumb impressions were super imposed by the thumb impressions of accused Sukhnandan (P.O.). As per Dr. Ravinder Kumar PW 14, accused Sukhnandan used to fill in the register, as he had a good handwriting. In fact the report of the Finger Print Expert Ram Singh PW10 has categorically stated, that the thumb impressions on register No,1 as shown to be of appellants A1, A2 and A3 are not theirs, but are superimposed by the thumb impressions of Sukhnandan (P.O.). 19. Bhal Singh PW16 has stated, that on the intervening night of 22.6,1998/23,6.1998 at about 3.00 a.m., he saw a Commander jeep coming from the side of Village Juglan, which stopped at the house of Ram Singh and saw appellants A 1, A2 and A3 alight from it. They were wearing police uniforms. Thereafter, they left for Village Juglan. Similarly, Zile Singh PW28 has stated, that appellant A4 came to his house on 15.10.1998 at 11.30 a.m. and made an extra judicial confession that appellants A1, A2 and A3 are going to commit the murder of Mahender Singh. They planned to get themselves involved in a case in Ambala and not get themselves released from jail. He has further stated, that Ran Singh Junior Engineer and Yashwant Singh Clerk arranged a meeting with appellant A5. A jeep was purchased for Rs. 5,000/-, This is the jeep, which was seen by Bhal Singh PW16, being used by appellants A1, A2 and A3 on 23.6.1998 at night. From the sequence of events, it comes out that appellants A1, A2 and A3 with the assistance of appellant A5 did not enter Central Jail, Ambala, but got into the jeep, which was standing outside the jail premises and went to Village Juglan on 22.6.1998 and murdered Mahender at 4.00 a.m. on 23.6.1998. From the sequence of events, it comes out that appellants A1, A2 and A3 with the assistance of appellant A5 did not enter Central Jail, Ambala, but got into the jeep, which was standing outside the jail premises and went to Village Juglan on 22.6.1998 and murdered Mahender at 4.00 a.m. on 23.6.1998. Thereafter, they came back to Central Jail Ambala and furnished their bail bonds on 24.6.1998 and got themselves released. A thorough investigation was done by not one Investigating Officer, but a number of them i.e. Raj Pal ASI, Inspector Kailash Chander PW30, Inspector Udai Singh PW17, ASI Pat Ram PW18, SHO Jagbir Singh PW 19, ASI Ramesh Chander PW20 and SI Surat Singh PW31 that appellants A1 to A5 were nailed for the murder of Mahender. The motive for the commission of the offence was a running feud between both the parties, where Vijay Singh, brother of appellant Umed was murdered about one year prior to this occurrence. Umed suspected Mahender deceased for murdering of his brother. We do not find any merit in the appeal. Dismissed. —————————-