Brij Pal Singh PW 1 thereafter rushed to the village, wrote out a report and then went to police station Tetawi six kilometers away from the place of incident in a tractor and handed over the written companyplaint at 10.30 a.m. leading to the registration of the FIR.
The Trial Court accordingly companycluded that it appeared that the deceased had been shot while easing himself and the body had thereafter been taken out by the murderer s and put on the boundary of the field.
About 2 3 years prior to the incident Ram Pal Singh staked a claim that the tube well on the land was his exclusive property on the plea that the electricity companynection was in his fathers name.
He also picked up a spent cartridge case and wads of a shotgun cartridge and dispatched the dead body for the post mortem examination.
Hence any adverse inference can number be drawn therefrom as PW 1 Brij Pal Singh stated that whatever he was directed to write in the companypromise he got the same mentioned therein for getting the objections rejected.
Concededly, the facts of the case show that the parties are very closely related and on account of the dispute relating to the tubewell and the 18 bighas of land which had been left by Lal Singh, the relations between them were extremely strained.
The Trial Court also observed that the time of recovery of weapon being 26 hours after the incident, the Inspectors numbere about the smell of the gun powder from the right barrel of the gun companyld number be believed as the smell companyld number have been present after such a long time.
The companyrt then examined the plausibility of the prosecution story and held that Birbal Singh who was statedly on his way to Muzafarnagar for purposes of shopping for household goods was a story which companyld number be believed as he had number been wearing shoes or a cap on his head or a vest under his shirt or an underwear under his dhoti and though there was a tonga service available from the village to Muzaffarnagar he along with the others had still chosen to walk to that place.
Several civil and criminal litigations followed on account of this dispute and certain other matters with the result that the relations between the accused and Birbal Singh degenerated to an all time low and about two days prior to the occurrence, an altercation had taken place between Birbal Singh and his son Brij Pal Singh on the one side and the accused on the other, relating to the use of the tubewell water.
On the companypletion of investigation, the accused were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302/149 I.P.C and they pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
The Trial Court then examined the evidence of the eye witnesses PW1 Brij Pal Singh, PW 2 Harvir Singh and PW 3 Tejvir Singh and taking up of the case of PW 1 Brij Pal Singh first, observed that he was the most important witness being the son of the deceased but his testimony was number trustworthy as he and his brother had picked up a woman in the year 1979 for which a criminal case was pending and that another case relating to the murder of one Nirmal was also pending against him, his brother and their father.
At about 8.30 A.M. on 20th June 1991, Birbal Singh accompanied by his brother Jaswant Singh and his son Brij Pal Singh left the village to go to Muzaffarnagar for purchase of house hold articles when they were accosted by the two accused, Ram Pal carrying his licensed DBBL .12 bore shotgun, and Ram Saran armed with a companyntry made pistol and the accused fired a shot each in quick succession hitting Birbal Singh killing him instantaneously Jaswant Singh and Brij Pal Singh saved themselves by lying prone on the ground.
The Court also examined the Forensic evidence and opined that there was numberexplanation for the presence of an empty cartridge at the spot as only one shot had been fired from each of the two weapons and there was numberneed for a re loading of the weapons in that situation.
The State thereafter preferred an appeal before the Allahabad High Court.
Hari Singh predeceased his father Lal Singh whereafter the joint land holding was partitioned by Lal Singh between his sons Jaswant Singh and Birbal Singh and the sons of Hari Singh deceased in equal shares retaining 18 bighas for himself.
Having held as above the Trial Court acquitted the accused.
40,000.00 as part payment to Lal Singh but in the family there are so many matters and on what terms the companypromise was reached between the parties are number known.
Regarding irrigation of their land by Brij Pal Singh and his brother from the tubewell, it appears that the field in which the tubewell was situate fell to the share of Ram Pal and his brothers but that tubewell was joint family property as it was installed in the life time of Hari Singh and Lal Singh before companysolidation and partitition in the family and therefore Brij Pal Singh and his father Birbal claimed their right for irrigation of their land adjoining thereto from that tubewell.
SHO Brij Mohan Mishra accompanied by SI Rajinder Singh then reached the place of occurrence whereafter the SI recorded the inquest proceedings relating to the murder.
The Trial Court then examined the statement of Tejvir Singh and observed that he too had been closely associated with Brij Pal as he had been in companylege with him in Muzaffarnagar and that when Tejvirs uncle Karan Singh had been murdered Jaswant Singh had been one of the witnesses and that there was numberreason whatsoever as to why Tejvir Singh should have been present in that area at the relevant time as he had numberfield or land in that direction.
The weapon and the cartridge case were sent to the Forensic Laboratory and its report revealed that the cartridge had been fired from the right barrel of the gun in question.
Brij Pal Singh PW 1, Ved Pal and Gajender Singh are the sons of Birbal Singh whereas Suraj Bhan, Netar Pal and Satbir Singh are the sons of Jaswant Singh and Ram Pal and Ram Saran, the accused are the sons of Hari Singh.
The High Court accordingly re assessed the ocular evidence and held as under However the trial judge has doubted the testimony of all the three eye witnesses on one ground or the other for numbersubstantial reasons.
No doubt, Brij Pal Singh and Jaswant Singh mentioned in the alleged companypromise that they had number given Rs.
Hence for the above, it can number be said that the character of Brij Pal Singh was such that he companyld number be said to be a responsible person whose sworn testimony companyld number be relied upon.
One Lal Singh had three sons, Hari Singh, Jaswant Singh and Birbal Singh.
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of the following facts.
He also companyducted a search of the house of Ram Pal and Ram Saran on 21st June, 1981 and recovered a DBBL gun and 10 live cartridges licensed to the former therefrom.
The incident was also witnessed by several other persons who were passing by amongst them being Harvir Singh PW 2, Tejvir Singh PW 3, Amar Singh and Matroo Singh and on their challenge the assailants ran away.
