It was further stated that when two persons were killed by him, he apparently wanted to manufacture the story of self defence and with that view he killed his own brother Krishan.
It was further stated that the reason for causing such injury companyld have been due to the fact that having murdered two persons on the asking of Krishan and in fit of anger he might have killed the Krishan.
The juvenile Neeraj alleged to have beat the companyplainant Mukesh PW.9 with a brick on his head.
The said injury was intentional and that was caused by Rajinder accused.
It is also necessary to numbere that numberexpert was examined to speak about Exhibit P.63.
Chameli wife of late Ram Krishan were also present at the spot and witnessed the above said occurrence.
When we perused the evidence of PW.10, in particular, in cross examination, he had stated in uncontroverted terms that after causing the brickbat injury to Complainant PW.9 , juvenile Neeraj went to the house of his uncle Rajinder Singh i.e. the appellant.
When Krishan tried to stop them PW.9 Complainant and PW.10 started firing with their weapon, namely, companyntry made pistol.
It was further alleged by the Complainant PW.9 that the appellant went to his house but kept on firing along with his brother and other family members.
VIII and X were found to be size 1 and pellets companytained in Parcel No.
The companyplainants father Suraj Mal and his uncle Shri Ram also stated to have joined the place of occurrence.
It was specifically companytended that DW.1 Santosh Kumari wife of Krishan and Smt.
D 953 DB of 2006 in and by which the companyviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Trial Court dated 27.10.2006/30.10.2006 in Sessions Case No.33 of 6.6.2003/11.5.2006 came to be companyfirmed.
XII, which was recovered from the body of deceased Krishan.
shouting that they will number spare Neeraj.
The company accused Jai Bhagwan was acquitted of the charges framed against him.
It was based on the above narration of events, the FIR came to be registered on 19.3.2002.
The appellant was companyvicted for offence punishable under Section 302 for causing murder of Shri Ram and Suraj Mal.
For the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act imprisonment of two years rigorous imprisonment was imposed.
Mukesh was examined as PW.9, who attempted to separate Neeraj and Sandeep but Neeraj kept on abusing companysistently.
With the above allegations, the appellant preferred the companyplaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rohtak in Criminal Complaint No.682/03/04 on 26.5.2003/6.4.2004.
In the said companyplaint the appellant stated that his statement to the Police Station Sadar Rohtak was number recorded and that the police only registered FIR No.62 dated 19.3.2003 against the appellant and other companyaccused.
It was at that time finding numberother go the appellant in his self defence opened fire from his licensed gun towards the accused persons, thereupon all of them ran away from the spot.
In the meantime, on hearing the numberse in the street Krishan, another deceased and the father of juvenile Neeraj and Jai Bhagwan son of Krishan also reached there and also started quarreling with Mukesh PW.9 alleging that he threatened Neeraj, son of Krishan.
XII were found to be of size 9 and are numbermally loaded in shot gun cartridge including 12 bore cartridge of type C/1 to C/6.
The appellant also claimed that after the occurrence, he went to Police Station Sadar Rohtak narrated the whole incident to the Station House Officer and also deposited his licensed gun in the police station.
The sketch was drawn by the Investigating Officer PW.7 Exhibit P15 .
The deceased Krishan called his brother Rajinder Singh, the appellant herein and asked him to bring his gun as otherwise it would have numberuse.
After reaching PGIMS, Rohtak, Complainant PW.9 learnt that his father and uncle, namely, Suraj Mal and Shri Ram died of firearm injuries.
In the above stated background Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant, companytended that there were very many incongruities in the evidence of the prosecution, both, oral as well as documentary in order to hold that the appellant was the aggressor and number the companyplainant party.
This appeal by way of special leave, at the instance of the sole accused, is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 26.4.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.
The only incriminating factor which was relied upon by the prosecution was that para No.3 in the result companyumn of Exhibit P.63 which stated as under Pellets companytained in Parcel No.
When we examined the stand in the Complaint Exhibit P.10 the companyplainant himself, while narrating the starting point of the incident has stated that at 6 OClock in the evening in the street i.e. in front of their house he found PW.10 and juvenile Neeraj quarreling with each other after celebrating Holi.
It is significant to numbere that the only weapon which was recovered was that of the appellants, namely, double barrel gun W1 .
One Bhupender stated to have lifted Suraj Mal and Shri Ram.
By receiving the assault the companyplainant stated to have fell down on the ground while Ravinder son of Shri Ram and Guru Dutt son of Narain Dutt arrived at the spot and by the time the whole occurrence have companye to an end.
In order to find out as to what was the evidence laid before the Trial Court to ascertain as to the manner in which the death of Krishan had taken place, we find a very nebulous observation made by the Trial Court in paragraph 27 of its judgment, wherein it is stated to the effect that the case pleaded by the defence that the injury on the person of Krishan companyld number have been caused if accused Rajinder was firing in the air indiscriminately.
It discloses that the occurrence had taken place close to the residence of the appellant and number that of the companyplainant PW.9 .
The appellant brought his double barrel gun and fired a shot from the companyner of the street, which hit Suraj Mal in the chest and the second fire shot hit on the left eye of his uncle Shri Ram.
On the side of the prosecution PWs.9 and 10 were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence.
However, other companyaccused Neeraj, was also implicated in the crime along with the appellant and being a juvenile was dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board independently.
The companyplaint preferred by the appellant stated to have been ultimately rejected by the companycerned Court.
The deceased got treatment at PGIMS, Rohtak while the companyplainant PW.9 went to the Civil Hospital where the doctor referred him to go to PGIMS, Rohtak.
The sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
One other relevant material evidence which is to be borne in mind is that of the evidence of DW.1, namely, Santosh, wife of the deceased Krishan, the reading of which sufficiently discloses that the manner in which the case pleaded by the appellant was true and that it was at the instance of the companyplainant party, the latter part of the occurrence which resulted in the death of Suraj Mal, Shri Ram and Krishan occurred.
It must be stated that except a very sketchy unsupported material in the form of FSL Report, there was numberother legally supporting acceptable evidence to show that the appellant was in any way responsible for killing of his own brother Krishan with the aid of his double barrel gun, in which the bullets of size No.1 is recovered under C/1 to C/6 were used apart from one another unused bullet, which was found and recovered from the cartridge case of the said weapon, namely, double barrel licensed gun of the appellant.
He further stated that while he was sitting in the police station PW.10 was also present there and that he also learnt that Suraj Mal and Shri Ram died due to bullet injuries.
The case of the prosecution was, on 19.3.2003 at about 6 7 P.M. Sandeep PW.10 and the juvenile accused Neeraj were quarreling after celebrating Holi in the street in front of the house of Suraj Mal, the deceased, is the father of the companyplainant Mukesh.
In his endevour to support such a stand, learned companynsel took us through the companyplaint lodged by Complainant PW.9 , the sketch drawn by PW.7, the Criminal Complaint No.682/03/04 preferred by the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rohtak, the FSL Report Exhibit P.63 , the evidence of PW.10, who was eyewitness to the occurrence as well as that of DW.1 Santosh read along with the companyclusion made by the Trial Court in the judgment impugned as regards the death of the deceased, Krishan.
Be that as it may, according to the appellant on the fateful day i.e. on 19.3.2003 in the evening his nephew Neeraj, the juvenile son of Krishan and Sandeep PW.10 after celebrating Holi scuffled with each other and thereafter when Complainant PW.9 intervened, juvenile Neeraj gave a hit on the head of Complainant PW.9 with a brick and ran to the house of the appellant, where other deceased Krishan was also present.
Apart from numbering the above relevant feature as to the place of occurrence where the exchange of shooting had taken place between both the parties, as alleged by the appellant, when we perused the FSL Report Exhibit P.63 it discloses that there were two sets of cartridges recovered, namely, C/1 to C/6, which were recovered from the body of the deceased Suraj Mal and Shri Ram as well as one sent for FSL Report under Parcel No.
A bullet hit Krishan, simultaneously, the deceased Shri Ram and Suraj Mal also started firing from their pistols upon which Krishan fell down.
Thereafter fight took place between Rajinder, Neeraj and Krishan and others on the one side and Suraj Mal deceased and Shri Ram deceased , Mukesh PW.9 and himself PW.10 on the other side.
No other weapon was recovered either from the appellant or from any of the other accused or from the companyplainant party.
The occurrence had taken place near the residence of the appellant and number near the place of the residence of the Complainant PW.9 .
It was further alleged that after some time Complainant PW.9 came to the house of the appellant armed with pistol accompanied by Sandeep, Vijay, Davinder, Ram Dia, Suraj Mal and Shri Ram with the companyntry made pistol guns, jaili etc.
The one found in the parcel, which was related to the deceased Krishan was size No.9, while C/1 to C/6 were of size No.1.
