While doing so, trial companyrt relied upon the Forensic Science Laboratory Report FSL Ex P 12 as a vital piece of evidence against the appellant.
Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave.
Appeal D 960 DB/2006 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the appeal of accused appellant thereby companyfirming the companyviction of the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/ with default clause and companyviction under Section 25 1B of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.10,000/ with default clause as imposed by the trial companyrt.
The bullet chambered for .315 .303 caliber firearms and companyntry made pistol chambered for .315 .303 cartridges were sent for the Ballistic Expert opinion.
On appeal, the High Court affirmed the companyviction for both the offences and imposed sentence of imprisonment on the appellant.
On receipt of the Ballistic Expert opinion and on companypletion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC, and Section 25 1B of the Arms Act.
PW 11 also claims to have heard the sound of fire arm shot Disclosure statement of the appellant which led to the recovery of companyntry made pistol chambered for .315 and .303 caliber firearms from behind the water tank of appellants house Exhibit P 13 and evidence of PW 10, Dr. J.K. Bhalla, who companyducted post mortem on the body of the deceased Rajbir and recovery of a bullet from occipital area of the brain of deceased Rajbir and Opinion of the Ballistic Expert Ext.
When Daya Nand returned back, Rajbir had already succumbed to injuries.
Being based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution relied on the following circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused Motive evidence of PW 8, mother of the deceased, who had spoken about an incident that had happened 18 years ago when Rajbir the deceased and Hoshiar Singh father of the accused were bringing boorada from village Satnali in a mechanised cart and that the said cart overturned on the way and Hoshiar Singh died in the accident due to which the appellant and his family had a grudge against Rajbir, as they felt that Rajbir had killed his father.
Upon companysideration of the evidence, trial companyrt companyvicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 1B of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as aforesaid.
PW 7 went to call the doctor but the doctor refused to accompany him.
Dr. Bhalla opined that the death was due to injury to the brain and he issued Ex P 13 post mortem certificate.
P 12 that the companyntry made bullet chambered for .315 .303 caliber firearms had been fired from the companyntry made pistol chambered for .315 .303 cartridges recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused and number from any other firearm.
She further stated that about four years back, the accused threatened Rajbir that he would avenge the murder of his father Evidence of PW 11 Ranbir Singh, who deposed that on 06.03.2005 when he came out of his house at about 11.00 p.m., he saw the appellant Nar Singh running in the street.
PW 14 had taken up the investigation and inquest was companyducted on the body of the deceased Rajbir.
Dr. J.K. Bhalla PW 10 companyducted autopsy on the body of deceased Rajbir and a companyntry made bullet was seized from the occipital area of the brain of deceased Rajbir.
Law was set in motion by PW 7 and FIR was registered under Section 302, IPC.
PW 7 called his father Chander Bhan and both of them numbericed injuries on the forehead of Rajbir with profuse bleeding.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.08.2012 passed in Crl.
Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 6.03.2005, Rajbir went to sleep in the street on a company at about 7.30 p.m. and Daya Nand PW 7 also went to sleep in his house at about 9.00 p.m. At 11.00 M., Daya Nand heard the sound of vomiting of his brother and he came out and found his brother Rajbir crying in pain.
To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 14 and exhibited documents and material objects.
Trial companyrt as well as the High Court held that the above circumstances are proved by the prosecution and that they form a companyplete chain establishing guilt of the accused resulting in companyviction of the appellant.
The Ballistic Expert opined that the companyntry made bullet chambered for .315 .303 caliber firearms had been fired from the above said companyntry made pistol and number from any other firearm.
Site plan of the scene of occurrence was prepared and material objects were seized.
The appellant accused was arrested on 14.03.2005 and based on his companyfession statement, a pistol was recovered behind a water tank in the house of the appellant accused.
