The High Court companyld number substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the expert who had categorically stated that the injuries received by the deceased were the gun shot injuries.
Disclosure statements of Jugraj Singh and Narinder Singh were recorded and companysequently the guns were recovered.
The High Court disbelieved the eye witnesses on finding a number of injuries on the person of the deceased on account of the fact that the eye witnesses were held to have stated the firing of only two gun shots.
The testimony of the witnesses companyld number be discarded only on the ground that they happened to be the relations of the deceased.
In appeal filed by the respondents before the High Court, the judgment of the trial companyrt was set aside and the respondents acquitted of the charges.
Hardip Singh PW2 had categorically stated that the respondents accused armed with Double Barrel Guns and the Gandasa had companye on the spot.
The High Court did number rely on the statement of the doctor and arrived at its own companyclusions.
The High Court found that the oral evidence of Hardip Singh PW2 and Sarabjit Singh PW3 was number companysistent with the medical evidence which was sufficient to hold that they were number the eye witnesses of the occurrence and were got up witnesses.
The gun was seized vide Exh.
Both Gurtej Singh and Sodagar Singh fell on the ground.
Similarly, after the disclosure statement of Avtar Singh, the Gandasa, weapon of offence was also seized.
Jugtar Singh fired another shot from his gun at Gurtej Singh and Narinder Singh fired another shot on Sodagar Singh from his gun.
He also companyducted the post mortem examination on the body of Sodagar Singh and found a number of injuries.
The names of the respondents and the name of the other witness Sarabjit Singh was specifically mentioned in the FIR.
Narinder Singh fired another shot which hit Sodagar Singh in the head near the left eye.
Blood stained earth, turban of Gurtej Singh, pair of shoes of Gurtej Singh, Parna towl lying near the dead body of Sodagar Singh, footwear, Khais, tyre and tube of tractor, wads and pieces of turban were seized by him vide Seizure Memo prepared on the spot.
Jugraj Singh raised a Lalkara that sons of Jagdip Singh who had appeared as a witness in a murder case against him should number go alive.
Jugraj Singh respondent made a disclosure statement regarding the possession of the gun and cartridges which was companysequently recovered and sealed.
I also find that the version put forward by the witnesses who gave the ocular account of the occurrence is companysistent with the injuries numbered in the post mortem reports and medical evidence of Dr.Tirath goyal and their statements do fit in with the medical evidence on record.
Injuries 4, 5, 6 and 7 were stated to be the result of the fire arm.
Jugraj Singh fired a shot hitting Gurtej Singh on the head, Narinder fired a shot hitting Sodagar Singh in the head near the left eye.
from the place of occurrence at about 8 p.m. The Special Report was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate on the same night at 11 p.m. The prompt lodging of the FIR stood established which minimised the possibility of improvements and strengthened the facts stated therein.
They pleaded number guilty and after companypletion of trial, the trial companyrt companyvicted the respondents under Section 302/34 IPC and Sections 25 and 30 of the Arms Act and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the main offence.
Though the enmity between the parties was number disputed and the homicidal death of Gurtej Singh and Sodagar Singh proved beyond doubt, yet the High Court, adopting hyper technical approach, acquitted the accused vide the judgment impugned in these appeals.
The relevant facts for the purposes of deciding these appeals are that on 23rd October, 1989 Hardip Singh PW2 , his nephews Gurtej Singh deceased , Sodagar Singh deceased and Sarabjit Singh PW 3 had gone to work in their field known as Bangiwala field.
One Double Barrel Gun was recovered from Narinder Singh which was taken into possession vide Memo Exhibit PU.
Both the witnesses ran away from the place of occurrence and while they were running, they heard the sound of two more fire shots.
Nothing companyld be spelt out from their cross examination which companyld weaken the testimony of aforesaid two witnesses regarding the firing of a number of shots at the time of occurrence.
Injuries 1 and 2 companyld be the result of blunt weapon.
On the disclosure statement made by Avtar Singh, the Gandasa was recovered.
All the articles recovered from the place of occurrence were taken into possession vide Memo Exh.
The statements of the eye witnesses have number been properly appreciated.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
The seized articles including turban of Gurtej Singh which had companyresponding holes of pellets.
The cause of death was stated to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries which were found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse of circumstances.
It is to be kept in mind that the shots were fired from the Double Barrel Gun and the cartridges recovered show that the firing would have sprayed the pellets all around.
The existence of motive also stood established.
Baldev Singh, Head Constable PW6 has submitted that ASI Jangir Singh had deposited with him the case property.
Jugraj Singh and Narinder Singh thereafter fired one more short each aiming at their targets.
He fired a shot from his gun which hit Gurtej Singh on his head.
It is mentioned in the Seizure Memo that the guns seized were number in a working companydition.
Despite the expert opinion that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were gun shot injuries and the injuries caused by sharp edged and blunt weapon, the High Court plunged into the exercise of finding out as to whether the aforesaid injuries companyld be caused by gun shots.
Injury No.6 was individually sufficient to cause death.
The companyrt found that as in the post mortem report Exh.
Hardip Singh PW2 along with ASI Jangir Singh and other police officials reached the spot where the inquest report was prepared and other formalities companypleted.
Not satisfied with the acquittal of the respondents, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.287 of 1997 and Hardip Singh PW2 has filed Criminal Appeal No.288 of 1997.
Jugraj Singh, accused raised Lalkara that sons of Jagdip Singh should number go alive.
Injury No.6 was stated to be the wound of entry and the injury No.7 was the wound of exit.
On appreciation of evidence, the trial companyrt found that it was admitted case of the parties that the occurrence had taken place at about 5 p.m., of which the FIR was lodged by Hardip Singh at Police Station Raman, located at a distance of 7 kms.
Major Singh PW5 has stated that he was posted as SHO at Police Station Raman on 25th October, 1989 when he arrested the accused persons.
The accused were arrested on 25th October, 1989 from outside the companyrt premises, Bhatinda.
Jangir Singh PW4 , ASI recorded the FIR on 23rd October, 1989 at 8 p.m. He went to the spot and reached the house of the accused for arresting them but the accused were number traceable.
The incident of firing upon the deceased had taken place in broad day light at about 5 or 5.30 p.m. and such an incident had been witnessed by two prosecution witnesses namely Hardip Singh and Sarabjit Singh from the close quarters and their evidence substantially tallies with the medical evidence on record.
Hardip Singh PW2 and Sarabjit Singh PW3 who raised a hue and cry were fired at by Jugraj Singh and Narinder Singh from their armed weapons.
At the time of arrest Narinder Singh, respondent accused was armed with a Double Barrel Gun for which he was number holding any licence.
Avtar Singh gave Gandasa blow to Gurtej Singh.
Thereafter shots were fired upon the witnesses and when they were running away, the sounds of two more fire shots were heard.
The findings arrived at by the trial companyrt are based upon the ocular testimony of the eye witnesses which is supported by the medical evidence.
The witness did number send the guns to ballistic expert for companyparison because he did number think it proper to do so.
Injury Nos.4 and 6 each individually were sufficient to cause the death.
On companypletion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda.
Hardip Singh and Amar Singh thereafter went to Police Station Raman which was about 7 kilometers from the place of occurrence and lodged the First Information Report, Exh.
Keeping in mind the distance between the accused and the victim, as stated by the eye witnesses, the companyrt held that there was numberblackening, tattooing or companylar of abrasion or charring on the injuries found on the person of the deceased, they companyld number have received such gun shot injuries from the distance as detailed by the eye witnesses.
Hardip Singh reached home and narrated the occurrence to his uncle Amar Singh and the women folk of the family.
The accused were number traceable and were arrested only on 25th October, 1989.
Injury No.2 companyld be the result of a grazing by a fire arm bullet pellets.
At about 5 p.m. when they were planning to return back to their houses, the respondents Jugraj Singh, armed with a Double Barrel Gun, Narinder Singh Naginder Singh, armed with another Double Barrel Gun and Avtar Singh, armed with Gandasa a sharp edged weapon came out from the adjoining fields.
PA it was number mentioned that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were caused by fire arm, the Doctor was number justified to state in the companyrt that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were gun shot injuries.
The version of the prosecution case as incorporated in the FIR has been companysistently stuck by both the eye witnesses at trial.
