R. Banumathi, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.08.2012 passed in Crl. Appeal D -960 -DB/2006 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the appeal of accused -Appellant thereby confirming the conviction of the Appellant Under Section , IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - with default clause and conviction Under Section 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 court.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, case of the prosecution is that on 6.03.2005, Rajbir went to sleep in the street on a cot 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 P.M., Daya Nand heard the sound of vomiting of his brother and he came out and found his brother Rajbir crying in pain. PW -7 called his father Chander Bhan and both of them noticed injuries on the forehead of Rajbir with profuse bleeding. PW -7 went to call the doctor but the doctor refused to accompany him. When Daya Nand returned back, Rajbir had already succumbed to injuries. Law was set in motion by PW -7 and FIR was registered Under Section , IPC. PW -14 had taken up the investigation and inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased Rajbir. D Bhalla (PW -10) conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Rajbir and a country -made bullet was seized from the occipital area of the brain of deceased Rajbir. Dr. Bhalla opined that the death was due to injury to the brain and he issued Ex. P -13 -post mortem certificate. 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 confession statement, a pistol was recovered behind a water tank in the house of the Appellant -accused. The bullet (chambered for .315" & .303" caliber firearms) and country -made pistol (chambered for .315" & .303" cartridges) were sent for the Ballistic Expert opinion. The Ballistic Expert opined that the country -made bullet (chambered for .315" & .303" caliber firearms) had been fired from the above -said country -made pistol and not from any other firearm. On receipt of the Ballistic Expert opinion and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the Appellant Under Section IPC, and Section of the Arms Act. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 14 and exhibited documents and material objects. Upon consideration of the evidence, trial court convicted the Appellant Under Section IPC and Section of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as aforesaid. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction for both the offences and imposed sentence of imprisonment on the Appellant. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave.
(3.) BEING based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution relied on the following circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused: - - (i) 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. She further stated that about four years back, the accused threatened Rajbir that he would avenge the murder of his father; (ii) 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 -11 also claims to have heard the sound of fire -arm shot; (iii) Disclosure statement of the Appellant which led to the recovery of country -made pistol (chambered for .315" and .303" caliber firearms) from behind the water tank of Appellant's house; (iv) Exhibit P -13 and evidence of PW -10, Dr. J.K. Bhalla, who conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased Rajbir and recovery of a bullet from occipital area of the brain of deceased Rajbir; and (v) Opinion of the Ballistic Expert (Ext. P -12) that the country -made bullet (chambered for .315" & .303" caliber firearms) had been fired from the country -made pistol (chambered for .315 & .303 cartridges) recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused and not from any other firearm. Trial court as well as the High Court held that the above circumstances are proved by the prosecution and that they form a complete chain establishing guilt of the accused resulting in conviction of the Appellant. While doing so, trial court relied upon the Forensic Science Laboratory Report (FSL) (Ex P -12) as a vital piece of evidence against the Appellant. The High Court also relied upon FSL report as a material evidence to sustain the conviction of the Appellant.;