- (1.) The sole appellant Laljit Singh (Original accused No. 1) was tried along with three others for offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 27, 29 and 30 of the Arms Act. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the other three accused hut convicted the appellant u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He was further convicted u/s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo seven years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 in default of payment of which to further undergo six months' R.I. He was, however, acquitted of the offences punishable under the provisions of the Arms Act. He preferred an appeal and the High Court dismissed the same. Hence the present appeal.
(2.) The prosecution case is as follows: In respect of picking of Narma in the village, there was enmity between the accused and the deceased. On 27.12.1977 at about 7.30 P.M. Laljit Singh, the appellant armed with a gun belonging to his father Karnail Singh accompanied with Mukand Singh and Jagrup Singh, the other accused, came in the village Sath and started abusing. In the meanwhile the deceased Jagir Singh alongwith P.Ws. 2 to 6 came there. The deceased asked the accused not to abuse. Thereupon Mukand Singh and Jagrup Singh (original accused Nos. 2 and 3) exhorted Laljit Singh to teach them a lesson for demanding more charges for harvesting Narma, upon which Laljit Singh appellant fired at Jagir Singh, who fell down and died. Laljit Singh also fired thrice causing injuries to P.Ws. 2 to 6. Thereafter the accused party left towards the house of Laljit Singh appellant. P.W. 15, the Chowkidar, arrived there and P.W. 2 narrated the occurrence to him and a report was given in the Police Station. P.W. 21, A.S.I, came to the spot, held the inquest and sent the injured to the hospital. The dead body was also sent for postmortem. The Doctor, who conducted the postmortem, found fire-arm injuries on the deceased and opined that he died because of those injuries. He also examined P.Ws. 2 to 6 and found on all of them fire-arm injuries. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. During the investigation the gun was also seized. When examined u/s. 313 of the Indian Penal Code the accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty. The trial court relying on the evidence of the eyewitnesses convicted Laljit Singh and acquitted others since they did not participate in the occurrence as such. The High Court also after having examined the evidence of the eye-witnesses agreed with the trial court.
(3.) Shri Kohli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though there are injured witnesses, they are all interested and their evidence has not been relied upon in respect of the other three accused and that the investigation in the case has been highly unsatisfactory and one-sided and the acquittal of the accused under the Arms Act would go to show that the prosecution case that the appellant used gun of his father, is falsified. Learned counsel also submitted that it was a dark night when the occurrence took place and the firing is said to have taken place from behind the bricks that were stacked upto 3 feet height and the witnesses could not have identified as to who the culprit was.;