KAPUR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the three accused appellants, namely, Saddiq, Ayub and Nasru, who have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1 Alwar, by his judgment dated 3rd Dec. 1987 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. They were tried for the offences under Sections 148,307,379,302,302/149 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. The accused appellants were acquitted for the offences under Sections 148, 307, 379 IPC and Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act. Along with the appellants five other persons were also tried for all the offences but as the case against them was not proved they were acquitted.
(2.) THE appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each and against this they have preferred this appeal. The manner in which the incident took place may be looked into. It may be stated that three persons died as a result of gun shots and these persons are, Sherkhan, Mst. Hanna and Mst. Nijri, while one Amar Singh received gun shot injuries. It cannot be said that the incident was one in which all these persons received injuries, hence it is to be seen how and where the incident in respect of the injured and the deceased persons took place. On 9th Jan. 1986 one constable of Police Station Laxmangarh came to know that there was firing in the hills of Salampur. Hence he came to the police station Laxmangarh, made an entry in the Rojnamcha and the SHO Ramswaroop, proceeded towards the site. There he met the injured Amarsingh and he recorded his parchabayan and on the basis of this the FIR was registered. The story as given out by Amarsingh is that he was transporting stones from the Salampur Hills in his tractor and at about 8. 00 in the morning he was coming down from the mines with his tractor. In his tractor were Malkhan and Chatru. Another tractor of Roshan was also coming along with his tractor, and Rahmat and Heera were in that tractor along with Roshan. While they were coming down the Hills there was firing from behind and at first he thought that the ture had burst. Then he turned around and saw Ayub, Saddiq, Saffi, Yakub and Leela were firing with 12 bore guns, katta, and topidar guns at them. Some pellets hit him on the back, then he fell down and saved himself. He was taken to the room of Nikka Member and the accused could not trace him there. He further stated that he learnt that in his village Nijri, Sherkhan and Hanna, who belonged to the same family had also been murdered. How the incident occurred in respect of these three deceased persons was not known to him and the details about the same were not disclosed to the SHO on 9. 1. 1986 when the incident took place. During investigation, the dead-bodies of Nijri, Hanna and Sherkhan were recovered, panchayatnamas and site plan were prepared and postmortem on the bodies was conducted. Blood stained earth was collected from three sites. Amar Singh was sent for treatment. From the site where Amarsingh was attacked two empty catridges of twelve bore gun were recovered. The accused persons were arrested and different weapons were recovered on the basis of information given by them. These weapons were sent to the Forensic Lab for tests etc. and then challan was presented before the Court. During investigation, it was found that in the year 1984 the family of Amarsingh had killed six persons in the family of the accused and a case under section 302 IPC and other offences was pending against 16 persons. Out of them 13 persons were released on bail and this caused dis-satisfaction in the minds of the accused and they committed murder of three persons and injured Amarsingh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence produced before him did not believe the statements of Amarsingh and other witnesses in respect of the incident which took place in the Hills of Salampur, in which Amarsingh was injured. Amar Singh had pellet injuries and on X-ray several radio opoque substances were found in the chest and abdomen but the witnesses in respect of this incident were not believed, as there were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. It is not necessary to look into this part of the evidence as the appeal filed by the State against the five persons who have been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Alwar being D. B. Cr. Appeal No. 350 of 1988, was dismissed by this Court on 22nd Sept. 1988 for non-prosecution. We can come to the murders of Mst. Hanna, Mst. Nijri and Sherkhan and look to the witnesses who have been examined to prove this part of the incident.
(3.) THE post mortem of these three deceased persons showed the following position: * Thus it will be seen that Nijri died as a result of one gun shot wound, which left an entry and exit mark on the parietal region. It can be said that two or three bullets hit Sherkhan, which caused his death and two bullets hit Mst. Hanna, as a result of which she died. It may be said here that all the three deceased were not found dead at the same place and how they came to be shot by guns will have to be seen from the evidence of the witnesses PW. 4 Basan, PW. 5 Aseen, PW. 6 Roojdar PW. 7 Sheosingh and PW. 8 Asarkhan. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that all the witnesses are interested witnesses as they are relatives of the deceased and all of them are on inimical terms with the accused party. It is also contended that the witnesses have been dis-believed for some purpose, but still they have been believed as far as three appellants and their role is concerned and this cannot be said to be correct. According to him the evidence is of similar nature and when there are several contradictions and omissions then the witnesses should not be believed in respect of some accused. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the murders took place at some other place where there were no witnesses and now efforts have been made to shift the scene near village and produce the eye witnesses. With these arguments in the background we may look at the evidence in the case. ;