S. S. BYAS, J. - (1.) SINCE both these appeals are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar dated September 29, 1984, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. By the impugned judgement, the four appellants Sukhasingh alias Sukhpalsingh, Jaskaran Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Satpal Singh were convicted under sections 302/34 and 364/34. I. P. C. and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 400/- on the first count and five year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- on the second count. Accused Sukhasingh alias Sukhpalsingh was also convicted, by the same judgment, under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/ -. The accused have come-up in appeals and challenge their convictions.
(2.) THE prosecution case is short and simple and may be summarised as under. PW 1 Balbirsingh and PW 2 Jogendra Singh Jat-Sikha are real brothers. THE deceased-victim Sarvajeetsingh, aged about 22 years at the time of his murder, was the son of PW 2 Jogendra Singh. THEy all resided in village Moha-llah P. S. Kesharsinghpura district Sri Ganganagar. Nearly ten/twelve days before the incident, a quarrel took place between the deceased Sarvajeetsingh and the accused Sukhasingh. It is alleged, that on account of this quarrel, accused Sukhasingh harboured an ill-will against Sarvajeetsingh. Accused Jaskaransingh, Satpalsingh and Gurucharansingh are the close relatives of accused Sukhasingh. At about 9. 30 p. m. on March 8, 1984, Sarvajeetsingh was going to his house from the house of PW 1 Balbirsingh. THE four accused persons were standing on the main gate of the house of accused Sukhasingh, shown by mark '2' in site plan Ex. P 3. When Sarvajeetsingh happened to pass out-side this gate, the four accused persons forcibly caught hold of him and took him in the house of accused Sukha Singh. THEy closed the shutters of the main gate. PW 1 Balbirsingh, who was standing a few feet away at the end of the street, immediately rushed to the house of Jogendra Singh (PW 2) and informed him as to what he had seen. Balbirsingh (PW 1) and Jogendra Singh (PW 2) came running to the house of accused Sukhasingh and raised cries to open the gate. THE gate was not opened. Both the brothers thereafter rushed to the house of Balbir Singh (PW 1), where they found their another brother Gurudeosingh. THE three brothers went on the roof of their Kotha, THE roof of this Kotha is contiguous to the house of accused Sukhpalsingh. THEy saw that accused Sukhasingh had a D. B. B. L. 12-bore gun, Gurucharansingh had a Gandasa while Satpalsingh and Jaskaransingh had lathis. THEy were inflicting blows with their weapons to Sarvajeet Singh at the place shown as Darwaja by digit '4' in site plan Ex. P 3. THEre was electric light there. THE three brothers implored the accused persons not to beat Sarvajeetsingh, but their request fell on the deaf ears. THE accused persons continued to strike blows to Sarvajeetsingh. Sarvajeetsingh fell down. Accused Sukhasingh fired his gun at Sarvajeetsingh which hit him on his head. Sarvajeetsingh passed away instantaneously on the spot. THE culprits threat-ended the three brothers that in the case they tried to come down from the roof, they would also be shot dead. THE three brothers came down and went to their 4th brother Rajendra Singh (PW 6 ). THEy narrated the incident to him. Rajendra Singh wrote report Ex. P I containing the facts stated to him by Balbirsingh. Jogendrasingh (PW2) and Rajendra Singh (PW 6) went to police Station, Kesarsinghpura and presented report Ex. P 3 at about 11. 45 p. m. on the same day. THE police registered a case under sections 302/34, I. P. C. and under section 27 of the Arms Act. THE investigation was taken up. THE S. H. O. Mohan Lal (PW 10) arrived on the scene of the occurrence in the morning on March 9, 1984. He inspected the site and prepared the site plan. He also prepared the inquest report of the victim's dead-body. THE post-mortem examination on the victim's dead-body was conducted at about 11. 30 A. M by PW 5 Dr. Jaswant Singh - the then Medical Officer Incharge, Government Hospital, Kesarsinghpura. THE doctor noticed the following ante-mortem injuries on the victim's dead-body: - (1 ). Incised wound 4" x 1/2" bone deep just above the right over brew. (2), Lacerated wound 4" x \" x bone deep 2" above the injury No. 1. (3 ). Lacerated wound with blackening and charring and singing of the hair of size 4" x. 4" wound containing brain matter which was badly injured and was coming out from the wound on the right side of face, in front and behind and above right ear, with multiple fractures of the skull bones were shattered into small pieces. Multiple pellets and cork pieces were removed from various parts of the skull cavity and brain metier pellets and all pieces were sealed and handed over to the police, (4 ). Contusion 3" x 1" right mid axillary line. (5 ). Contusion 5" x 1/2" on the right thigh. (6 ). Contusion 1-1/2" x 1/2" on the right leg 5" from the right knee joint. (7 ). Contusion \" x 1/2" on the knee joint. (8 ). Contusion 1" x 1/2" on the right leg 5" thigh, middle mallodus. (9 ). Contusion 4" x 1" on the lateral side of the right thigh. (10 ). Contusion 4" x 1/2" on the left leg in front. (11 ). Contusion 2" x 1/2" on the left tibia tuberosity. (12 ). Lacerated wound with fracture of the shin of left libiar of 1 x 1/2" x bone deep 3" below from the injury No. 11. (13 ). Contusion 2" x 1/2" on the left thigh. (14 ). Contusion 5" x 1" on the back of chest left side. (15 ). Lacerated wound of the left pinna. (16 ). Contusion 1" x 1/2" on the left fore-arm. (17 ). Contusion 1/2" x 1/2" on the back of left elbow joint. (18 ). Abrasion 1" x 1/2" on the left arm. In the opinion of Dr. Jaswant Singh, the cause of death was gun-shot causing injury to brain matter and multiple fractures of the skull alongwith multiple injuries sustained all over the body, leading to haemorrhage and shock and death. Injury No. 3, which was a gun-shot one, was stated to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post-mortem report prepared by Dr. Jaswant Singh in EX. P. 7. The doctor detected six pieces of cardboard and ten pellets lodged in the brain and skull of the deceased Sarvajeet Singh. He took them out, seized them and sent the sealed packet to the investigating officer. The blood-stained clothes of the deceased were seized and sealed. Blood - stained soil was also lifted and sealed. Accused Sukhasingh and Gurucharan Singh were arrested on March 11, 1984, accused Satpalsingh and Jaskaran Singh were arrested on March 18, 1984. In consequence of the informations furnished by them, one D. B. B. L. gun (Article 1) with a spent cartridge in one of its barrels and some live cartridges and lathis were recovered. The gun, the cartridges, card-board pieces, pellets etc. were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. The report received from there is EX. P. 39. As per report EX. P. 39 gun (Article 1) was found in working order; the cartridge found in its barrel was found to have been fired through the left barrel and the card-board pieces and the pellets were opined to have been fired through the gun (Article 1 ). On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a crime report against the four accused, viz. , Sukhasingh alias Sukhpalsingh, Jaskaran Singh, Gurucharan Singh and Satpalsingh in the Court of the Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The case came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who framed charges under sections 364/34 and 302/34, I. P. C. against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no witness was examined. All of them pleaded alibi. A suggestion was, however, thrown to the eye witnesses PW 1 Balbir Singh and PW 2 Jogendra Singh that accused Sukhasingh has a sister Simarjeet Kaur by name. She was an unmarried girl of 18/19 years of age at the time of the incident, her father Hazoorsingh and brothers Dharampalsingh and Sukhasingh had gone to Kesar-singhpura to sell their cotton crop. Taking advantage of their absence, Sarvajeet Singh surreptitiously entered their house to lay hands on Simarjeet Kaur. He confined himself in the garage, shown by digit '6" in site plan EX. P. 3. After some-time, he was detected by their servant Jarnailsingh. It was Jarnail-Singh, who inflicted injuries to Sarvajeet Singh with lathi and Gandasa and thereafter fired his gun at him. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the testimony of PW 1 Balbirsingh and PW 2 Jogendra Singh and treated them as witnesses of truth. On the strength of what they testified, the learned Sessions Judge found the charges duly brought home to the accused. The accused were convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. Mr. Mulla did not challenge the opinion of Dr. Jaswant Singh (PW 5) about the number and nature of the injuries found on the victim's dead-body and the cause of his death. We, therefore, need not touch the testimony of Dr. Jaswant Singh. Suffice it to say that the death of Sarvajeet Singh was homicidal and not natural. His death was caused by gun-shot. In order to properly appreciate the contentions raised by Mr. Mulla, it would be useful first to have a look at the location where the incident took place as depicted in site plan EX. P 3 and site inspection note EX. P. 3a. The site plan EX. P 3 shows that there is a garage shown by digit '6'. It had no doors. The turban and the shoes of the victim Sarvajeet Singh were shown glyin outside this garage. Blood was also found out side the garage. The incident had taken place at the place shown by Darwaja and digit '4' in site plan EX. P 3. The deadbody of the victim was found at place 'b' in this Darwaja. Contiguous in the North of the accused's house is situate the house of PW 1 Balbirsingh. The roof of the house of Balbirsingh has been shown in it by digit '15'. Balbirsingh (PW 1) claimed that when Sarvajeet Singh was over-powered and forcibly taken in the house of accused Sukhasing, he (witness) was standing at the end of the street at the place shown by mark I. EX. P 3 shows that the main gate of the house of accused Sukhasingh faces East. It has been shown by digit '2' in EX. P3.
(3.) WE may reiterate that the fate of the case looms largely, rather completely, on the testimony of PW 1 Balbirsingh and PW 2 Jogendra Singh. Their testimony was found reliable and dependable by the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the appellants. In impeaching the conviction, it was strenuously contended by Mr. Mulla that the Court below was in error in treating PW 1 Balbirsingh and PW 2 Jogendra Singh as witnesses of truth He has taken us through the evidence of these two witnesses and subscribed a multitude of reasons to show that the claim of these two witnesses to have seen the incident is a blatant lie. Now, the incident has two parts, namely, (1) the deceased victim, while he was going to his house and happened to pass out-side the main gate of the house of accused Sukhasingh, was pounced over, over-powered and forcibly taken in the house and (2) the appellants thereafter struck blows to him and one of them fired his gun at him. The first part of the incident is closely knitted with the second. In other words, the first part is the integral part of the second. ;