S.K. Gupta, J.
1. Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu by his judgment dated 31-01-1994 held the appellants guilty of committing murder of one Chanan Singh at village Nadi and sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life in proof of offences under Sections 302/34 RPC and fine of Rs. 2,000/- on the first count and in default of which, they will undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, and on the second count, for the offences under Sections 3/25 Arms Act, appellant Tarseem Lal is sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, for offences under Sections 4/27 Arms Act; Garoo Ram to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in proof of offences under Sections 4/27 Arms Act and Hadi Ram, for offences under Sections 4/27 Arms Act, to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine imposed, each accused to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment for their respective fine, with a further order to run subsequent sentences concurrently.
2. The anchor sheet of the prosecution case enumerated from the record, in nutshell, is that Qabal Ram lodged a verbal report with the Police Station, R.S. Pura, to the effect that on 7th March, 1990 at 9.00 a.m., when Chanan Singh son of Ram Singh alongwith his wife was cutting Shatala grass in his land at village Nadi, all the four accused, namely, Tarseem Lal, Garoo Ram, Hadi Ram and Jagga, armed with gun, pistol and sharp-edged weapons, made a 'Lalkara' and fired a shot at Chanan Singh. In order to save his life, Chanan Singh when tried to run away, the accused chased him. The complainant was also cutting Shatala in his own field and on hearing gunshots, he got attracted to that side. The deceased, Chanan Singh, fell down in the land of Surat Singh and accused also reached there and chopped off the arms of the deceased and also fired shots and killed Chanan Singh on spot. Mst. Garo Devi cutting Shatala in her field from a short distance from the place of occurrence had also seen the incident. The complainant Qabal Ram also stated to have heard four gunshots. The accused after causing the murder of the deceased fled away towards village Khapar. The murder of the deceased is stated to have been committed by the accused on the basis of long drawn enmity, as the accused earlier had also chopped off the legs and arms of the deceased's brother, Amrik Singh. The complainant further reported to the police that Beeru Devi wife of Lal Chand had met him yesterday and informed that Chanan Singh will be murdered within 2/3 days. On the report of Qabal Ram, complainant, a complaint under Sections 302/120B/149 RPC and 3/25 and 4/27 Arms Act stood registered with Police Station, R.S. Pura, and investigation ensued. The police took possession of the dead body of the deceased and sent for post-mortem examination.
3. On the arrest of the accused, the weapons of offence used in committing the murder of the deceased were also discovered on their discibre statements made in custody during interrogation. On the conclusion of investigation, accused were sent up for trial for offences under Sections 302/34 RPC and 3/25 and 4/27 Arms Act. The trial court after the frame of the charge and examining the witnesses produced by the prosecution and hearing the parties, held the accused guilty and convicted them accordingly.
3. We have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. B.L. Kalgotra, appellants' counsel, as well as Mr. B.S. Salathia, Additional Advocate General, in extenso. A minute examination of the facts on file has also been made.
4. Mr. B.L. Kalgotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has challenged the findings of the trial court on variety of grounds. Mr. Kalgotra submitted that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective, the witnesses examined in the case are related to the deceased, their evidence is interested, smack of partisanship and, thus, cannot be made the basis of conviction of the appellants without independent corroboration. The evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses does not find support in the medical testimony having totally ruled out any gunshot injuries found on the person of the deceased at the time of examination. Even PW Garo Devi, by swearing an affidavit, had disowned her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. prior to her examination in the Court. All these material facts when taken together, according to Mr. Kalgotra, would entail to the acquittal of the accused. Whereas Mr. B.S. Salathia, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, vehemently urged that the evidence provided by the eyewitnesses of the occurrence fully supported by the medical evidence as regards the nature of injuries, weapons used and the place of causing such injuries and further other incriminating circumstances clearly established that the accused had caused the murder of the deceased on the fateful day, beyond any pale of doubt. Their evidence is qualitatively and quantitatively sufficient and satisfactory to inspire confidence in the Court.
5. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses of whom PWs Garo Devi, Samiter Kour and Qabal Ram claimed to be the eyewitnesses. The memoranda of disclosure statements of various accused persons prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act during investigation and the recoveries of various incriminating articles made pursuant thereto were also relied upon to bring home the guilt of the accused.
6. The evidence provided by PW Garo Devi, an eyewitness of the occurrence, is to the effect that she was cutting Shatala at 9.00 a.m. in her field when heard the sound of gunshot and saw Chanan Singh running towards her. The accused present in the Court were chasing deceased Chanan Singh. She further stated that Chanan Singh received a gunshot injury caused by the accused and fell down when he was still at some distance from her. The accused also reached there, chopped off his arms and caused injuries on his legs. She further stated that Qabal Ram, complainant, and Samiter Kour, wife of the deceased, were present at the time of occurrence. The accused after causing death of deceased Chanan Singh on spot, fled away. The report of the occurrence was lodged by PW Qabal Ram with Police Station. She further affirmed in her cross-examination that the deceased and his wife had gone to their field in the morning for cutting Shatala. The accused had caused injuries to the deceased when the latter fell down in the land of Jaswant Singh. She, however, could not say as to which accused fired a gunshot at the deceased and who had chopped off the arms of the deceased and inflicted injuries on his legs, since all the accused were giving the blows with the weapons in their possession. She also stated that when Qabal Ram proceeded to the Police Station to lodge the report, Samiter Kour remained with the dead body of the deceased. She also left for home, which was about 5-7 yards from the place of occurrence and nobody met her on the way. The villagers were already informed about the occurrence by PW Qabal Ram and about 200 people from the village proceeded towards the place of incident. The police arrived at the place of occurrence and also recorded her statement and that of Samiter Kour and Qabal Ram. She also informed about the occurrence to her husband, Mukhtar Singh when reached home. The contents of the affidavit bearing his signatures were not read over to her by the scribe and she was asked only to put her thumb impression. Therefore, she did not know what was written in the affidavit, but emphasized that whatever statement she has made in the Court is true. Her statement is further corroborated by the evidence of PW widow Samiter Kour, another eyewitness of the occurrence. She affirmed in her evidence to have gone alongwith her husband to cut and fetch Shatala grass from the land in the morning on the fateful day, while they were engaged in cutting Shatala, the accused had arrived there and made a 'Lalkara' on hearing which, her husband ran for safety, but accused fired two shorts and chased him. As soon as Chanan Singh reached in the field of Surat Singh, he was hit by a gunshot by the accused in his leg and fell down. The accused also fired another gunshot on his head.
7. The accused severed the arms of her husband, deceased Chanan Singh, and inflicted several injuries on his legs. The occurrence was also witnessed by Qabal Ram and Garo Devi, who were also cutting Shatala in their fields at a short distance. Chanan Singh could not withstand injuries and died on the spot. She further stated that Jagga and Tarseem Lal were armed with pistols, whereas Garoo Ram and Hadi had parthes in their possession. After causing the death of the deceased, Chanan Singh, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. The report was lodged by PW Qabal Ram with Police Station, R.S. Pura. It is also in the evidence of this witness that the accused had murdered the brother of the deceased, Amrik Singh, about a year ago. The wrist watch and Rs. 700/- of the deceased were removed by Jagga accused while fleeing away from the spot. When the people from the village assembled on spot, she did not tell them about the incident nor they enquired from her, as she was in state of shock. However, she refuted, when suggested, referring to the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that Qabal Ram was her relation. She further made it clear that the accused on reaching their land when fired a shot, Qabal Ram was present there and seen the occurrence. She also denied PW Qabal Ram to be her relation.
8. Another eyewitness to the occurrence is Qabal Ram, PW, who lodged the complaint about the occurrence with the Police Station, R.S. Pura. He further corroborated the statements of two eyewitnesses, who deposed about the occurrence. Qabal Ram stated to have gone to his land to cut Shatala in the morning about 11/2 year ago. He had also seen the deceased alongwith wife cutting Shatala grass in the land. On hearing the sound of a gunshot and the cries, he looked towards that side and saw the deceased running chased by the accused, who were firing at the deceased. The deceased fell down in the land of Surat Singh. Garo Devi was also cutting Shatala in her adjoining land. The witness further stated to have seen the accused causing injuries on deceased with toka, khokhris and parthis. The accused also fired a shot on the deceased and when the latter died, the accused took to their heels. He proceeded to the Police Station when asked by Samiter Kour to lodge a report about the occurrence. He admitted the contents of the FIR, EXPW-KR. The police accompanied him to the place of occurrence and seized the dead body of the deceased vide EXPW-KR/1. The police also seized five empty cartridges vide seizure memo EXPW-KR/2; stained and unstained earth vide EXPW-KR/4 and EXPW-KR/3 respectively, which have been marginally attested by him. His statement was also recorded by the police on spot. It is also in his evidence that the accused had animosity with the deceased. The eyewitness has also denied having any relation with the deceased or PW Garo Devi. The complainant, however, in his cross-examination admitted to have given the names of seven persons in the FIR, which included the names of Rattan Lal, Billa Ram and Bhola, besides the accused. He, however, denied when suggested to have told to the police that all the seven persons armed with tokas arrived at the spot and inflicted the injuries to the deceased. He had, in fact, named four accused persons in the FIR. He also stated that the accused about seven months ago had also severed arms and legs of the brother of the deceased by inflicting injuries. Further evidence of the witness is that a day before the occurrence, Beero Devi wife of Lal Chand Sansi had told him to convey to Chanan Singh to prepare for his last rites, as he will be done to death within two days, as the brother of the deceased had cut the legs and arms of her husband and they will avenge for it. It is further clarified that he had given the names of three other persons, besides the accused in the FIR on the grounds of suspicion and, as a matter of fact, the accused facing trial are the actual persons, who had caused the murder of the deceased. When the deceased was running for safety, he could not say as to which of the accused fired a gunshot at the deceased. According to the witness, the deceased received gunshot on his head. He also stated to have told the police that only Jagga was armed with pistol.
9. While assessing and evaluating the evidence of eyewitnesses, two principles to be adhered by the Court are whether in the circumstances of the case, it was possible for the eyewitnesses to be present at the scene of occurrence and whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable. Credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by referring to his evidence and finding out how he has fared in cross-examination and what impression is gathered in his cross-examination taken in other context of the case. On scrutinizing the evidence of PWs Garo Devi, Samiter Kour and Qabal Ram, we find that there are consistent with one another so far as the place of occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapons of assault used by the accused persons, the place of their infliction and nothing has been brought out in their pungent cross-examination to impeach their testimony. Therefore, there is nothing unusual found in their testimony to brand it either tainted or smack of partisanship. Both the PWs, Garo Devi and Qabal Ram, have emphatically denied in their respective evidence, when suggested, to have any relation with the deceased. Their evidence with regard to the genesis of the occurrence is cogent, consistent and has impressed us as trustworthy. Their evidence has remained unshaken in their cross-examination and nothing has been pointed out which may in any manner discredit their testimony simply on the score that the deceased was related to the eyewitnesses or their testimonies do not deserve to be discarded because the testimony of the eyewitnesses was otherwise convincing and the same also stood corroborated by other facts established by the prosecution. No material contradiction had been brought out to doubt the veracity of Qabal Ram except stating that he had given the names of seven accused in the FIR, but the actual four accused facing the trial are the real culprits. In this context, it may be pointed out that the witness has extended a plausible and cogent explanation that since he found these persons standing quite away from the place of occurrence and suspected them to be involved in the murder of the deceased. The evidence of eyewitness, if accepted, is sufficient to warrant conviction, though in appropriate cases the Court may, as a measure of caution, seek some confirming circumstances from other sources. But ordinarily, the evidence of truthful eyewitness is sufficient without anything more, to warrant a conviction and cannot, for instance, be made to depend for its acceptance on the truthfulness of other items of evidence such as recovery of weapons, etc. at the instance of the accused by the Police.
10. PW Samiter Kour is the wife of the deceased and accompanied him for cutting Shatala in his land in the morning when the occurrence took place. She is a natural and truthful witness as nothing has been suggested to her in her cross-examination to cast a doubt and suspicion with regard to her presence on spot at the relevant time. Her evidence is fully corroborated in all material particulars by the evidence of PW Mst. Garo Devi and Qabal Ram, who also happened to be there in their fields cutting Shatala nearby.
11. As regard the first contention raised by Mr. Kalgotra that eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution are related to the deceased, their evidence is interested and cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration and he also having pointed out that PW Garo Devi in her evidence has categorically stated that Qabal Ram is the son of the brother of the deceased, it is apt to point out that both the PWs, Qabal Ram and Samiter Kour, have denied to have any relation, in their respective evidence. So, this discrepancy cannot be said to be on a material point in material particulars being of inconsequential nature. This is quite at the most be an omission to which much importance cannot be given, particularly, when it has been established in their unimpeachable evidence that it were the accused and accused alone who have caused the murder of the deceased in a broad day light. These eyewitnesses were subjected to grilling cross-examination and the defence has not been able to spin out any infirmity or discrepancy so as to render their testimony as unworthy of reliance. Discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the eyewitnesses, cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so, when important probabilities- factor echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses. Some discrepancies of minor nature are generally found in the case of honest witnesses and unless they are material, they need not necessarily be believed. Assuming but not admitting that the witnesses are related to each other, as pointed out by Qabal Ram and Samiter Kour that they are related to each other, and as is argued by the appellants' counsel, Mr. Kalgotra, it is now settled position of law that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against innocent persons. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication has been made.
12. The plea that some of the witnesses were related to the victim's family is no ground to reject their evidence as untrustworthy. What is expected of the Court is to analyse and scrutinize the same with due care and caution before accepting or acting upon the same. The evidence, in each case, has to be considered from the point of trustworthiness and from the angle as to whether it inspires confidence in the mind of the Court to accept and the question of credibility and reliability of a witness has to be decided with reference to the way he fared in cross-examination and the nature of impression created in the mind of the Court. There is no such universal rule as to warrant rejection of the evidence of a witness merely because he or she was related to or interested in the parties on either side. In such cases if the presence of such a witness at the time of occurrence is proved to be natural and the evidence tendered by such witness is found in the light of surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case to be true, it can provide a good and sound basis for conviction of the accused. The related witnesses, therefore, cannot be dubbed as interested so as to corrode the credibility of a party's case. In Tapubha Bhagvanji v. State of Gujarat, 2002 AIR SCW 3165, the Apex Court in considering the evidence of the related witnesses, held as under:
'The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are witnesses who in normal course of events are expected to know about the incident. Their depositions do not reveal any good reason for rejecting their evidence as untrustworthy or unreliable. Nothing has been brought on record either in cross-examination of the witnesses concerned or in any other evidence to show any good reason as to why they should falsely implicate the accused in the case. Thus rejection of their testimony on ground that they are interested witnesses being in relation of deceased, not proper.'
13. In view of the ratio of the above decision of the Apex Court, the contention raised by Mr. Kalgotra that the witnesses are related and their evidence is interested, cannot be a ground or reason to reject and ignore the evidence of the witnesses when otherwise found reliable and trustworthy. Nothing infirm is elicited to cast doubt on their veracity.
14. It was next contended by the appellants' counsel that the evidence of Garo Devi, in view of the affidavit sworn by her disowning her statement made under Section 161 Cr.PC before her examination at the trial, renders her evidence unbelievable and unreliable, and deserves to be discarded. PW Mst. Garo Devi, in her evidence, has explained the manner in which the affidavit was obtained from her. She deposed that being an illiterate lady, she was forced to put her thumb impression on the paper and the contents scribed were never read over to her. She has denied the contents of the affidavit, when suggested, and stated that whatever has been deposed by her in the Court is true and correct. Presence of this witness at the time of occurrence is proved and corroborated in the testimony of PWs Qabal Ram and Samiter Kour, who had also seen the occurrence. Nothing was suggested in her cross-examination by the prosecution to doubt her presence at the place of occurrence on the fateful day. The alleged affidavit having not been sworn out of her free will cannot be annexed with due importance, particularly, when she justified in her evidence that the statement made before the Court on oath is true. Therefore, the natural testimony of Garo Devi cannot be whittled down merely because she has sworn an affidavit denying the statement under Section 161 Cr.PC, which otherwise has no evidentiary value after her evidence is recorded in the Court. Therefore, this contention of the appellants' counsel, in our view, has neither any substance nor any legal force.
15. Another leg of argument of Mr. Kalgotra is that Samiter Kour did not narrate the occurrence to anybody when the villagers came on spot, which rules out her presence at the time of occurrence. PW Samiter Kour in her evidence has unambiguously stated that she was sitting by the side of the deceased after death and was in immense shock. Neither the villagers asked her about the murder nor she narrated to them. This plea is otherwise of no avail to the appellants, when it has come on record that PW Qabal Ram had informed about the occurrence to the villagers. Nothing was required to be enquired from PW Samiter Kour as to in which manner the occurrence had taken place. It is otherwise not expected from a wife, who is in great agony and shock from the death of her husband and sitting by the side of dead body, to narrate the woeful tale of the deceased husband to every body. Presence of Samiter Devi at the site of occurrence also finds place in the evidence of ocular testimony of Qabal Ram and Garo Devi, PWs. Besides, the FIR was lodged immediately after the occurrence and names of eye witnesses also find place in this FIR. Evidence is to be tested for its inherent consistency and inherent probability of prosecution story. Account of eyewitnesses having been found trustworthy and credible and fully established that it were the accused and accused alone, who had caused the murder of the deceased, we have no reason to disbelieve them on any count, when their evidence is in conformity with the FIR regarding the occurrence. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is also devoid of any substance and, thus, cannot be accepted.
16. Coming to the other corroborative evidence is the post mortem report provided in the evidence of Dr. C.N. Manwati, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries:
1. Incised wound 2' long, gaping about 1/2' deep with cut of the bone of ear.
2. One lacerated wound 6' long, 4' wide with extensive laceratrin of skin, muscles and fracture of both bones into pieces, in left leg upper third outer side.
3. Incised wound 2' long horizontal, 1/2 cm deep on right leg inner side lower third.
4. Incised wound 4' long, 1/2 cm deep on lower part of lower leg.
5. Incised wound 4' long, 1' deep with fracture of bone on the fort obliquely placed right side on its dorsum.
6. Small incision in front right by below the knee joint.
7. Right arm is amputated 3' below tip of shoulder, the edges of wound are clear cut.
8. Left arm amputated 4' below the tip of shoulder.
9. Incised wound 6' long, 1' deep obliquely on the right humber region.
17. In the opinion of the doctor, the death has been caused due to excessive haemorrhage and his certificate is marked as EXPW-CL. It is also in the evidence of Dr. Manwati that three weapons were shown to him and after examining the weapons shown to him by the police, he opined that the injuries described in the certificate could have been caused by these weapons and a certificate issued in this behalf is under his handwriting and bears his signatures (marked as EXPW-CL). He also stated that two 'darats', known as parthis, and one toka shown to him in the Court were the same, which were produced before him by the police during investigation for opinion. Doctor further stated that all the injuries taken collectively are sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. So the medical evidence fully supported the ocular testimony of the eyewitnesses with regard to the injuries found on the deceased. The eyewitnesses have stated with oneness that the deceased fell down in the land of Surat Singh and all the accused started chopping with the weapons like tokas and parthis to the deceased, as a result of which, he died on spot. Both the arms of the deceased were chopped off and multiple injuries were found on his legs.
18. Mr. Kalgotra, appellants' counsel, contended that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was not in accord with the medical testimony, as the post mortem report does not describe any gunshot injuries found on the body of the deceased at the time of examination. His further submission is that there is a conflict between the medical evidence and ocular testimony, which renders the entire prosecution case unbelievable and unacceptable. It is not in dispute that the doctor has nowhere mentioned in the post mortem report or in his evidence about the gunshot injuries found on the deceased at the time of examination. But, however, Investigating Officer, PW Lekh Raj Wazir found five empty cartridges lying scattered and seized from the place of occurrence. He has also indicated in the site plan the place from where the empty cartridges were recovered. 12 bore pistols recovered on the disclosure statements of PW Tarseem Lal and Jagga and seized vide seizure memos EXPS-LR/4 and LR-17, were sent to Forensic Sciences Laboratory for examination and report. The bullets were found fired through the pistols prior to its receipt in the Laboratory, is the opinion of the Scientific Officer. The evidence provided by the eyewitnesses that the accused fired gunshots at the deceased while the latter was running to save himself appears to be probable in view of the clear and unambiguous report of the Scientific officer, FSL, Jammu.
19. The doctor's evidence is only in the nature of opinion. Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. It is significant to point out that medical evidence can hardly be relied upon to falsify the evidence of the eyewitnesses because, the medical evidence is guided by various factors based on guess and certain calculations, as is held by the Apex Court in Manga Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Haryana, : 1979CriLJ939 .
20. In considering the value of the medical evidence, the Apex Court in case of Solanki v. State of Gujarat, : 1983CriLJ822 , observed as under:
'Ordinarily, the value of the medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses. Unless, however, the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye-witnesses, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.'
21. It has come in the evidence of the eyewitnesses that the accused had fired two gunshots at the deceased, but no such injury has been found in the medical certificate. In this context, it may be pointed out that the gunshots were fired at the deceased from a distance and these shots may or may not have hit the deceased and effective having fired from a long distance. The evidence of the eyewitnesses cannot be whittled down merely on the ground that there is some conflict between the evidence of the eyewitnesses and the medical testimony. It is the ocular testimony of the eyewitnesses, which has to be given credit and due weightage as against the medical testimony, which established the guilt of the accused beyond hilt. The contention raised by Mr. Kalgotra, appellants' counsel, therefore, has neither any force nor any substance to be accepted.
22. Prosecution case further finds support by other corroborative evidence, viz., the recovery of certain incriminating articles at the instance of accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The evidence provided by Investigating Officer, Lekh Raj Wazir, satisfactorily proved the discovery of pistols and dah on the disclosure statement made by Tarseem Lal vide EXPW-LR/3 and its recovery memos EXPW-LR/4 and EXPW-LR/5. Another pistol was discovered on the disclosure statement, EXPW-LR/8, of PW Jagga vide recovery memo EXPW-LR/9, made by Investigating Officer, Lekh Raj Wazir. Two parthis were discovered, one on the disclosure statement of Garo Ram and other on the disclosure statement of Hadi Ram, vide recovery memos EXPW-LR/13 and EXPW-LR/15, respectively. The evidence of the Investigating Officer, who discovered the incriminating material, viz., pistols, parthis, tokas and dah, is convincing and need not be rejected on the ground that the seizure witnesses have not been examined, and support to our view is found in case Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 SC 1511.
23. Dr. C.L. Manwati, who conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased, entered the injuries in his medical certificate and opined that the weapons, parthis and dah, shown to him could cause the injuries to deceased. Similarly, the country-made pistols too have been fired through prior to its receipt in the Laboratory and further the fired cartridges cases recovered and seized from the place of occurrence also fired from the said country-made pistols, is the opinion of the Director of Forensic Sciences Laboratory in his report dated 31-07-1990. All these incriminating circumstances further find corroboration to the ocular testimony of the eyewitnesses and to the medical evidence that the accused on account of previous enmity actuated by a common intention appeared in the field, where Chanan Singh alongwith his wife, Samiter Kour, was cutting Shatala on the morning of 7th March, 1990 at 9.00 a.m., armed with pistols and sharp edged weapons made 'Lalkara' to eliminate Chanan Singh deceased. The deceased when tried to run away to the place of safety, the accused chased him firing gunshots and when the former fell down in the land of Surat Singh, injuries were inflicted by the accused with sharp edged weapons, both his arms were amputated, as a result of which, the deceased died on spot. The nature of weapons used, nature of injuries caused, place of its infliction and the injuries caused has been fully corroborated in the evidence of eyewitnesses Garo Devi, Qabal Ram and Samiter Kour.
24. In our considered view, the Sessions Judge has committed no error while convicting the appellants, Tarseem Lal, Garoo Ram and Hadi Ram, for offences under Sections 302/34 RPC and 3/25 and 4/27 Arms Act, respectively.
25. On a careful concatenation of the facts and circumstances discussed above, the inevitable conclusion reached is that we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed. The order of conviction and consequently the sentence recorded by the trial court in respect of the appellants is upheld.
26. Both the appeals and the reference made by the learned second additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, are disposed of accordingly.
The accused/appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and they shall be taken in custody forthwith to serve the sentence awarded.