Kunj Bihari Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
indian penal code, 1860 - sections 302 and 302/34--indian evidence act, 1872--section 3--murder--evidence of eyewitnesses--minor discrepancies here and there--but no discrepancy or inconsistency touching core of prosecution case--witnesses being natural witnesses and members of family witnessed occurrence in the sahan of their house--testimony of informant fully corroborated by fardbeyan lodged by him within hours of the occurrence--injuries found on person of injured and deceased corroborates the prosecution case--two families were not on best of terms and their relationship was strained--no sufficient reason for discarding outright the case of prosecution supported by four eye-witnesses, one of them an injured witness--in view of direct evidence of eyewitnesses including as injured witness, non-examination of said witnesses did not in any manner affect the case of prosecution--omission of witnesses to notice on which part of body shots fired by appellants four in numbers hitting the injured, can hardly have any adverse effect on the case of prosecution--witnesses clearly stated who fired at whom--held, trial court rightly convicted and sentenced appellants. - - this witness has been cross-examined at length but counsel for the appellants could not point out anything in his cross-examination which would render this witness unreliable. the veracity of this witness has remained unchallenged, and we are prepared to place implicit reliance upon the testimony of this witness which is supported by other eye-witnesses as well. 15. counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for the commission of the crime. the fact remains that the two families were not on best of terms and their relationship was strained. the witnesses have clearly stated who fired at whom, but did not specify the part of the body where injury was caused by such firing. 1. these two appeals arise out of the judgment and order of the 9th additional sessions judge, rohtas at sasaram dated 1/22.6.1992. the appellants in cr. appeal no. 288 of 1992 are kunj bihari singh, anil singh and bikash singh while the appellants in cr. appeal no. 294 of 1992 are rajendra singh and nagendra singh. appellants rajendra singh and nagendra singh have been found guilty of the offence under section 302, i.p.c. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 2,000/- each and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. they have also been found guilty of the offence under section 27 of the arms act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each.2. appellants anil singh and kunj bihari singh have been convicted under section 302/34, i.p.c. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of rs. 2,000/- each and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. they have also been found guilty of the offence under section 307/34, i.p.c. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years each and to pay fine of rs. 1,000/- each and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. they have also been found guilty of the offence under section 27 of the arms act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each.3. appellant bikash singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302/34 i.p.c. and to pay a fine of rs. 2,000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. he has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years under section 107/34, lp.c. and to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/-, and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year all the sentences have been directed to run concurtently.4. the prosecution case is that an occurrence took place at about 7.00 p.m. on 14.4.1990 in the sahan of the informant, p.w. 6 in which it is alleged that the appellants came variously armed and as a result of the assault by them rajgrihi singh died while jitendra singh, p.w. 5 and chhatri singh received injuries. after the incident, the injured were taken to the hospital at bikramganj where rajgrihi singh was declared dead. at the said hospital the ferdbeyan of ram pravesh singh, p.w. 6 was recorded by k.p. orao, a.s.i, attached to the bikramganj police station at about 10.30 p.m. in the said ferdbeyan the informant, p.w. 6 stated that on the date of occurrence at about 7.00 p.m. he was on the terrace of his house along with his sistes's daughter, guddi and was collecting paddy. his uncle rajgrihi singh was sitting in front of the southern room of his house. suddenly, appellants rajendra singh armed with a double barrel gun, nagendra singh also armed with double barrel gun, anil singh armed with country-made pistol, bikash singh armed with lathi and kunj bihari singh armed with small gun came. nagendra singh fired a shot at his uncle rajgrihi singh as a result of which rajgrihi singh was injured and fell down. rajendra singh also fired at him. on hearing the sound of gun firing, the informant's brother, jitendra singh, p.w. 5 came running to his uncle but anil singh fired from his gun at jitendra singh, p.w. 5 injuring him. jitendra singh also fell down. chhatri singh, the uncle of the informant tried to save jitendra singh but kunj bihari singh fired at him and injured him as a result of which he fell down. bikash singh assaulted chhatri singh with his lathi. the informant claimed that saw the occurrence from the terrace of his house. many villagers assembled on hearing the gun shots and the appellants ran away. the informant came down from the terrace and found rajgrihi singh jitendra singh, p.w. 5 and chhatri singh injured by fire-arms. with the help of his family members and villagers, all the three injured were brought to the bikramganj hospital for treatment. on the way his uncle, rajgrihi singh died. the other two injured were being treated at the bikramganj hospital. it was stated in the ferdbeyan that the cause for the occurrence was that a few days earlier appellant rajendra singh had filed a case against the members of the prosecution party of theft of paddy but they were acquitted. on account of such enmity, the occurrence took place. the first information report has been witnesses by lalan prasad and surendra singh.5. the case was investigated by p.w. 7, who was the then officer-in-charge of surajpura police station. the village of occurrence namely village saura, falls within the jurisdiction of surajpura police station. he has stated that on 18.4.1990 at about 7.30 a.m. he received the ferdbeyan of ram pravesh singh p.w. 2 which had been recorded by a.s.i. k.p. oraon of bikramganj police station. on the basis of the aforesaid ferdbeyan a formal first information report was drawn up by this witness. he had also received the inquest report relating to rajgrihi singh which was also recorded in the handwriting of a.s.i. k.p. oraon. the dead body of rajgrihi singh had been sent to sasaram hospital from bikramganj thana itself. the injury report of the injured jitendra singh, p.w. 5 and chhatri singh was also prepared at bikramganj by sri k.p. oraon. on the same day i.e. on 18.4.1990, he left for the referal hospital at bikramganj for investigating the case. he recorded the statement of jitendra singh and chhatri singh and thereafter proceeded for village saura reaching there at about 9.30 a.m. he inspected the place of occurrence and also recorded the statements of loot singh, p.w. 2, gorakh singh, p.w. 1 and dhanbanti devi, p.w. 4. he also recorded the further statement of the informant. he received the post-mortem report at the bikramganj police station itself as also one closed bottle containing pellet which he got kept in the malkhana of the police station.6. the appellants were put up for trial before the 9th additional sessions judge,rohtas at sasaram. at the trial the prosecution examined 9 witnesses out of whom 6 were eye-witnesses, namely, gorakh singh, p.w. 1, loot singh, p.w.2, guddi, p.w. 3 (tender), dhanbanti devi, p.w. 4 (tender), jitendra singh, p.w. 5 and ram pravesh singh, the informant, p.w. 5. ashok kumar sinha, the investigating officer was examined as p.w. 7 while dr. chandresh vikram singh, who performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased rajgrihi singh was examined as p.w. 8. dr. md. sarfaraz was examined as p.w. 9 as he had examined the injuries of jitendra singh, p.w. 5 and chhatri singh.7. it is not disputed that loot singh, p.w. 2 is the father of p.ws. 5 and 6 and the husband of p.w. 4. p.w. 3 is his sister's daughter. the deceased rajgrihi singh was the brother of loot singh, p.w. 2. the injured chhatri singh is also another brother of loot singh, p.w. 2.8. dr. chandresh vikram singh, p.w. 8 deposed that on 18.4.1990 he was posted as the civil assistant surgeon at sasaram and on that day at 11.30 a.m. he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of rajgrihi singh. he found the following injuries on his person:(i) wound of entry and lacerated wound inverted margin black in colour 1/6' in diameter on the right side of forehead above right eye.(ii) wound of entry and lacerated wound with inverted margin black in colour 1/6' in diameter over the left fifth intercostal space,(iii) wound of entry with lacerated wound with black inverted margin 1/6' in diameter over the 7th intercostal space.(iv) swelling 1/2' x 1/2' over the left side of perital region.(v) abrasion 1/2' x 1/2' over the left elbow.(vi) abrasion 1/4' x 1/4' over the right knee.on dis-section, he found that the thorasic cavity was full of blood. the left lung was lacerated and the ventricle of the heart was punctured. two pieces of pellets were recovered, one from the ventricle of the heart and other from the left lung. death in his opinion was caused due to injuries to vital organs as mentioned by him, and such injuries were caused by a fire arm such as gun. the time that elapsed since death was within 24 hours. he had handed over the two pellets to the constable.9. dr. md. sarfara, p.w. 9 has deposed that on 17.1.1990, he was posted at vikramganj sub-divisional hospital as medical officer. on that day at 8.43 p.m., he examined jitendra singh and found the following injuries on his person:(i) lacerated wound 1/2' x 1/4' x skin deep on right shoulder joint.(ii) lacerated wound 1/4' x 1/4' x skin deep on right upper arm.(iii) lacerated wound 1/2' x 1/4' on left wrist joint.(iv) lacerated wound 1/4' x 1/4' in the right side of abdomen. the injuries were simple in nature but caused by fire arm such as gun. the age of the injuries was within 6 hours of then examination. the x-ray report showed metallic substance on the left wrist joint and on right upper arm.10. on the same day at 8.40 p.m. he examined chhatri singh and found the following injuries on his persons:(i) abrasion 1/4' x 1/4' on left thumb, (ii) abrasion. 1/4' x 1/4' below the right nipple, (iii) abrasion 1/4' x 1/4' on left nipple.the injuries were caused by fire-arm and were simple in natire. the age of the injuries was assessed by him as 6 hours at the time of examination.11. ram pravesh singh, p.w. 6, the informant has fully supported the prosecution version, as mentioned by him in the first information report. he has stated that he was on the terrace with his sister's daughter, guddi collecting paddy when the appellants variously armed came and stood near the hut of kailash singh. his uncle rajgrihi singh, the deceased was sitting in the sahan in front of the southern room of their house. appellant nagendra singh fired at him with his gun followed by appellant rajendra singh, who also fired at rajgrihi singh. both the shots fired at him caused injuries as a result of which he fell down. when his brother, jitendra singh, p.w. 5 tried to save him, anil singh fired from his pistol on jitendra singh, p.w. 5 who was injured and fell down. his uncle chhatri singh ran to save them but kunj bihri singh fired at him as a result of which he fell down. he was assaulted by bikash singh with lathi. after the assault the appellants ran away. thereafter, this witness came down from the terrace and all the injured were taken to the bikramganj hospital where the doctor declared rajgrihi singh dead. this witness has admitted that before this occurrence rajendra singh had filed a case against them relating to theft of paddy in which they had been acquitted and on account of this, out of anger, the appellants had committed this crime. he also stated that some of the witnesses such as banbari das; surendra singh and baban singh were not prepared to depose as they were afraid of the appellants who had threatened them. this witness has been cross-examined at length but counsel for the appellants could not point out anything in his cross-examination which would render this witness unreliable.12. p.w. 5, jitendra singh is an injured witness. he has fully supported the case of the prosecution and counsel for the appellants also could not point out any inconsistency between the testimony of this witness and the other eye-witnesses examined at the trial. the same can be said of the testimony of gorakh singh, p.w. 1.13. p.w. 2, loot singh, the brother of the deceased rajgrihi singh, and father of the informant, has also deposed in support of the prosecution case. he has fully supported the case of the prosecution in his examination-in-chief. this witness has also stated that after the death of his brother, rajgrihi singh, his other brother chhatri singh who was also injured in the occurrence had become insane. counsel for the appellants has drawn our notice to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the deposition of this witness, and it was submitted that paragraph 8 would show that this witness had given a different version in the course of investigation. our attention was drawn to paragraph 18 of the deposition of p.w. 7 in support of this submission. in paragraph 9 of his deposition, p.w. 2 has stated that apart from the case relating to theft of paddy, there was no dispute between his family members and the appellant. that case was about 4-5 months old but in that case rajgrihi singh, the deceased was not an accused. he further admitted that rajgrihi singh was his younger brother and issueless. he, however, denied the suggestion that: since rajgrihi singh claimed a partition there was a mar-pit at night on that account. p.ws. 3 and 4, namely, guddi and dhanvanti devi were tendered for cross-examination.14. we have been taken through the evidence of these eye-witnesses and we find nothing inconsistent in the version disclosed by them at the trial. counsel for the appellants also could not point out anything in their evidence which would lead us to reject the prosecution case. apart from the minor discrepancies here and there, no discrepancy or inconsistency has been pointed out which touches the core of the prosecution case. on a reading of their testimony, we find that the evidence adduced by the prosecution has a ring of truth. the witnesses are natural witnesses being the members of the family who in normal course would have witnessed the occurrence since the occurrence took place in the sahan of their house. the injured were promptly removed to the bikramganj hospital and by about 10.30 p.m. the ferdbeyan of ram pravesh singh, p.w. 6 was recorded by the a.s.i. attached to the bikramganj police station who apparently had come to the sub-divisional hospital on a requisition sent by the hospital authorities. it is no doubt true that chhatri singh, one of the injured had not been examined as a witness, but it has also come in the deposition of p.w. 2, loot singh, that the said chhatri singh had become insane. the statement of p.w. 2 has remained unchallenged and, therefore there is material on record which provides the reason why chhatri singh was not examined as an eyewitness even though he was an injured witness. p.w. 5, jitendra singh is an injured witness. his presence cannot be doubted. that apart, there is nothing in his cross-examination which may lead us to hold that the witness is not speaking the truth. the veracity of this witness has remained unchallenged, and we are prepared to place implicit reliance upon the testimony of this witness which is supported by other eye-witnesses as well. similarly the testimony of the informant is fully corroborated by the ferdbeyan lodged by him within hours of the occurrence. the injuries found on the person of the injured and the deceased corroborate the prosecution case.15. counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for the commission of the crime. no doubt a case relating to paddy theft had been lodged 3-4 months ago by rajendra singh in which case some of the witnesses who were accused were acquitted. he, however, submitted that rajgrihi singh was not one of the accused in that case as admitted by p.w. 2 and, therefore, there appears to be no reason why rajgrihi singh should have been the target of attack. he submitted that the prosecution has not disclosed any immediate reason for the commission of the offence.16. it is no doubt true that apart from the fact that rajendra singh lodged the case of paddy theft against some of the prosecution witnesses in which they were acquitted, there is nothing else on record to suggest any occurrence in the near past which may have provoked the appellants to commit the crime. the fact remains that the two families were not on best of terms and their relationship was strained. the immediate cause for the occurrence is shrouded in mystery but that by itself would not provide a sufficient reason for discarding outright the case of the prosecution which is supported by as many as 4 eye-witnesses, one of them being an injured witness.17. it was then submitted that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness. counsel submitted that banbari das, surendra singh and baban singh were the independent witnesses whom the prosecution has not examined. there is nothing on record to suggest that these witnesses were eye-witnesses. it is no doubt true that a large number of villagers assembled after the occurrence and these witnesses may be amongst them. that however would not lead to the inference that they are eye-witnesses. in the first information report, there is nothing to suggest that they are eye-witnesses. two of them had accompanied the injured to the hospital and were witnesses to the ferdbeyan lodged by p.w. 6. though they were examined in the course of investigation by the investigating officer, there is nothing in the deposition of the investigating officer, p.w. 7 that these witnesses claimed to be eye-witnesses. counsel for the appellants also could not point out anything on the record to suggest that the witnesses named by him were actually eye-witnesses. it is not necessary that every witness examined in the course of investigation must necessarily be an eye-witness. these persons may have come to the place of occurrence after the appellants had ran away and they could provide corroborative evidence supporting the prosecution case. however, in view of the direct evidence of eye-witness including an injured witness, the non-examination of said witnesses does not in any manner affect the case of the prosecution. counsel then submitted that though the witnesses have stated that the appellants fired at the deceased and the other two persons who were injured, they have not specifically stated on which part of the body the firing resorted to by the appellants caused injuries to these persons.18. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it would indeed have been difficult for the witnesses to notice on which part of the body shots fired by the appellants hit the injured, because as many as 4 persons were firing from their fire-arms at different persons. the witnesses have clearly stated who fired at whom, but did not specify the part of the body where injury was caused by such firing. such an commission can hardly have any adverse effect on the case of the prosecution in the facts and circumstances of this case.19. counsel submitted that in all probability p.w. 2, loot singh had not witnessed the occurrence because it appears that in the course of investigation he had given a somewhat different version of the occurrence. assuming that in favour of the appellants, that would hardly affect the evidence of p.ws. 1, 5 and 6 who are also eye-witnesses.20. it was then submitted that both rajendra singh and nagendra singh have been held guilty of the offence under section 302, i.p.c. it was submitted that it is nowhere mentioned which injuries caused by whom resulted in the death of rajgrihi singh, because the case of the prosecution is that both nagendra singh and rajendra singh fired at him. the medical evidence discloses that both the gunshot injuries were on vital parts of the body, and both could have resulted in death. in any event, even if it is held in favour of the aforesaid appellants that an offence under section 302, i.p.c. was not made out, they can still be convicted of the offence under section 302 read with section 34, i.p.c.21. having considered all aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that the trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. there is no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.22. it is stated that the appellants in cr. appeal no. 288 of 1992 are on bail. their bail bonds are cancelled and the trial court is directed to take them into custody to serve out their sentence.

Judgment:

1. These two Appeals arise out of the judgment and order of the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram dated 1/22.6.1992. The Appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 288 of 1992 are Kunj Bihari Singh, Anil Singh and Bikash Singh while the Appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 294 of 1992 are Rajendra Singh And Nagendra Singh. Appellants Rajendra Singh and Nagendra Singh have been found guilty of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. They have also been found guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each.

2. Appellants Anil Singh and Kunj Bihari Singh have been convicted under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. They have also been found guilty of the offence under Section 307/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. They have also been found guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each.

3. Appellant Bikash Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years under Section 107/34, LP.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year all the sentences have been directed to run concurtently.

4. The prosecution case is that an occurrence took place at about 7.00 p.m. on 14.4.1990 in the Sahan of the Informant, P.W. 6 in which it is alleged that the Appellants came variously armed and as a result of the assault by them Rajgrihi Singh died while Jitendra Singh, P.W. 5 and Chhatri Singh received injuries. After the incident, the injured were taken to the Hospital at Bikramganj where Rajgrihi Singh was declared dead. At the said Hospital the Ferdbeyan of Ram Pravesh Singh, P.W. 6 was recorded by K.P. Orao, A.S.I, attached to the Bikramganj Police Station at about 10.30 p.m. In the said Ferdbeyan the Informant, P.W. 6 stated that on the date of occurrence at about 7.00 p.m. he was on the terrace of his house along with his sistes's daughter, Guddi and was collecting paddy. His uncle Rajgrihi Singh was sitting in front of the southern room of his house. Suddenly, appellants Rajendra Singh armed with a double barrel gun, Nagendra Singh also armed with double barrel gun, Anil Singh armed with country-made pistol, Bikash Singh armed with lathi and Kunj Bihari Singh armed with small gun came. Nagendra Singh fired a shot at his uncle Rajgrihi Singh as a result of which Rajgrihi Singh was injured and fell down. Rajendra Singh also fired at him. On hearing the sound of gun firing, the Informant's brother, Jitendra Singh, P.W. 5 came running to his uncle but Anil Singh fired from his gun at Jitendra Singh, P.W. 5 injuring him. Jitendra Singh also fell down. Chhatri Singh, the uncle of the Informant tried to save Jitendra Singh but Kunj Bihari Singh fired at him and injured him as a result of which he fell down. Bikash Singh assaulted Chhatri Singh with his lathi. The informant claimed that saw the occurrence from the terrace of his house. Many villagers assembled on hearing the gun shots and the Appellants ran away. The Informant came down from the terrace and found Rajgrihi Singh Jitendra Singh, P.W. 5 and Chhatri Singh injured by fire-arms. With the help of his family members and villagers, all the three injured were brought to the Bikramganj Hospital for treatment. On the way his uncle, Rajgrihi Singh died. The other two injured were being treated at the Bikramganj Hospital. It was stated in the Ferdbeyan that the cause for the occurrence was that a few days earlier Appellant Rajendra Singh had filed a case against the members of the prosecution party of theft of paddy but they were acquitted. On account of such enmity, the occurrence took place. The First Information Report has been witnesses by Lalan Prasad and Surendra Singh.

5. The case was investigated by P.W. 7, who was the then Officer-in-Charge of Surajpura Police Station. The village of occurrence namely Village Saura, falls within the jurisdiction of Surajpura Police Station. He has stated that on 18.4.1990 at about 7.30 a.m. he received the Ferdbeyan of Ram Pravesh Singh P.W. 2 which had been recorded by A.S.I. K.P. Oraon of Bikramganj Police Station. On the basis of the aforesaid Ferdbeyan a formal First Information Report was drawn up by this witness. He had also received the Inquest report relating to Rajgrihi Singh which was also recorded in the handwriting of A.S.I. K.P. Oraon. The dead body of Rajgrihi Singh had been sent to Sasaram Hospital from Bikramganj Thana itself. The injury Report of the injured Jitendra Singh, P.W. 5 and Chhatri Singh was also prepared at Bikramganj by Sri K.P. Oraon. On the same day i.e. on 18.4.1990, he left for the Referal Hospital at Bikramganj for investigating the case. He recorded the statement of Jitendra Singh and Chhatri Singh and thereafter proceeded for village Saura reaching there at about 9.30 a.m. He inspected the place of occurrence and also recorded the statements of Loot Singh, P.W. 2, Gorakh Singh, P.W. 1 and Dhanbanti Devi, P.W. 4. He also recorded the further statement of the Informant. He received the Post-mortem report at the Bikramganj Police Station itself as also one closed bottle containing pellet which he got kept in the Malkhana of the Police Station.

6. The Appellants were put up for trial before the 9th Additional Sessions Judge,Rohtas at Sasaram. At the trial the prosecution examined 9 witnesses out of whom 6 were eye-witnesses, namely, Gorakh Singh, P.W. 1, Loot Singh, P.W.2, Guddi, P.W. 3 (tender), Dhanbanti Devi, P.W. 4 (tender), Jitendra Singh, P.W. 5 and Ram Pravesh Singh, the Informant, P.W. 5. Ashok Kumar Sinha, the Investigating Officer was examined as P.W. 7 while Dr. Chandresh Vikram Singh, who performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Rajgrihi Singh was examined as P.W. 8. Dr. Md. Sarfaraz was examined as P.W. 9 as he had examined the injuries of Jitendra Singh, P.W. 5 and Chhatri Singh.

7. It is not disputed that Loot Singh, P.W. 2 is the father of P.Ws. 5 and 6 and the husband of P.W. 4. P.W. 3 is his sister's daughter. The deceased Rajgrihi Singh was the brother of Loot Singh, P.W. 2. The injured Chhatri Singh is also another brother of Loot Singh, P.W. 2.

8. Dr. Chandresh Vikram Singh, P.W. 8 deposed that on 18.4.1990 he was posted as the Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sasaram and on that day at 11.30 a.m. he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rajgrihi Singh. He found the following injuries on his person:

(i) Wound of entry and lacerated wound inverted margin black in colour 1/6' in diameter on the right side of forehead above right eye.

(ii) Wound of entry and lacerated wound with inverted margin black in colour 1/6' in diameter over the left fifth intercostal space,

(iii) Wound of entry with lacerated wound with black inverted margin 1/6' in diameter over the 7th intercostal space.

(iv) Swelling 1/2' x 1/2' over the left side of perital region.

(v) Abrasion 1/2' x 1/2' over the left elbow.

(vi) Abrasion 1/4' x 1/4' over the right knee.

On dis-section, he found that the thorasic cavity was full of blood. The left lung was lacerated and the ventricle of the heart was punctured. Two pieces of pellets were recovered, one from the ventricle of the heart and other from the left lung. Death in his opinion was caused due to injuries to vital organs as mentioned by him, and such injuries were caused by a fire arm such as gun. The time that elapsed since death was within 24 hours. He had handed over the two pellets to the constable.

9. Dr. Md. Sarfara, P.W. 9 has deposed that on 17.1.1990, he was posted at Vikramganj Sub-Divisional Hospital as Medical Officer. On that day at 8.43 p.m., he examined Jitendra Singh and found the following injuries on his person:

(i) Lacerated wound 1/2' x 1/4' x skin deep on right shoulder joint.

(ii) Lacerated wound 1/4' x 1/4' x skin deep on right upper arm.

(iii) Lacerated wound 1/2' x 1/4' on left wrist joint.

(iv) Lacerated wound 1/4' x 1/4' in the right side of abdomen. The injuries were simple in nature but caused by fire arm such as gun. The age of the injuries was within 6 hours of then examination. The X-ray Report showed metallic substance on the left wrist joint and on right upper arm.

10. On the same day at 8.40 p.m. he examined Chhatri Singh and found the following injuries on his persons:

(i) Abrasion 1/4' x 1/4' on left thumb, (ii) Abrasion. 1/4' x 1/4' below the right nipple, (iii) Abrasion 1/4' x 1/4' on left nipple.

The injuries were caused by fire-arm and were simple in natire. The age of the injuries was assessed by him as 6 hours at the time of examination.

11. Ram Pravesh Singh, P.W. 6, the Informant has fully supported the prosecution version, as mentioned by him in the First Information Report. He has stated that he was on the terrace with his sister's daughter, Guddi collecting paddy when the Appellants variously armed came and stood near the hut of Kailash Singh. His uncle Rajgrihi Singh, the deceased was sitting in the Sahan in front of the southern room of their house. Appellant Nagendra Singh fired at him with his gun followed by Appellant Rajendra Singh, who also fired at Rajgrihi Singh. Both the shots fired at him caused injuries as a result of which he fell down. When his brother, Jitendra Singh, P.W. 5 tried to save him, Anil Singh fired from his pistol on Jitendra Singh, P.W. 5 who was injured and fell down. His uncle Chhatri Singh ran to save them but Kunj Bihri Singh fired at him as a result of which he fell down. He was assaulted by Bikash Singh with lathi. After the assault the appellants ran away. Thereafter, this witness came down from the terrace and all the injured were taken to the Bikramganj Hospital where the Doctor declared Rajgrihi Singh dead. This witness has admitted that before this occurrence Rajendra Singh had filed a case against them relating to theft of paddy in which they had been acquitted and on account of this, out of anger, the appellants had committed this crime. He also stated that some of the witnesses such as Banbari Das; Surendra Singh and Baban Singh were not prepared to depose as they were afraid of the appellants who had threatened them. This witness has been cross-examined at length but Counsel for the appellants could not point out anything in his cross-examination which would render this witness unreliable.

12. P.W. 5, Jitendra Singh is an injured witness. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution and Counsel for the appellants also could not point out any inconsistency between the testimony of this witness and the other eye-witnesses examined at the trial. The same can be said of the testimony of Gorakh Singh, P.W. 1.

13. P.W. 2, Loot Singh, the brother of the deceased Rajgrihi Singh, and father of the Informant, has also deposed in support of the prosecution case. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution in his examination-in-chief. This witness has also stated that after the death of his brother, Rajgrihi Singh, his other brother Chhatri Singh who was also injured in the occurrence had become insane. Counsel for the appellants has drawn our notice to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the deposition of this witness, and it was submitted that paragraph 8 would show that this witness had given a different version in the course of investigation. Our attention was drawn to paragraph 18 of the deposition of P.W. 7 in support of this submission. In paragraph 9 of his deposition, P.W. 2 has stated that apart from the case relating to theft of paddy, there was no dispute between his family members and the appellant. That case was about 4-5 months old but in that case Rajgrihi Singh, the deceased was not an accused. He further admitted that Rajgrihi Singh was his younger brother and issueless. He, however, denied the suggestion that: since Rajgrihi Singh claimed a partition there was a mar-pit at night on that account. P.Ws. 3 and 4, namely, Guddi and Dhanvanti Devi were tendered for cross-examination.

14. We have been taken through the evidence of these eye-witnesses and we find nothing inconsistent in the version disclosed by them at the trial. Counsel for the Appellants also could not point out anything in their evidence which would lead us to reject the prosecution case. Apart from the minor discrepancies here and there, no discrepancy or inconsistency has been pointed out which touches the core of the prosecution case. On a reading of their testimony, we find that the evidence adduced by the prosecution has a ring of truth. The witnesses are natural witnesses being the members of the family who in normal course would have witnessed the occurrence since the occurrence took place in the Sahan of their house. The injured were promptly removed to the Bikramganj Hospital and by about 10.30 p.m. the Ferdbeyan of Ram Pravesh Singh, P.W. 6 was recorded by the A.S.I. attached to the Bikramganj Police Station who apparently had come to the Sub-Divisional Hospital on a requisition sent by the Hospital authorities. It is no doubt true that Chhatri Singh, one of the injured had not been examined as a witness, but it has also come in the deposition of P.W. 2, Loot Singh, that the said Chhatri Singh had become insane. The statement of P.W. 2 has remained unchallenged and, therefore there is material on record which provides the reason why Chhatri Singh was not examined as an eyewitness even though he was an injured witness. P.W. 5, Jitendra Singh is an injured witness. His presence cannot be doubted. That apart, there is nothing in his cross-examination which may lead us to hold that the witness is not speaking the truth. The veracity of this witness has remained unchallenged, and we are prepared to place implicit reliance upon the testimony of this witness which is supported by other eye-witnesses as well. Similarly the testimony of the Informant is fully corroborated by the Ferdbeyan lodged by him within hours of the occurrence. The injuries found on the person of the injured and the deceased corroborate the prosecution case.

15. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for the commission of the crime. No doubt a case relating to paddy theft had been lodged 3-4 months ago by Rajendra Singh in which case some of the witnesses who were accused were acquitted. He, however, submitted that Rajgrihi Singh was not one of the accused in that case as admitted by P.W. 2 and, therefore, there appears to be no reason why Rajgrihi Singh should have been the target of attack. He submitted that the prosecution has not disclosed any immediate reason for the commission of the offence.

16. It is no doubt true that apart from the fact that Rajendra Singh lodged the case of paddy theft against some of the prosecution witnesses in which they were acquitted, there is nothing else on record to suggest any occurrence in the near past which may have provoked the Appellants to commit the crime. The fact remains that the two families were not on best of terms and their relationship was strained. The immediate cause for the occurrence is shrouded in mystery but that by itself would not provide a sufficient reason for discarding outright the case of the prosecution which is supported by as many as 4 eye-witnesses, one of them being an injured witness.

17. It was then submitted that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness. Counsel submitted that Banbari Das, Surendra Singh and Baban Singh were the independent witnesses whom the prosecution has not examined. There is nothing on record to suggest that these witnesses were eye-witnesses. It is no doubt true that a large number of villagers assembled after the occurrence and these witnesses may be amongst them. That however would not lead to the inference that they are eye-witnesses. In the First Information Report, there is nothing to suggest that they are eye-witnesses. Two of them had accompanied the injured to the Hospital and were witnesses to the Ferdbeyan lodged by P.W. 6. Though they were examined in the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer, there is nothing in the deposition of the Investigating Officer, P.W. 7 that these witnesses claimed to be eye-witnesses. Counsel for the Appellants also could not point out anything on the record to suggest that the witnesses named by him were actually eye-witnesses. It is not necessary that every witness examined in the course of investigation must necessarily be an eye-witness. These persons may have come to the place of occurrence after the Appellants had ran away and they could provide corroborative evidence supporting the prosecution case. However, in view of the direct evidence of eye-witness including an injured witness, the non-examination of said witnesses does not in any manner affect the case of the prosecution. Counsel then submitted that though the witnesses have stated that the Appellants fired at the deceased and the other two persons who were injured, they have not specifically stated on which part of the body the firing resorted to by the Appellants caused injuries to these persons.

18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it would indeed have been difficult for the witnesses to notice on which part of the body shots fired by the Appellants hit the injured, because as many as 4 persons were firing from their fire-arms at different persons. The witnesses have clearly stated who fired at whom, but did not specify the part of the body where injury was caused by such firing. Such an commission can hardly have any adverse effect on the case of the prosecution in the facts and circumstances of this case.

19. Counsel submitted that in all probability P.W. 2, Loot Singh had not witnessed the occurrence because it appears that in the course of investigation he had given a somewhat different version of the occurrence. Assuming that in favour of the Appellants, that would hardly affect the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6 who are also eye-witnesses.

20. It was then submitted that both Rajendra Singh and Nagendra Singh have been held guilty of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. It was submitted that it is nowhere mentioned which injuries caused by whom resulted in the death of Rajgrihi Singh, because the case of the prosecution is that both Nagendra Singh and Rajendra Singh fired at him. The medical evidence discloses that both the gunshot injuries were on vital parts of the body, and both could have resulted in death. In any event, even if it is held in favour of the aforesaid Appellants that an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. was not made out, they can still be convicted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.

21. Having considered all aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly convicted and sentenced the Appellants. There is no merit in these Appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.

22. It is stated that the Appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 288 of 1992 are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and the trial Court is directed to take them into custody to serve out their sentence.