JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 30-10-1982 whereby he has convicted the accused appellant Tejasingh under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and accused appellants Kalasingh and Jasvindra Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. He has also convicted all the three accused appellants under Section 307 read with section 302 Indian Penal Code, the accused appellants Kala Singh and Jasvindra Singh under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code have been sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment; all the three accused under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. He has also convicted the accused appellants under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced them to three years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts giving rise to this case are that on 5-11-1981 PW 8 Rajendra Singh, PW 6 Jeet Singh and deceased Nashib Singh and PW 1 Hari Chand all the four went in a jeep to the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate Padampur in the matter pending in that court. At 11.30 a.m. when they were standing out-side the court premises they got near the Piou, There was one tea-stall there Nashibsingh got down from the jeep and sat down on a bench at the tea stall. Jeet Singh and Harichand were standing besides him. At that time accused Tejasingh, Jasvindrasingh and Kalasingh case over there. All the three accused persons were armed with pistols. They took out their pistols from the pocket of their pants and accused Tejasingh fired on the back of deceased Nashibsingh from a distance of about 3-4 feet. Nashibsingh immediately fell down from the bench. Thereafter Jeetsingh and Harichand rushed towards Rajendra Singh. Accused Jasvindra Singh and Kalasingh fired towards Rajendrasingh, Harichand and Jeetsingh. Harichand received fire injuries of pellet on his right leg. Thereafter, all the accused left the place of occurrence and went towards eastern direction. Nashibsingh immediately fell down from the bench. Thereafter Jeetsingh and Harichand rushed towards Rajendra Singh. Accused Jasvindra Singh and Kalasingh fired towards Rajendrasingh, Harichand and Jeetsingh. Harichand received fire injuries of pellet on his right leg. Thereafter, all the accused left the place of occurrence and went towards eastern direction. Thereafter, Rajendrasingh, Jeetsingh and Harichand took deceased Nashibsingh in the jeep and rushed to the police station, Padampur, Rajendra Singh kept the jeep outside the police station and went inside to inform the Station House Officer, Police Station, Padampur. The First Information Report was reduced into writing which is Ex. P 17. Thereafter the Station House Officer, Astali Khan came out and brought the dead body of the deceased from the jeep to inspect and thereafter directed them to go to the hospital for post-mortem. The body of deceased Nashibsingh was taken to the Government Hospital, Padampur, where Dr. Iqbal Singh conducted the post mortem of the deceased. Dr. Iqbalsingh also examined the injuries of Harichand. The Doctor found that the deceased received a fire arm injury and he found that there is an enterance wound of 3/4 cm x 3/4 cm at the back of the body on the right side of fifth intercostal space and he also found an exit wound 11/4 cm x 1 cm anterior of the chest left side at the 4th rib medial to anterior axillary fold. He also found injuries on the person of Harichand; one, lacerated wound of entrance 1 cm x 3/4 cm on the upper fourth of right leg. The investigation was taken up by the Investigating Officer PW 9 Astali Khan. The necessary site inspection and the inquest report was prepared. During the course of investigation the accused persons were arrested and at the instance of accused Tejasingh one pistol and live cartridges were recovered. Likewise, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused Jasvindrasingh and got one revolver and six cartridges recovered at his instance. Thereafter, close of the investigation all the three accused persons were sent for trial and ultimately all the accused persons were committed to the court of Sessions for trial under Sections 302, 307/34 Indian Penal Code and 25/27 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, close of the investigation all the three accused persons were sent for trial and ultimately all the accused persons were committed to the court of Sessions for trial under Sections 302, 307/34 Indian Penal Code and 25/27 of the Arms Act. During the trial the prosecution examined about 10 witnesses and got a large number of documents exhibited whereas the defence examined only one witness i.e. D.W. 1 Virendrajeet Singh and got Ex D. 1 exhibited. The learned Sessions Judge after due trial convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as aforesaid, Hence, this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and have also gone through the record. 4. Mr. Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that the prosecution examined three eye-witness to bring home the guilt of the accused appellants. Out of the three eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW 1 Harichand and PW 6 Jeetsingh have turned hostile. PW 8 Rajendra Singh is the sole eye-witness of the incident, and his testimony is also full of contradictions. Mr. Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that in fact Rajendra Singh has given an affidavit Ex. D. 1 where in he has completely disowned the version given by him before the court as an eye-witness. He has also submitted that when the body of the deceased was taken to the hospital in the jeep no blood was recovered from the jeep. He has further submitted that when the dead body was carried in the jeep Rajendrasingh should have received some blood stains on his clothes also. These have also not been produced. Learned Counsel further submitted that it is not known that how this witness was present on the date of the incident in the court. Thus, the learned Counsel submits that the testimony of this witness is wholly unreliable and deserves to be ignored. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the recovery of the pistol at the instance of the accused from the open place is not reliable. 5. We have bestowed our best of consideration to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel. It is true that PW 1 Harichand and PW 6 Jeetsingh both have turned hostile. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the recovery of the pistol at the instance of the accused from the open place is not reliable. 5. We have bestowed our best of consideration to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel. It is true that PW 1 Harichand and PW 6 Jeetsingh both have turned hostile. It is unfortunate that Harichand who has received injuries in this incident and which have been examined by the Doctor and be was a person who has carried the dead body to the police station and the hospital has chosen to disown. But the testimony of Rajendrasingh PW 8 appears to us to be reliable and trustworthy. The criticism levelled by the learned Counsel against the testimony of Rajendra Singh is not tenable. We have gone through the statement of Rajendra Singh. He has deposed that at the relevant day all these four persons i.e. Rajendrasingh, Harichand, Jeetsingh and deceased Nashibsingh had dates in the various cases pending in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Padampur. They have gone to the court for that purpose only. When deceased Nashibsingh was sitting on the bench of the tea-stall all the three accused persons came took out pistol from their pockets and fired. The accused Tejasingh fired a shot which struck on the back of the deceased Nashibsingh and he fell down from the bench. From other shots fired by the accused persons, Harichand also received injuries and thereafter they ran for shelter from that place and concealed behind the jeep in order to save themselves. All these accused persons left the place of occurrence firing in air. He further deposed that soon thereafter he along with Harichand and Jeetsingh immediately took the dead body of deceased Nashibsingh in the jeep to the police station, Padampur. Thereafter, on the instructions given by PW 9 Astali Khan, S.H O. Police Station, Padampur, they took the body to the hospital at the mortuary. It is said that Ex D 1 an affidavit was got sworn from this witness so as to completely disown the whole incident. It is unfortunate that this kind of practice has been resorted to by the defence. This witness when confronted with the affidavit Ex. D. 1 has stated that it was got written by him forcibly under threat. It is said that Ex D 1 an affidavit was got sworn from this witness so as to completely disown the whole incident. It is unfortunate that this kind of practice has been resorted to by the defence. This witness when confronted with the affidavit Ex. D. 1 has stated that it was got written by him forcibly under threat. He has mentioned that on 13-6-1982 when the date was fixed in this case he came by bus at Sri Ganganagar. At the bus stand one Vijendrasingh and his brother Ravindrajeet Singh along with 10-12 persons armed with guns came in a jeep and took him to one Advocate Shri Hardayalsingh and thereafter they forcibly confined him and one paper was brought and he was made to sign the contents. He has deposed that this Ex. D. 1 was forcibly obtained by defence. It is relevant to mention here that two eye-witnesses have already been won over and a serious attempt was made to win over this witness also and he was forced to sign the affidavit. He has divulged frankly in his deposition about the happening of the incident and bas also stated that the affidavit has been obtained forcibly from him. This practice cannot be allowed to go lightly and it need to be severely condemned as this kind of approach shakes the faith in the criminal administration of justice. It is unfortunate that sanctity of court premises was violated by such terrorising act and to further add fuel to the fire that defence has terrorised the witnesses not to depose against them. We have gone through the statement of this witness and we are convinced that the affidavit, has been forcibly obtained from this witness. This witness is truthful and his testimony cannot be discarded. The old criminal cases pending against this witness will not render him unreliable. 6. It has also been contended that the prosecution has not produced the blood stained clothes of this witness nor they have taken out the blood of the deceased from the jeep. This witness when cross-examined on this aspect has deposed that he has shown the blood stained clothes to the Investigating Officer and he has also shown the blood lying in the jeep to the Investigating Officer. This witness when cross-examined on this aspect has deposed that he has shown the blood stained clothes to the Investigating Officer and he has also shown the blood lying in the jeep to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer, Astali Khan PW 9 has deposed that it is true that this witness, Rajendra Singh PW 8 did not point out to him his blood stained clothes and he has also pointed out the blood lying in the jeep. He has not taken into custody the blood stained clothes nor he has taken the blood lying in the jeep. This lends assurance to the testimony of PW 8 Rajendra Singh and the testimony of this witness cannot be discarded. 7. It has further been contended that there was no blackening or tattooing on the body of the deceased as according to the eye-witness the, burning or fire arm was used from a very close distance. It is true that according to the prosecution witness the fire arm was used from a close range but the fire arm in the present case is a pistol and it has been fired from a distance of 4-5 feet But no sign of blackening, burning or tattooing was found on the body of the deceased. The distance given by the witnesses is approximate and it cannot be a mathematical measurement. Moreover, in the present case, the firm arm is pistol. Thus, the absence of tattooing or blackening on the body of the deceased does not render the testimony of this witness as unreliable. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly believed the testimony of this witness. 8. It has further been argued that the place was before the court of Munsif& Judicial Magistrate, Padampur and the prosecution could have produced even the owner of the tea-stall and other independent witnesses. Suffice it to say that the prosecution has produced three eye-witnesses and out of them two have turned hostile. Therefore, non-production of any other witness cannot be inferred as an adverse circumstance against the prosecution. 9. The next question which has been urged before us is that whether the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code can be established in the present circumstances or not. In the present case, Harichand who is said to have received injuries out of the fire arm fired by Jasvindrasingh and Kalasingh has completely disowned the incident. 9. The next question which has been urged before us is that whether the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code can be established in the present circumstances or not. In the present case, Harichand who is said to have received injuries out of the fire arm fired by Jasvindrasingh and Kalasingh has completely disowned the incident. Thus, we are of the view that the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is not established against the accused appellants. 10. So far as the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, we are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused appellants. 11. Thus, in the result, the conviction of the accused appellant Tejasingh under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and that of Kalasingh and Jasvindrasingh under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code is confirmed. The conviction of the accused appellants under Section 27 of the Arms Act is also confirmed. However, the accused appellants are acquitted of the offence under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code. The appeal of the accused appellants is dismissed with the above modification The accused Kalasingh and Jasvindrasingh are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They should surrender themselves within one month for under going the remaining part of their sentence before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, If the accused Jasvindrasingh and Kalasingh do not surrender within the aforesaid period the learned Sessions Judge is directed to get them arrested and send them for serving out the remaining sentence.Appeal dismissed. *******