S. I. JAFRI, J. ( 1 ) SAINSAR Pal, son of Kali Ram resident of village Loni, P. S. Baraut, Distt. Meerut has filed this appeal against his conviction u/ss. 302 and 452 I. P. C. and sentence of life imprisonment and 2 years RI. respectively recorded by Sri G. R. S. Tandon, VII, Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut by his judgment and order dated 30th May, 1978 in Sessions Trial No. 458 of 1977. ( 2 ) ALONGWITH the appellant, Jaibir, Ziley Singh and Smt. Vidya were also tried but they were acquitted by the trial court. In this case Smt. Jaswanti d/o Hans Raj lost her life whereas her father Hem Raj and mother Jai Devi had received injuries. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that Kali Ram, the father of Sainsarpal appellant was murdered about 16 years back prior to the occurrence and Smt. Anaro, Hem Raj P. W. 1, Ratan Singh (P. W. 5) and Ram Kishan were prosecuted and they were convicted and sentenced by the trial court. However, in appeal Hem Raj and Smt. Anaro were acquitted but the rest were sentenced to undergo 5 years RI. at the time when Kali Ram was murdered, Sainsarpal was aged about 2 or 3 years. The motive suggested by the prosecution is that there was deep-seated enmity between the parties which resulted in the murder of Smt. Jaswanti and injuries to Him Raj and Smt. Jaidevi. ( 4 ) IT is alleged by the prosecution that on 30th July 1977 at about 6. 30 P. M, the appellant armed with pistol and co-accused Jaibir and Ziley Singh armed with pharsa alongwith Smt. Vidya who was armed with lathi entered the house of Hem Raj (P. W. 1) and the appellant fired which caused injuries to Smt. Jaswanti and the remaining accused assaulted Hem Raj (P. W. 1) and Jai Devi (P. W. 3) with their respective weapons. Smt. Jaswanti on receiving the gunshot injury fell down on the ground and died on the spot. Smt. Jaswanti on receiving the gunshot injury fell down on the ground and died on the spot. A number of persons rushed to the house of Hem Raj but the accused persons made good their escape.- Ratan Singh (P. W. 5) went to the police station Baraut with a report scribed by Baljor alongwith injured Hem Raj and Jai Devi, leaving the dead body of the deceased Smt. Jaswanti in the house and handed over the said report to the Head constable Narendra Kumar (P. W. 6) at 8. 45 P. M. the same day at police station Baraut, the distance being 2 miles from the place of occurrence. The constable prepared the chick report on the basis of the said report and registered case in the General Diay of the police station u/s 302/324 IPC against all the accused. He sent the injured Hem Raj (P. W. 1) and Jai Devi (P. W. 3) to the hospital where their injuries were examined. Dr. R. K. Sharma, Medical Officer, Baraut examined the injuries of Hem Raj at 9. 15 P. M. on the same day and he found the following injuries on his person (1) Incised wound 1 x 1/4x skin deep on the Rt. side abdomen started from lower 3rd Rt. chest up to lower, abdomen vertical Margin clear cut regular direction from above downwards. (2) Incised wound 2 X 1/4 X skin deep on the Rt. side thigh upper 3rd front verticle. Margin clear cut regular direction from above downward. (3) contusion 1 X 1 on the lower 3rd back Rt. side. ( 5 ) DR. R. K. Sharma also examined the injuries of Smt. Jai Devi and found the following injuries on her person (1) Red contusion 5 X 2 on the back Rt. side upper third. (2) Red contusion 5-1/4 X 2 on the back left side upper third. (3) Linear Abrasion 6 X 1/4 on the right side bone middle and lower 3rd verticle. (4) Contusion 2 X 1 on the Rt. Forearm back: lower 3rd Adv. X-ray. (5) Contusion 2 X 2 on the back of Rt. hand. (6) Incised would 1 X 1/2 muscle deep on the middle finger Rt. hand Distal, lateral side. (3) Linear Abrasion 6 X 1/4 on the right side bone middle and lower 3rd verticle. (4) Contusion 2 X 1 on the Rt. Forearm back: lower 3rd Adv. X-ray. (5) Contusion 2 X 2 on the back of Rt. hand. (6) Incised would 1 X 1/2 muscle deep on the middle finger Rt. hand Distal, lateral side. ( 6 ) THE investigation of the case was handed over to R. S. Pundir (P. W. 10) who left for the police station after he registration of the case in the company-of Ratan Singh (P. W. 5) and reached the place of occurrence at about 9. 30 P. M. The SI. found the dead body of the deceased lying on the ground in the Dehliz of complainant Hem Raj. The sub-Inspector next morning prepared the inquest on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Jaswanti and sent the same to mortuary for post mortem examination. He also took the blood stained and unstained earth where the body of the deceased was lying and prepared the requisite memo Ex.- Ka-17. He then recorded the statement of witness Hem Raj and made a search of the house of the accused. The also prepared a search memo Ex. Ka-18. Thereafter, the 5. 1. went to the hospital at Daraut and recorded the statement of Smt. Jai Devi. ( 7 ) DR. Ashok Kumar Dubey conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Jaswanti on 1-7-77 at 4. 45 P. M. and found the following ante-mortem injuries on her persons :- (1) Gun shot wound of entry twelve in number in an area of 20 cm X 14cm on the front or - chest and upper part of abdomen including both breasts. A verage size of wound 1 cm. 1/2 cm. margins inverted. No charring or blackening present. Dark clotted blood present. (2) Gunshot wound of exit 11/2 cm Xl cm on the (R) side back just below the shoulder blade. Dark clotted blood present margins enverted. (3) Abrasion 15 m X 3 cm on the (R) are lower part inner side just above the (R) elbow joint. (4) Abrasion 4 cm X 11/2 cm on the (L) side of the chest 7 cm below (L) nipple. (5) Abrasion 12 cm x 3 cm in the middle part of chest vertical in direction. (3) Abrasion 15 m X 3 cm on the (R) are lower part inner side just above the (R) elbow joint. (4) Abrasion 4 cm X 11/2 cm on the (L) side of the chest 7 cm below (L) nipple. (5) Abrasion 12 cm x 3 cm in the middle part of chest vertical in direction. (6) Abrasion 5 cm x 11/2 cm on the (L) side of hip joint. (7) Abrasion 7 cm X 1 cm on inner side of the (L) fore 7 cm above the (L) joint. (8) Lacerated wound 1/2 cm X 1/2 cm X muscle deep on to inner side of the (L) palm below the wrist ( 8 ) THE investigation of the case was taken over by Hoshiyar Singh on 11-7-78 from R. S. Pundir (P. W. 10 ). Hoshiyar Singh arrested the accused and took them to the police station on 27th July 1977 where after on interrogation Sainsarpal promised to point out pistol. Consequently the Investigating Officer took Sainsarpal along with two witnesses Mohd. Hanif and Ramzan to the promised place of recovery along with two constables on a jeep. After going for a mile and half, the appellant Sainsarpal took out the pistol and one cartridge after digging the ground of the canal patri in the presence of the aforesaid two witnesses Hanif (P. W. 8) and Mohd. Ramzan. The Sub-Inspector prepared the memo and also put the recovered pistol and cartridges in a sealed cover. Thereafter the SI. went back to the Police Station and made an endorsement in the General Diary of the Police Station. The accused were sent to the jail subsequently. After completing the investigation Hoshiyar Singh (P. W. 7) submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons. ( 9 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that he was falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity. ( 10 ) THE prosecution examined in all 10 witnesses in support of its-case. Out of them Hem Raj (P. W. 1) and Smt. Jai Devi (P. W. 3) and Ratan Singh (P. W. 5) were examined as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. ( 11 ) RATAN Singh (P. W. 5) has narrated the occurrence in detail. He has deposed on that on the day of occurrence at about 6. Out of them Hem Raj (P. W. 1) and Smt. Jai Devi (P. W. 3) and Ratan Singh (P. W. 5) were examined as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. ( 11 ) RATAN Singh (P. W. 5) has narrated the occurrence in detail. He has deposed on that on the day of occurrence at about 6. 30 P. M he was at his house in his village along with his father Hem Raj (P. W. 1), his mother Smt. Jai Devi and sister Smt. Jaswanti. Shortly, thereafter Sainsarpal armed with pistol. Co-accused Vidyawati with a lathi and Jaibir and Ziley Singh armed with pharsas entered his house and challenged to kill them. Smt. Jaswanti asked the accused not to kill but Sainsarpal fired with his pistol which hit Smt. Jaswanti on her chest and she fell down and died instantaneously. He further deposed that the remaining co-accused had assaulted Hem Raj and Smt. Jai Devi with their respective weapons. On his intervention, he was also fired at by Sainsarpal but it did not hit him. On the alarm raised by him, Charna, Balkar and Sheo Ram also arrived there who had intervened and saved him. However, the accused had made good their escape after the occurrence. He then got the report of the occurrence scribed by Baljor in the court-yard of his house and alongwith his mother and father he went to the Police Station where he handover the report to the Head Constable. He further deposed that his mother and father were examined in the hospital. It was also stated by him that there was enough blood lying on the ground where Smt. Jaswanti had fallen. He also deposed that Charna and Sheo Ram had colluded with the accused and they are not prepared to give evidence. Hemraj (P. W. 1) and Jai Devi (P. W. 3) have fully corroborated the evidence of Ratan Singh. Though, these witness are all partisan but they are natural witnesses of the occurrence as the occurrence had taken place inside their house in broad day light. Hemraj (P. W. 1) and Jai Devi (P. W. 3) are also injured witnesses. They have received number of injuries and considering the nature of injuries we are unable to hold that injuries were fabricated or self inflicted. No suggestion was put to the prosecution witnesses by defence that the injuries were not received in this incident. Hemraj (P. W. 1) and Jai Devi (P. W. 3) are also injured witnesses. They have received number of injuries and considering the nature of injuries we are unable to hold that injuries were fabricated or self inflicted. No suggestion was put to the prosecution witnesses by defence that the injuries were not received in this incident. It is no doubt true that Ratan Singh is the son of Hemraj (P. W. 1) but merely on this score, his evidence cannot be brushed aside. We have very carefully gone through the evidence of the witnesses and we are of the view that the trial court fell in error in holding that the injuries of Smt. Jai Devi and Hemraj were not received in this occurrence. The finding of the trial court is not based on cogent and reliable evidence but it is based on surmises and conjectures. The evidence of the complainant Ratan Singh is fully corroborated by the evidence of Hemraj (P. W. 1) and Smt. Jai Devi (P. W. 3) who are not only natural witnesses but also injured. The presence of Hem Raj and hi Devi on the spot cannot thus be doubted by any stretch of imagination. The evidence of these witnesses also inspires confidence and we are fully satisfied that the prosecution has fully succeeded in bringing home the charges against the appellant Sainsarpal. ( 12 ) THE trial court has clearly fallen in error in acquitting co-accused Jaibir, Ziley Singh and Smt. Vidya. These accused were named in the FIR. which was lodged within two hours of the occurrence. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses viz. Hem Raj (P. W. 1) and Jai Devi (P. W. 3) are injured witnesses and they have consistently named them in their evidence. There is no infirmity in their evidence for disbelieving them. Their evidence is further corroborated by the medical evidence produced in this case. The occurrence had taken place in broad day light at their house and as such there is no reason for them to shield the real culprit and falsely implicate the accused Jaibir. , Ziley Singh and Smt. Vidya. However, we are fully satisfied that the acquittal of Jaibir, Ziley Singh and Smt. Vidya has not at all adversely affected the case against Sainsarpal. , Ziley Singh and Smt. Vidya. However, we are fully satisfied that the acquittal of Jaibir, Ziley Singh and Smt. Vidya has not at all adversely affected the case against Sainsarpal. ( 13 ) AS to the motive we are of the view that the appellant Sainsarpal had a strong motive to commit the offence as according to the prosecution evidence, the father of Sainsarpal was done to death about 16 years back when he was about 2 or 3 years old. In that case, Kali Ram, the father of Sainsarpal was murdered in which Hem Raj (P. W. 1), Ratan Singh (P. W. 5), Smt. Anaro and Ram Kishan were prosecuted. However, in appeal Hem Raj and Smt. Anaro were acquitted by the High Court but the rest were convicted and sentenced. Under the circumstances as discussed above, Sainsarpal had a very strong motive to take revenge of his deceased father. ( 14 ) IN the end it has been pointed out that the inquest report Ex. Ka-14, the distance of place of occurrence from the Police Station has been mentioned by the Sub-Inspector as 5 Kilometers whereas in the chick report the head constable has mentioned the distance of place of occurrence from the Police Station as 2 miles. On the basics of this conflict, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of prosecution of Inquest which commenced at 7 A. M. on 1-1-77, the chick report was not in existence. Reliance bas been placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Shyama Charan v. State of UP. 1 decided by Hon. H. C. Jauhari, J. and Hon. SI. Jafri, J. wherein it was held that if there is conflict between the distance of Police Station mentioned in the chick report and the inquest report alongwith other infirmities the existence of the chick report at the time of the preparation of Inquest is subject to great doubt. No doubt in this case the difference between the chick report and the inquest report regarding the distance of the place of occurrence from the place of Police Station is at variance but the inference drawn by the Division Bench cannot be applied in favour of the accused in all cases as it will depend on the facts and circum stances of the individual case. In the instant case, the time and place of occurrence was not challenged by the defence. It was not even suggested to the informant Ratan Singh (P. W. 5) in his cross-examination by the defence that he did not hand over the written report Ex. Ka-5 to the Head constable Narendra Kumar (P. W. 6) at 9. 30 P. M. on the day of the occurrence. Under the circumstance the difference in the distance as given in the chick report and the inquest report cannot be held to be of any material significance in this particular case in view of the facts and circumstance of this case. The possibility that the Investigating Officer while preparing inquest report mentioned the distance in it on his own estimate without noting the distance given in chick report cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the Investigating Officer was not confronted regarding the aforesaid variance of the distance in his cross- examination by the defence. ( 15 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above we are of the view that the prosecution bas succeeded in bringing the guilt of the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt in this case and under the circumstance, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court deserve to be upheld. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the sentence recorded by the trial court are upheld. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. Appeal dismissed. .