JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—By this appeal, the accused has challenged his conviction by the Sessions Judge, Una, in Sessions Case No I of 1988, Sessions Trial No 3 of 1988, decided on 7-1-1988. In this case, the accused was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. Briefly speaking, the allegation against the accused is that Scat. Surinder Kumari alias Krishna (hereafter referred to as Havildarni or deceased) was residing in Mohalla Khadpur, within Municipal Committee, Una, while the accused was running a Medical Store on Una-Nangal Road. Before settling at this place, the deceased was married previously to Jagan Nath and then started living with one Bansi Lal Out of this relationship, Lalit Kumar (PW 4) was born. The deceased had a tiff with Bansi Lal, a police official, at Hamirpur, as a result of which she came to Una to reside there and started earning her livelihood by selling milk. The accused had also his house at a short distance from that of the deceased. He had been proposing to the deceased to be his wife but endeavours did not, however, bear fruit 3. The incident took place on 28-8-1^87 at about 5 p.m. Before the actual shooting, the accused was seen roaming near the house of the deceased with a gun. The deceased had gone to a nearby field to cut grass alongwith Smt Swarni (PW 6) and Satya There the accused came with his gun and shot at the deceased. In the meantime, Lalit Kumar came there but soon concealed himself in a pit nearby out of fear since the accused had aimed his gun at him also. The third shot was fired and the deceased fell flat on the ground. While leaving the place of occurrence, the accused fired two shots to create scare Santosh Kumari (PW 5), while coming from her office, found certain children talking about someone roaming under intoxication and with a gun. Soon thereafter, she heard sound of gun fire and cries of a child. She went to the place of occurrence and found the deceased bleeding. This lady came to the road and stopped a tractor. The lady requested Amarjeet Singh (PW 8), the driver of the tractor, to take the deceased to the hospital since somebody had killed her. Soon thereafter, she heard sound of gun fire and cries of a child. She went to the place of occurrence and found the deceased bleeding. This lady came to the road and stopped a tractor. The lady requested Amarjeet Singh (PW 8), the driver of the tractor, to take the deceased to the hospital since somebody had killed her. Amarjeet Singh (FW 8), went to his shop and informed the police through telephone This message was noted in the daily-diary at police station, Una, and on this basis, the present case was registered. 4. Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Kishan Chand (PW 17), was present at the bus-stand where he came to know about this happening. He went towards the spot and on the way he was told by Amar Chand (PW 10) that the accused had fired two shots in the air while going towards his house. Therefore, A. S. I. Kishan Chand, went to the house of the accused alongwith Amar Chand and one Kuldip Singh, Photographer. The accused was apprehended alongwith his gun and brought to the police station. While coming to the police station, S. H. O. Mohan Lal, met him who directed ASI Kishan Chand to investigate the case since a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code had been registered against the accused. At the time of the arrest of the accused, the gun, which was loaded with a cartridge, was taken into possession alongwith other five live cartridges fro m the person of the accused. 5. The deceased was taken to the hospital by the residents of the area, including Mangat Ram Saini (PW 9), who represented this Ward \n Municipal Committee, Una. The police could not record the statement of the deceased in the hospital since, according to the opinion of the doctor, the deceased was not in a fit state to do so. Immediately thereafter, the deceased was declared dead. Inquest was prepared and the body was subjected to postmortem examination. According to the doctor, the deceased had died due to haemorrhage and gun shot injury. The death was instantaneous and the probable time, according to the doctor, that elapsed between injury and death, was between 20 to 25 minutes. As observed earlier, the police commenced investigation quickly on coming to know of the incident. According to the doctor, the deceased had died due to haemorrhage and gun shot injury. The death was instantaneous and the probable time, according to the doctor, that elapsed between injury and death, was between 20 to 25 minutes. As observed earlier, the police commenced investigation quickly on coming to know of the incident. From the spot recoveries like three empty cartridges along-with wads and pellets, blood stained earth and grass, were also taken into possession in addition to one chadar and tat. Two empty cartridges were also taken into possession from the way at a short distance from the place of occurrence. Deceaseds clothes were also taken into possession on being handed over by the doctor. These articles -gun, empty cartridges and pellets—were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and according to the report (Ex PZ/1) the cartridges Ex, P-7 to Ex. P-9), recovered from the place of occurrence, and other cartridges (Ex P-14 and Ex. P-15), recovered from the way—had been fired through gun (Ex. P-16) that was recovered from the accused. This report further states that the card board alongwith pellets (Ex. P-6), recovered from the place of occurrence and pellets (Ex. P-l), taken from the body of the deceased by the doctor, could have been fired through the gun (Ex. P-16). Chemical Examiners report (Ex. PY), and Serologists reports (Ex. PZ, also say that human blood was there on the earth, grass, shirt and the Pyjama. 6. Finally, on completion of investigation, the accused was proceeded against for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. His explanation is that on the day of occurrence, he was examining a patient at his shop at 4.30 p. m and at about 4 4S p m. one Hari Chand, Motor Mechanic, came to him for medicine. During this time, one Jeet Ram came to his shop and requested him to visit his house to see a patient. Since his own motorcycle was out of order, the accused requested Hari Chand to take him to village Khud via Basoli. Accordingly, he was taken at about 5 pm. During this time, one Jeet Ram came to his shop and requested him to visit his house to see a patient. Since his own motorcycle was out of order, the accused requested Hari Chand to take him to village Khud via Basoli. Accordingly, he was taken at about 5 pm. The motorcycle was parked at Basoli and from there, he went to village Khud alongwith Hari Chaad to see Thola Ram, who was ill He stayed there for about-30 to 45 minutes and after giving medicines to the patient, he came back to village Khud at about 6.30 p. m. and reached his house at about 7.15 p m. While he was taking tea with one Ram Kishan, Constable Jagtar Singh came and asked for the gun. The Constable was given the gun and 12 live cartridges. In the meantime, ASL Kishan Chand came and took him to the police station where he was confined. The accused has also examined four witnesses in his defence. The trial ended in the aforesaid conviction of the accused, hence this appeal in this Court. 7. Shri M. G. Chitkara, learned Counsel for the accused submits that the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act is not sustainable; in view of infirm prosecution evidence in this case. He also submitted that the accused has not been connected with the crime and whatever evidence has been brought on the record touching this aspect of the case, is thoroughly vague and undependable. The learned Counsel also submitted that there is no evidence pointing out that the articles sealed at the spot were deposited in the Malkhana for safe custody. In order to examine these submissions, it is desirable to scan the evidence that has been brought on record by the prosecution as well as the accused The first question to be seen is whether it has been proved that it was the accused alone and none else who killed the deceased On this aspect there are certain witnesses who have either seen the occurrence or came to know about the same immediately on the happening of the incident. 8. The first most important witness of the prosecution is Shri Lalit Kumar (PW 4). 8. The first most important witness of the prosecution is Shri Lalit Kumar (PW 4). He is the son of the deceased from Bansi Lal, a Havildar in the Police Department, then posted at Hamirpur and with whom the deceased had cut off her relationship and settled at Una. He states that at the time of occurrence, he was playing near the well and the accused was seen by him moving there with a gun in his hand. He informed this fact to the deceased at his house. He was told by the deceased to give water to the cattle and then take kati to the well- The accused was also there at that time and after sometime, the deceased was cutting the grass near her house alongwith Swarni Devi and Satya Devi. He also states that the accused went towards the deceased and fired at her. He went towards the deceased but in the meantime, accused fired another gun shot and aimed the gun at him also He concealed himself in a pit and saw that the accused fired third gun shot at the deceased who fell on the spot. Many people gathered there while the accused ran away towards the compound of Saini. The deceased was taken to the hospital. He also states that the accused had been suggesting to the deceased that she should accept the accused as her husband and him as a son. A quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the accused before the occurrence when the accused had abused the deceased He also states that the accused was running a Chemists shop on Una-Nangal Road and the house of the accused is in the same Mohalla. 9. Further, he states that when he was playing with the children, he saw the accused going towards Pirnigaha and was carrying a gun in his hand but he could not say as to when he came back from that side About Som Nath, he states that he (Som Nath) resided at their house for sometime and gave some money to the deceased for the purchase of a buffalo. The deceased had also some quarrel with Som Nath but admitted that Som Nath used to tell the deceased not to invite persons of ill repute at her house. 10. The deceased had also some quarrel with Som Nath but admitted that Som Nath used to tell the deceased not to invite persons of ill repute at her house. 10. Shri M G. Chitkara, raised serious objection as to the acceptability of the evidence given by this witness on the ground that he is an interested witness, being the son of the deceased. There is no substance in this submission for the reason that Lalit Kumar may be the son of the deceased but there is no reason to doubt the version given by him in this case. He is an eye-witness to the occurrence. He had seen the same from a close distance. He lives in the Mohalla of the accused, therefore, he knew the accused very well. There can be no dispute as to the identification of the accused by him. He has given a very straightforward and true account of facts witnessed by him. From the evidence, it cannot be doubted that he was not present at the spot Rather, his presence at the spot is also clear from other witnesses of the prosecution although they have not fully supported the prosecution case. 11. Smt. Swarni Devi (PW 6) is the other prosecution witness in this case. She resiled from her earlier statement, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, she was permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution She admits that she had also gone to cut the grass with the deceased. She also admits that she had gone there along-with her daughter Smt Satya. She has also admitted that she heard gun shot although deviated from her earlier version by saying that she had gone to the other field out of fear although she did not see anybody firing the shot nor she knew the accused. 12. She admits that the police had come to the spot on the day of the occurrence and she was interrogated alongwith her daughter and her statement was recorded by the police alongwith the statement of her daughter Sort. Satya. Although, as noticed hereinabove, she denied having any knowledge about the accused, but admitted that the accused was running a Chemists shop and she had taken medicines from him once or twice. Satya. Although, as noticed hereinabove, she denied having any knowledge about the accused, but admitted that the accused was running a Chemists shop and she had taken medicines from him once or twice. She specifically admits that Lalit Kumar f PW 4) was present at the spot when the gun shot was fired She also admits that she heard three gun shots and thereafter she ran away from the site out of fear leaving behind her chadar where the deceased was cutting the grass. She also admits that Lalit Kumar (PW 4) came running to the deceased but in the meantime she had started running away from the spot She also says that she came to the spot alongwith other persons and saw the deceased lying with bleeding injury in her leg and stomach and that just after the occurrence, the police reached the spot and interrogated her. 13. It is quite evident from the statement of this witness that she has also supported the material facts of the prosecution case, though she turned hostile to the prosecution. 14. Kartari (PW 7) has also been examined in this case and has also been declared hostile. However, she admits the presence of the deceased and Lalit Kumar at the spot although says that she heard the sound of gun shots when she had come back to her house after taking water. Although during her examination-in-chief she stated that she did not know the accused but while under cross-examination, she admitted that the accused was running a Chemists shop and that she was interrogated by the police on the next day of the occurrence when she had stated to the police that the accused was standing on the road when she went to the well but did not remember whether the accused was having a gun in his hand at that time though this fact was duly stated in her statement (Ex PW 7/A) 15. Statement of this witness also supports the prosecution case on certain important aspects. Therefore, it cannot be said that the version given by her is thoroughly against the prosecution and deserves to be used as such, as contended by Shri M. G. Chitkara. 16. Then there is Smt Santosh Kumari (PW 5). According to her, on the day of occurrence, at about 5.30 a. m. she had reached the Satsang Bhawan, Una. Therefore, it cannot be said that the version given by her is thoroughly against the prosecution and deserves to be used as such, as contended by Shri M. G. Chitkara. 16. Then there is Smt Santosh Kumari (PW 5). According to her, on the day of occurrence, at about 5.30 a. m. she had reached the Satsang Bhawan, Una. While coming from the State Bank, where she was employed, she saw some lady standing there and the children were talking that a person under intoxication was roaming there with a gun. Although she did not see any such person roaming there with a gun, but as soon as she left the place, she heard sound of gun shot, followed by another shot. She also heard weeping cries of a child and when she came back, she saw a lady lying on the ground bleeding from her knees. She identified Lalit Kumar (PW 4) to be the child who was weeping and crying near that lady. She was nervous so left the place and came to the road where she stopped atractorwala and asked him to take the lady to the hospital. The tractor-wala left the place and thereafter she stopped a bus but she was told by the bus driver that she should go back to the house and that everything would be arranged. Similarly, Amarjeet Singh (PW 8), who was coming with his tractor from his field, admitted that Santosh Kumari (PW 5) had told him that somebody had killed Havildarni (deceased) He went to his shop from where he telephoned the police and then went to the spot where the police had also reached. He is a witness to number of recoveries made by the police in this case He is the Municipal Commissioner of Una Municipal Committee He also states that Mangat Ram was also associated with him by the police in the investigation of this case. 17. Mangat Ram (PW 9) is also the Municipal Commissioner, representing Ward No 4, under which the accused and the deceased used to reside. He has also stated that he saw the deceased alongwith two other ladies while cutting the grass. Subsequently, he noticed children saying that gun shots had been fired towards Pirnigaha road and he went there. 17. Mangat Ram (PW 9) is also the Municipal Commissioner, representing Ward No 4, under which the accused and the deceased used to reside. He has also stated that he saw the deceased alongwith two other ladies while cutting the grass. Subsequently, he noticed children saying that gun shots had been fired towards Pirnigaha road and he went there. He found the deceased lying on the ground in a bleeding state while her son Lalit Kumar (PW 4) was present there. He went to market; telephoned the police and came to the spot again. The deceased was removed to the hospital and he also went there but when he came back to the spot, the police was already there. He was associated by the police in the investigation and the recoveries made in this case He has also stated that Amar Singh produced two empty cartridges (Ex. P-14and Ex. P-15) which were taken into possession by the police through memo (Ex. PM). He also states that the accused produced his gun licence (Ex. PN) which was taken into possession vide memo. (Ex PO). He is signatory to inquest report (Ex.PD) also. Amar Chand (PW 10) was also with this witness during this time. In his own statement, Amar Chand (PW 10) also admits that he was with Mangat Ram Saini (PW 9) in the market on that evening when the police came and asked about the house of Multan Singh, accused. He states that he accompanied the police to the house of the accused and found the accused standing in his house with a gun in his hand. The accused was arrested and his search was conducted. Gun (Ex. P-16) was recovered from him, sketch of the gun (Ex PQ) was prepared. He was subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution for resiling from his earlier version. He stated that the accused and the deceased were living in the same Mohalla and that the police interrogated him on the day of occurrence and recorded his statement. He has been confronted to his earlier statement that the accused was present on the road in front of Mahavir Industries with a gun on his shoulders and he fired two shots in the air in front of the shop of Bachna. He has been confronted to his earlier statement that the accused was present on the road in front of Mahavir Industries with a gun on his shoulders and he fired two shots in the air in front of the shop of Bachna. Similarly, he was confronted to his statement about how the cartridges from the person of the accused and a live cartridge loaded in the gun were taken into possession. 18. Kuldip Singh (PW 11) is a Photographer living in Municipal Ward No. 4 of this town He also heard sound of gun fire, while in his house. He came out and saw the accused coming from the side of the road with a gun in his hand. He also states that the police came and apprehended the accused and on his search, the gun (Ex. P. 16) was taken into possession alongwith five live and one loaded cartridges. He proved memo. (Ex. PR, in this regard that was duly signed by him. He took photographs in this case. He has been put to serious cross-examination by the accused. However, there is nothing which can be seen to be favourable to the accused. 19. Cracker like sound was heard by Bachan Chand (PW 12), who was present in his carpentary shop on Una-Nangal Road. But denied having seen anyone and, more particularly, the accused coming with a gum and also firing in the air. He has also been subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution for deviating from his statement recorded under Section 1&1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Although he has not supported the prosecution, but it appears from his version that he has done so quite intentionally in order to support the accused who is known to him. 20. Amar Singh (PW 14), employed with Home Guard Department at Una, was on duty near the College Road on the day of occurrence. He states that while coming from the side of Indira Ground towards Una, they went towards khad side and in the street they found two empty cartridges lying on the ground He picked up the same and gave them to the police which reached at the spot at that time They were taken into possession vide memo (Ex. He states that while coming from the side of Indira Ground towards Una, they went towards khad side and in the street they found two empty cartridges lying on the ground He picked up the same and gave them to the police which reached at the spot at that time They were taken into possession vide memo (Ex. PM) and they are (Ex P-14 and Ex P. 15), All other recoveries in this case have been supported by witnesses and we see no reason to disbelieve any of them. The ownership of the gun has not been denied by the accused. Licence of this gun (Ex. PN), issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Una, is in the name of the accused it was valid upto 5-12-1989. It has been proved through Ram Lai, Arms Clerk (PW 15). 21 Karam Chand, MHC (PW 16), recorded the daily-diary (Ex PD) and be states that whatever message he received was recorded by him. He also states that the case property was deposited by the investigating officer and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Patiala, and to Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. He also states that the case property was not tampered with in any manner when it remained in his possession. 22. Kishan Chand, ASI (PW 17) has also proved the recoveries He also stated about the deposit of these articles in the Malkhana, in addition to all the steps taken in the investigation of this case. 23. Inspector Daulat Ram (PW J&) was also posted at Police Station, Una, alongwith S. H. O, Mohan Lai, when telephonic message of the occurrence was received. He also went to the spot followed by the Station House Officer He submitted application (Ex PA) to the doctor seeking his opinion whether the deceased was in a fit condition to make the statement but the doctor opined that the deceased was not fit to make the statement who was declared dead by the doctor. The case was also investigated by Mohan Lai (PW 19), S. H. O, Una He has also proved that part of the investigation which was conducted by him. The reports given by the Experts have also established that cartridges (Ex. P 7 to Ex. P. 9 and Ex. P. 14 and Ex. P-15) were fired through gun (Ex P-16), It has also been reported that pellets (Ex. The reports given by the Experts have also established that cartridges (Ex. P 7 to Ex. P. 9 and Ex. P. 14 and Ex. P-15) were fired through gun (Ex P-16), It has also been reported that pellets (Ex. P. 6 and Ex P. 1) have also been fired through the same gun. 24. Turning now to the defence led by the accused, it has been stated " by his witnesses that the accused was not available at his shop during this time since he had gone out to attend a patient, Harish Chand, Mechanic, who is also owner of the Motor Cycle, has also appeared in defence like Thola Ram, who was medically examined by the accused in his Village. This is the kind of evidence that has been led by the prosecution and the accused in support of their respective cases. 25. From the examination of the evidence available on the record of this case and the other duly extracted above, we are of the considered opinion that it was the accused who killed the deceased. There is no doubt on this aspect of the case in the light of the clear prosecution evidence in this regard We have also examined the trial Court judgment dealing with various aspects of the case and we see no justification to differ with its findings. 26. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal by the accused and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed