Judgment K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.:- This is an appeal under Section 2(a) of the SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 and the sole accused is the appellant. He was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of Gurdip Singh, the deceased in the case and he was acquitted by the trial court. The State preferred an appeal and a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The accused, deceased and the material witnesses belong to Village Jaitu in Faridkot District. In connection with the murder of Bhola Singh, brother of the accused, the deceased was tried and was acquitted in the year 1975. Thereafter the accused and his another brother Darbara Singh caused injuries to the deceased in 1976 for which they were charge-sheeted and security proceedings also were initiated. On 26-9-77 the deceased along with his son Harbans Singh, P.W. 6, daughter Jaswinder Kaur, P.W.7 and Niranjan Singh, P.W. 8, brother-in-law of P.W. 6 had gone to the shop of Maghi Ram in Jaitu Village where one Inder Singh had gone to sell his produce. According to the prosecution the said Inder Singh had taken the land of the deceased for cultivation and had to pay money. The deceased along with P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 had gone to the shop of Maghi Ram to realise the money at about 3 P.M. When they were present in the shop, the accused armed with pistol, Exhibit M.O. 7 came there and fired at the deceased causing his instantaneous death. P.W. 6 left P.Ws. 7 and 8 near the dead body and went to the Police Station, Jaitu and gave a report at about 3.45 P.M. i.e. almost immediately. The case was registered and the S. H. O., P.W. 10 reached the scene of occurrence, held the inquest and sent the dead body for post-mortem. Dr. Lakhwinder Kaur, P.W. 1. who conducted the post-mortem, found a number of gun-shot injuries and opined that the death was due to injuries to the lungs caused by the pellets. The accused was arrested and the pistol Exhibit M.O. 7 was recovered along with cartridges Exhibit M.O. 8. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the three eye witnesses. Lakhwinder Kaur, P.W. 1. who conducted the post-mortem, found a number of gun-shot injuries and opined that the death was due to injuries to the lungs caused by the pellets. The accused was arrested and the pistol Exhibit M.O. 7 was recovered along with cartridges Exhibit M.O. 8. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the three eye witnesses. The accused pleaded not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused holding that the purpose for which P.Ws. 6 to 8 went to the shop of Maghi Ram has not been explained and that Maghi Ram was not examined as a witness and that the presence of P.W. 6 also becomes doubtful because it was not proved that Inder Singh was cultivating the land of Gurdip Singh inasmuch as the necessary records were not filed and the presence of P.W. 8, who belongs to a different village, is doubtful. The learned Sessions Judge also held that the time of occurrence is in doubt in view of the statement of the Doctor, P.W. 1 that the information furnished by the police was that the deceased was done to death at 2.30 p.m. It was further held that the occurrence took place in broad-day light in an inhabited locality and no neighbourer was examined. The learned Sessions Judge also disbelieved the recoveries. The High Court, on the other hand, having examined the evidence of P.Ws. 6 to 8 held that the reasons given by the Sessions Judge are highly unsound and the only view possible is that the accused alone caused the death of the deceased. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that P.Ws. 6 to 8 are highly interested witnesses and the purpose for which they were present in the shop of Maghi Ram along with the deceased is not at all established satisfactorily and that Inder Singh has not supported the prosecution case and that failure to examine the inhabitants of the locality throws any amount of doubt on the prosecution case and consequently the trial Court has rightly rejected the evidence of P.Ws. 6 to 8. 4. The medical evidence established beyond doubt that the deceased died because of fire arm injuries. The place of occurrence also is beyond any dispute. We have examined the evidence of P.Ws. 6 to 8 carefully, P.W. 6 is the son of the deceased. 6 to 8. 4. The medical evidence established beyond doubt that the deceased died because of fire arm injuries. The place of occurrence also is beyond any dispute. We have examined the evidence of P.Ws. 6 to 8 carefully, P.W. 6 is the son of the deceased. He has given all the details in his chief examination, he has deposed that he along with his sister P.W. 7, the deceased and his wifes brother, P.W. 8 went to the shop of Maghi Ram who worked as a commission agent to realise the money due from Inder Singh who had gone to the shop to sell his produce. He has also given the details of the earlier incidents and he further deposed that when they were there, the accused came and fired at the deceased causing his instantaneous death. He gave the F.I.R. at the earliest moment namely 3.45 P.M. in which he has given all these details. In the said report the presence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 is also mentioned. The purpose for which they went to the shop is also mentioned. He was cross-examined at length but nothing significant has been elicited. He however admitted that Maghi Ram never acted as their commission agent but he asserted that they went to collect the money from Inder Singh who was their tenant and who had gone to the shop of Maghi Ram to sell his produce. This appears to be quite natural. The learned Sessions Judge doubted the presence of this witness merely on the ground that the document showing the lease arrangement has not been filed. The very fact that even in the F.I.R. this purpose is mentioned would go to show that it is not a mere imagination. Therefore the learned Sessions Judge was wholly incorrect to doubt his presence at the scene of occurrence. Likewise PW. 8 fully supported the evidence of P.W. 6. The criticism against the evidence of this witness is that there was no need for him to be present in Village Jaitu on that day. Admittedly P.W. 8 is the brother-in-law of P.W. 6. Likewise PW. 8 fully supported the evidence of P.W. 6. The criticism against the evidence of this witness is that there was no need for him to be present in Village Jaitu on that day. Admittedly P.W. 8 is the brother-in-law of P.W. 6. He deposed that his village is at a distance of 25 miles and on the previous day he came to the house of P.W. 6 in connection with the matrimonial alliance of P.W. 7 and the next day he was asked to stay to purchase blankets of his choice for being given in the marriage and that Inder Singh, who was indebted to the deceased, also came there and he represented that he had to sell his produce at the commission agency of Maghi Ram and they could contact him there. Therefore all of them went to the shop of Maghi Ram where this occurrence took place. The name of this witness and all the details are mentioned in the F.I.R. Therefore the presence of P.W. 8 at the scene of occurrence is quite natural. The F.I.R. which was given within a short time also reached the Magistrate in the same evening. Therefore it is futile to contend that the name of this witness has been mentioned in the FIR even without his being present there. All these circumstances would show that he was very much present and witnessed the occurrence. This witness has been cross-examined and his answers would show that he was not shaken in any manner. He stated in the cross-examination that he was present during the inquest and attested the inquest report. The investigating officer, however, stated that this witness did not attest the inquest report but the inquest report would show that he was also present during the inquest. Therefore, he might have committed a mistake that he attested the inquest report though in fact he was present during the inquest and participated. Learned counsel also submitted that if P.Ws. 6 and 8 were present their clothes would have got blood stained, as according to them they were attending to the bleeding deceased. It cannot definitely be said that their clothes should necessarily have got blood-stained, it depends upon how they handled the injured deceased. 5. Learned counsel also submitted that if P.Ws. 6 and 8 were present their clothes would have got blood stained, as according to them they were attending to the bleeding deceased. It cannot definitely be said that their clothes should necessarily have got blood-stained, it depends upon how they handled the injured deceased. 5. Learned Counsel submitted that the doctors evidence would show that he was informed by the police that the occurrence took place at 2.30 p.m. and therefore the version of P.Ws. that it took place at 3 p.m. cannot be believed. We do not see any inconsistency. These are all villagers and it cannot be said that they would have the correct estimate of time. Even otherwise the margin is only half an hour and that would not make much difference. Reliance is also placed on an admission made by P. W. 6 to the effect that D.S.P. and S.P. visited the place of occurrence at about 3.15 p.m., to contend that the occurrence must have taken place earlier. This estimate of time by P.W. 6 is clearly a mistake. It is in the evidence of the investigating officer that these officers reached only at 5.30 p.m. Learned counsel also submitted that Inder Singh was not examined but the explanation is that he turned hostile and there is no reason not to accept the same. 6. Learned Sessions Judge has rejected the evidence of these witnesses on surmises and on grounds which do not stand scrutiny. The High Court has taken the correct view in the matter and that is the only view possible in this case. Thus, we see no merits in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. For Citation : AIR 1994 SC 969