Pupinder Pal Singh v. State Of Punjab — 1994 DIGILAW 351 (SC)

JUDGMENT G.N.RAY, J. (1) THIS appeal is directed against judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 12/3/1980, in Criminal Appeal No. 1577 of 1980 affirming the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in Sessions Trial No,43 of 1978 by which the appellant was convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and awarded sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and two years rigorous imprisonment under the Arms Act. The accused No. 1 Iqbal Singh and accused No.2, Pupinder Pal Singh were tried in the said Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1978 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for committing murder of one Jaswant Singh son of Kirpal Singh on 13th July, 1978 at about 5.30 p.m. It may be stated here that the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused No. 1, Iqbal Singh, by giving him benefit of doubt. The short facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- The accused No.1, Iqbal Singh, the father of the accused No. 2 had migrated from Pakistan and was allotted land in village Kuliawal. Kirpal Singh father of the deceased, (Public Witness 2) had also migrated from Pakistan and was allotted land in the village Kuliawal. Both Iqbal Singh and Kirpal Singh originally were residents of village Narangwal and they had good relations. Iqbal Singh constructed godowns in the land belonging to the Panchayat in the village Kuliawal. Kirpal Singh made a complaint in the office of Municipal Corporation against Iqbal Singh for such encroachment and also filed a suit against him. In view of such complaint the relation between Iqbal Singh and Kirpal Singh became strained. On July 13, 1978, at about 5.15 p.m. Public Witness 2, Kirpal Singh, and his son Jaswant Singh, deceased, were standing at the crossing of roads in front of their house. The appellant, Pupinder Pal Singh, accused No. 2 and his father Iqbal Singh came on a tractor from the side of their house having guns with them. The said Pupinder Pal Singh and Iqbal Singh held out a threat to Kirpal Singh and his son Jaswant Singh by saying that it was not proper on their part to make complaint against them for the construction of the said godowns. The said Pupinder Pal Singh and Iqbal Singh held out a threat to Kirpal Singh and his son Jaswant Singh by saying that it was not proper on their part to make complaint against them for the construction of the said godowns. Kirpal Singh replied that he had made such applications in public interest and advised them to go away. Iqbal Singh and the appellant Pupinder Pal Singh replied that they were very much aggrieved against Kirpal Singh since he was very close to them and thereafter they left in their tractor towards the house of Mistry, Piara Singh. Kirpal Singh and his son Jaswant Singh remained standing there. After 10-15 minutes, both the said accused returned on their tractor. Iqbal Singh enquired from Kirpal Singh and the deceased, Jaswant Singh, as to why they had been still standing there. Kirpal Singh replied that they were standing in front of their house and Iqbal Singh had no cause to question them. Both the accused thereafter started hurling abuses to Kirpal Singh and Jaswant Singh. The deceased, Jaswant Singh, thereafter abused the accused in return and Kirpal Singh also asked the accused to behave properly. Bachittar Singh, Amar Singh and Balwinder Singh also came there. It is the prosecution case that being enraged, the accused No. 1 Iqbal Singh, fired a shottowards Kirpal Singh but nobody was injured by the said shot. Then the appellant Pupinder Pal Singh fired a shot which hit the chest of Jaswant Singh and Jaswant Singh fell down on the ground. Both the accused left towards their house with the tractor. Public Witness 2, Kirpal Singh, arranged for a car and took his son Jaswant Singh to the C.M.C. Hospital at Ludhiana and they reached the hospital at about 6.15 p.m. The doctor on examining Jaswant Singh declared him to be dead. On learning about the death of Jaswant Singh, Kirpal Singh became nervous as he was a heart patient and also a patient of Asthama. He was made to lie for about an hour. Thereafter, he removed the dead body of Jaswant Singh in a car to the village. On learning about the death of Jaswant Singh, Kirpal Singh became nervous as he was a heart patient and also a patient of Asthama. He was made to lie for about an hour. Thereafter, he removed the dead body of Jaswant Singh in a car to the village. They reached the village at about 8.30 p m. Thereafter, Kirpal Singh in the company of Bachittar Singh who had accompanied Kirpal Singh to the hospital, left for the police station at about 9.00 p.m. and lodged the first information report at police station at Ludhiana being Ext.P.E. The Sub-Inspector, Mohinder Singh, accompanied Kirpal Singh to the spot and they reached there at about 10.45 p.m. The dead body of Jaswant Singh was lying in the courtyard in the house of Kirpal Singh and was being guarded by Balwinder Singh, son of Kirpal Singh. The Sub-Inspector prepared the inquest report and entrusted the dead body to the two Constables for taking the same for post mortem examination. The Sub-Inspector then lifted the blood stained earth from the crossing in front of the house of Kirpal Singh and put the same in a sealed parcel. The statement of Bachittar Singh, Amar Singh and Balwinder Singh were also recorded by the Sub-Inspector. It was stated by Kirpal Singh that the house of Amar Singh was adjacent to his house and the house of Bachittar Singh was 14-15 Karams from the place of occurrence.- On July 14, 1978, post mortem was conducted at civil hospital, Ludhiana by Dr. Ved Prakash who noted gun shot injuries and the doctor also noted the direction of the wound towards right and downwards. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemmorhage as a result of injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. On July 15, 1978, Pupinder Pal Singh was arrested and on July 16, 1978, Amrik Singh produced a. 12 bore gun Ext.P. 1 along with licence Ext.P.2 before the Sub-Inspector, Bihari Lal. The gun was kept in a sealed parcel. The licence of the said gun was in the name of Iqbal Singh. Iqbal Singh was arrested on July 28, 1978 by the Sub-Inspector Bihari Lal and the rifle belonging to him was produced being Ext.P.3 which was also kept in a sealed parcel. The gun was kept in a sealed parcel. The licence of the said gun was in the name of Iqbal Singh. Iqbal Singh was arrested on July 28, 1978 by the Sub-Inspector Bihari Lal and the rifle belonging to him was produced being Ext.P.3 which was also kept in a sealed parcel. The tractor of Iqbal Singh was taken into possession on July 20, 1978 but the same was given on superdari to Iqbal Singh. (2) IN a statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, Iqbal Singh denied the allegations made against him and he set up a plea of alibi by contending that he had gone to village Rupalon from where he had been to village Talwandi and he was not present at the time of occurrence. The accused No. 2 Pupinder Pal Singh also denied the allegations of murder and in a statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code he stated that on the date of occurrence at 5.30 p.m. he was returning on his tractor after having a round of his field. He was armed,with a gun belonging to his father and the father was not present in the village on that day. It was stated by him that he had taken his gun with him because there was enmity between his family and some otherresidents of village. When he reached in front of the house of Jaswant Singh and tried to take a turn towards his house, Jaswant Singh boarded the tractor and caught hold of the barrel of the gun. Pupinder Pal Singh told him that it was loaded and asked him to leave the gun but Jaswant Singh did not do so. The tussle took place between them and during the tussle, the gun accidentally went off injuring Jaswant Singh and he fell down from the tractor. Pupinder Pal Singh then left the place on his tractor towards his house Thereafter, he came to Ludhiana where he reached at about 6.15 p.m. He drafted the application Ext.P.M. and brought the said application to Ludhiana. Dhanraj Singh and Bharpur Singh met Pupinder Pal Singh at Dholewal Chawk, Ludhiana. All the three persons went to the house of the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana but the Deputy Commissioner was not available. They thereafter went to the house of the Additional Deputy Commissioner who was also not available. Dhanraj Singh and Bharpur Singh met Pupinder Pal Singh at Dholewal Chawk, Ludhiana. All the three persons went to the house of the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana but the Deputy Commissioner was not available. They thereafter went to the house of the Additional Deputy Commissioner who was also not available. Pupinder Pal Singh thereafter presented the application to Sub-Divisional Magistrate at his house at about 9.00 p.m. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate made an endorsement on the application and handed over the application to Pupinder Pal Singh for taking it to the senior Superintendent of Police. They thereafter went to the residence of S.S.P. but he was also not available. Pupinder Pal Singh and his two companions thereafter went to the house of the Superintendent of Police, City, and handed over the application being Ext.P.M. to him. The Superintendent of Police, City, gave a telephonic call to the police station and Mohinder Singh, S.I., arrived. The S.P. City handed over the application of Pupinder Pal Singh to S.I. and Pupinder Pal Singh was taken to the police station, Sadar, Ludhiana. (3) IT may be stated here that 7 witnesses were examined by the accused persons in their defence. D.W. 1, Balbir Kumar, stated that he prepared a movie-film showing that Kirpal Singh had been driving a car. D.W.2, Shri A.R. Darshi, S.D.M., Ludhiana, had deposed that on July 13, 1978, at 9.00 p.m., the application Ext.P.M. was produced at his residence by Dhanraj Singh, MLA who was accompanied by a youngman. He, however, could not identify Pupinder Pal Singh as the young man accompanied by Dhanraj Singh. The said S.D.M. stated that the note Ext.P.M./l on the application was written in his presence by the young man who had accompanied Dhanraj Singh. D.W.3, Major Gurdip Singh Grewal, was an Arms Dealer of Ludhiana, who stated that the rifle, Ex.P.3 was a semi-automatic weapon. According to him, if such a weapon was in correct working condition, then as soon as a cartridge would be fired, the empty shell would be ejected automatically. D W.4, Dr. Suresh Kumar, stated that on July 16, 1978, at 2.20 p.m., he examined Pupinder Pal Singh and he noted that there was an abrasion 5/8" x 1/8" below the supra sternal notch which was partially healed and scabbed. According to the doctor, such injury was simple in nature and was caused with a blunt weapon. D W.4, Dr. Suresh Kumar, stated that on July 16, 1978, at 2.20 p.m., he examined Pupinder Pal Singh and he noted that there was an abrasion 5/8" x 1/8" below the supra sternal notch which was partially healed and scabbed. According to the doctor, such injury was simple in nature and was caused with a blunt weapon. According to his opinion, such injury could have been inflicted if the injured was holding a gun and was struggling with somebody and the butt of the gun had struck against the chest. D.W.5, S.Mehtab Singh, deposed that he had visited the village Kuliawal on July 14, 1978 and in the report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code the police, requested that the Iqbal Singh might be discharged. D.W.6, Pritu Mal, brought the summoned file and stated that Ex.DC was the copy of case records under Section 107/150 Criminal Procedure Code Ex.DD to DH were the copies of the interim order. Ex.DJ was the copy of the statement of Bachittar Singh and Ex.DK was the copy of notice under Section 112 Criminal Procedure Code, served in the case. DW.7, Rajinder Singh, stated that theresidence of Mr. Sharma, S.P. Police is at a distance of less than a furlong from the Police Station, Ludhiana. Accused No. 1, Iqbal Singh, tendered into evidence copy of an order under Section 107/150 Criminal Procedure Code Ex.DM and a copy of another order dated 26/11/1968 Ex.DN and the copy of the first information report Ex.DC. It may be stated here that the incident had taken place in the village kuliawal which was about 11 kilometers from the police station, Sadar, Ludhiana. (4) IN the first information report lodged by Kirpal Singh at 9.30 p.m. it was stated that after the incident, they had removed Jaswant Singh to C.MC. hospital where he was examined by the doctor and was declared dead. The father of Jaswant Singh became nervous and being a heart-patient and a patient of Asthama; he was asked to lie for about an hour and then left for the village with the dead body of his son. (5) THE learned Sessions Judge relied on the evidences of eye witnesses of the incident, namely, Kirpal Singh, father of the deceased, Bachittar Singh an ex-sarpanch of the village and Amar Singh, uncle of Kirpal Singh. (5) THE learned Sessions Judge relied on the evidences of eye witnesses of the incident, namely, Kirpal Singh, father of the deceased, Bachittar Singh an ex-sarpanch of the village and Amar Singh, uncle of Kirpal Singh. The house of Bachittar Singh was at a distance of 16-17 karams and that of Amar Singh 12 karams only from the place of occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the presence of Bachittar Singh and Amar Singh at the time of occurrence was quite natural. He also held that simply because Amar Singh was the uncle of Kirpal Singh, his evidence was not to be discarded. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that Bachittar Singh had a strained relation with Iqbal Singh and on the complaint of Iqbal Singh, a criminal case was instituted against Bachittar Singh and others. The learned Sessions Judge was therefore of the view that the evidence of Bachittar Singh should not be readily accepted and only such part of his statement which stood corroborated by other evidence should be accepted. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that although Kirpal Singh, Bachittar Singh and Amar Singh deposed that the first shot did not hit anybody but the same could not be established by other evidences because no empty cartridge was recovered from the place of occurrence by the police. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the case against the accused No. 1 Iqbal Singh, that he fired a shot but the same did not hit anybody did not stand proved. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused No. 1 and he was acquitted. So far as accused No. 2 Pupinder Pal Singh was concerned, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that it was an admitted position that Pupinder Pal Singh fired a shot which hit the chest of Jaswant Singh and such shot had been fired from a close range. So far as accused No. 2 Pupinder Pal Singh was concerned, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that it was an admitted position that Pupinder Pal Singh fired a shot which hit the chest of Jaswant Singh and such shot had been fired from a close range. The learned Sessions Judge relied on the deposition of the doctor who had stated that the victim was at a distance of aboutthree feet from the end of the barrel of the gun when the shot was fired and ; according to the learned Sessions Judge such statement of the doctor appeared to be correct because there was no mark of blackening or charring of the skin at the place where the shot hit when the post mortem was performed on the dead body of Jaswant Singh. The learned Sessions Judge was also of the view that the case of accidental fire as stated by Pupinder Pal Singh because of the scuffle between him and the deceased could not be accepted for various reasons indicated in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, convicted the accused No. 2. Pupinder Pal Singh, under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Jaswant Singh and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act for keeping a gun in his possession for unlawful purpose and passed the sentence against Pupinder Pal Singh as already indicated. (6) IN the appeal before the High Court being Criminal Appeal No. 1577 of 1978 against the conviction and sentence of Pupinder Pal Singh, it was contended that the first information report was lodged after a considerable delay. Although, according to the prosecution, the doctor declared Jaswant Singh dead at about 6.15 p.m. at Ludhiana Hospital, no first information report was lodged at Ludhiana immediately thereafter. The dead body was brought to the village and thereafter Kirpal Singh, Bachittar Singh left for the police station and lodged the report at about 9.00 p.m. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that such course of action was not natural and a belated first information report was lodged because Kirpal Singh was not definite as to how the occurrence had taken place and after making consultations, a false first information report was lodged at a belated stage. It was also contended that according to the prosecution stage. It was also contended that according to the prosecution stage. It was also contended that according to the prosecution case there was a strained relation between Kirpal Singh and Iqbal Singh because Kirpal Singh had lodged a complaint against Iqbal Singh for constructing godowns. Since there was no grievance against the deceased Jaswant Singh, there could not have been any motive for Pupinder Pal Singh, a young boy, to deliberately shot the deceased dead. The case of scuffle between the deceased and the appellant with the loaded gun and the accidental fire, in view of such scuffle as stated by the appellant, Pupinder Pal Singh was convincing and reliable and the learned Sessions Judge ought to have accepted the same. It was also contended that from the forensic report ittranspired that Jaswant Singh had consumed alcohol and was drunk. It was, therefore, quite likely that under the influence of liquor, he boarded the tractor driven by Pupinder Pal Singh and wanted to snatch away the loaded gun for which scuffle between the appellant and the deceased ensued and the gun went off accidentally hitting the deceased. The High Court, however, has not accepted the contentions made on behalf of the appellant and it has been held by the High Court that as Jaswant Singh was declared dead by the doctor, Kirpal Singh being a heart patient must have suffered a great shock and he was well advised to take rest for some time. The conduct of Kirpal Singh in bringing back the dead body of his son to his house also cannot be held to be unnatural. It was not at all unnatural on the part of Kirpal Singh in not immediately rushing to the police station to lodge the first information report. Such report was lodged at about 9.30 p.m. and it could not be stated that the first information report was lodged at a very belated stage and the story was cooked up. The High Court was also of the view that the delay in lodging the first information report would loose its significance if the account of the eye witnesses appear to be convincing. The High Court was also of the view that the delay in lodging the first information report would loose its significance if the account of the eye witnesses appear to be convincing. The High Court has also concurred with the learned Sessions Judge that the presence of the eye witnesses at the place of occurrence was quite natural and since one of the eye witnesses had strained relation with Iqbal Singh, there was no reason to discard his evidence against the appellant. The High Court has also observed that in view of strained relations between Iqbal Singh and Bachittar Singh, Iqbal Singh was given benefit of doubt by the learned Sessions Judge by holding that the case against him was not proved and he was acquitted. The High Court did not accept the contention made on behalf of the appellant that if the part attributed to Iqbal Singh was not accepted, the evidence against the appellant. Pupinder Pal Singh, should not .also have been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. The High Court has considered the post mortem report and the evidence given by Dr. Ved Prakash, Public Witness I, and after indicating the reasons elaborately came to the finding that the said gun shot injuries on the deceased had not been caused due to accidental fire on account of any scuffle between them. Accordingly, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge and dismissed the appeal. (7) MR. Lalit, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the courts below failed to appreciate the evidences adduced in the case and the materials on record. He has submitted that the appellant did not deny that the injury was caused to the deceased from the shot fired from the gun of the appellant but it was the positive case of the appellant that such fire was accidental in view of the scuffle between him and the deceased. Mr. He has submitted that the appellant did not deny that the injury was caused to the deceased from the shot fired from the gun of the appellant but it was the positive case of the appellant that such fire was accidental in view of the scuffle between him and the deceased. Mr. Lalit has contended that before first information report was lodged by the prosecution, the appellant went to Ludhiana and wanted to make a clean breast of the entire incident and narrated the same in an application and wanted to hand over such application to the Deputy Commissioner but not finding the Deputy Commissioner, went to the house of the Additional Deputy Commissioner but since the Additional Deputy Commissioner was also absent, he went to the residence of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and handed over the application being accompanied by responsible person, a M.L.A. On his application, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate made an endorsement that such application was presented at 9.00 p.m. and the same was ultimately handed over to the Superintendent of Police, City, Ludhiana. The said fact clearly indicates the correctness of the statement made by the appellant as to how the incident had happened Mr. Lalit has also contended that the appellant was examined by a doctor who noted some injuries on his person and the doctor had given evidence to the effect that such injury was likely to be caused if the butt of the gun had hit the appellant during the tussle between the appellant and somebody. Such injury on the person of the appellant, according to Mr. Lalit, clearly indicates the manner in which the incident had taken place as stated by the appellant. Mr. Lalit has contended that the appellant was a young man of 17 years and in view of such accidental gun shot injury on the deceased, he became extremely perplexed and it was most unlikely that he would have a mental frame to cook up a false story and also make preparation for a false evidence. (8) MR. Lalit has also contended that absence of blackening on the body of the deceased was of very little significance because even if the accidental fire had taken place in the manner stated by the appellant it was not improbable that there was no blackening. (8) MR. Lalit has also contended that absence of blackening on the body of the deceased was of very little significance because even if the accidental fire had taken place in the manner stated by the appellant it was not improbable that there was no blackening. It cannot be contended that in all such cases, there was bound to be blackening and the High Court has failed to appreciate that the absence of blackening was not at all indicative that the gun was fired from the tractor from a distance of at least a few feet. So far as the angle of entry of the gun shot is concerned, Mr. Lalit has contended that from the said angle, it could not be held that the accidental fire could not have taken place in the manner alleged. He has contended that deflection of the pellet often takes place when it hits a hard substance like bone thereby forming a different angle and simply from such angle of the course of pellet it was not at all justified to hold that deceased had not suffered gun shot injury on account of tussle as alleged by the appellant. Mr. Lalit has also contended that according to the prosecution case there was a strained relation between the father of the appellant and the father of the deceased. In such circumstances, it was quite unlikely that the appellant a young boy of 17 years, would unnecessarily kill the deceased by firing at him from a very close range particularly when he had no occasion to be inimical to the deceased. Mr. Lalit has also contended that depositions of relations of complainant and deceased and persons having strained relations with the accused need not be discarded as a matter of course but the expediency requires that the Court should be careful enough in accepting such evidences. He has submitted that it is quite apparent that there was bad relations between the complainant and the accused and one of the witnesses for the prosecution had occasions to be inimical. It has been found that a false implication was sought to be made against the father of the appellant Iqbal Singh but the learned Sessions Judge did not accept the prosecution case so far as Iqbal Singh is concerned. It has been found that a false implication was sought to be made against the father of the appellant Iqbal Singh but the learned Sessions Judge did not accept the prosecution case so far as Iqbal Singh is concerned. When the prosecution witnesses had shown over-jealousness to falsely implicate the father of the appellant because of enmity, the depositions of the alleged eye witnesses should not have been accepted by the courts below on the face value. Mr. Lalit has submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate that when the witnesses for the prosecution had deposed falsely to implicate both the father and the son in order to feed fat on the grudge, it was only expedient that no reliance should be placed on their evidences even against the appellant. He has, therefore, submitted that the conviction of the appellant is wholly unjustified and the same should be set aside and the appellant should be acquitted. (9) SUCH contention of Mr. Lalit was strongly refuted by Mr. Bindra, Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. Mr. Bindra has submitted that admittedly the deceased had died because of the injuries caused by the shot fired from the gun since held by the appellant. The place and time of occurrence are also admitted. It is, therefore, necessary to analyse as to whether the deceased had 1.0 accidental fire as has been contended by me appellant or the appellant had deliberately fired on the deceased. The learned counsel has submitted that it has been held by both the courts below that the presence of the eye witnesses at the place of occurrence was quite natural. He has submitted that there is no inconsistency in their depositions. So far as the appellant is concerned, their depositions are also corroborated by the medical report and the evidences given by the doctor who is a disinterested witness. Simply because the relations of the deceased and the neighbour who had strained relation with the accused No. 1, had deposed on behalf of the prosecution, there was no reason to discard their deposition more so when such depositions stand corroborated by medical evidence. Both the courts below have given good reasons for accepting the straightforward deposition given by eye-witnesses. Mr. Both the courts below have given good reasons for accepting the straightforward deposition given by eye-witnesses. Mr. Bindra has also contended that if the automatic rifle of the accused No. 1 was in a proper working condition, the fired cartridge was likely to be ejected from the rifle but it could not be established on behalf of the accused that the said rifle when fired was in such a proper condition at the time of occurrence. Moreover, simply because the cartridge was not found, it cannot be held that the eye-witnesses had been deposing falsely against the accused No. 1. He has also submitted that it has not been held by the learned Sessions Judge that the witnesses had been deposing falsely and they were not trustworthy but the accused No. 1 was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt because the case against him could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. In the aforesaid circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deposition of the eye witnesses also against the appellant were required to be discarded, cannot be accepted. Mr. Bindra has also contended that the High Court has given elaborate reasons in concurring with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge that the appellant was guilty for murdering the deceased and there is no ground to discard them. He has contended that the appellant made a cunning attempt to give a story of accidental firing by making an application before the police authorities. But the falsity of the case of the appellant was clearly established by the evidences adduced in the case and both the courts below, therefore, did not accept the same. The learned counsel has, therefore, contended that in the aforesaid facts, there is no occasion to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. The appeal, therefore, should be dismissed. (10) AFTER considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the case of accidental firing as sought to be contended cannot be accepted. It has been rightly held by the courts below that the presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence was natural and their depositions were not liable to be discarded. It has been rightly held by the courts below that the presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence was natural and their depositions were not liable to be discarded. It also appears to us that the depositions of the eye-witnesses stand amply corroborated from the evidence of the doctor and also the post mortem report. The delay in lodging the first information report has been explained by Public Witness 2, the father of the deceased and such explanation has been rightly accepted by the High Court and we do not find and cogent reason to take a contrary view. In our view, the grounds indicated by the High Court in discarding the case of accidental fire on account of the alleged tussle between the deceased and the appellant appear to be quite reasonable. There is also force in the submission of Mr. Bindra that simply because prosecution case against accused no. 1 was not accepted to be fully proved, the case against the appellant should not be dismissed. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find no reason to take a contrary view in the matter and the appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. The appellant has been released on bail. He should, therefore, be taken into custody to serve out the sentence.