JUDGMENT Thakar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, appellants herein along with one Avtar Singh were sent up for trial for various offences to the Court of the learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur. While Avtar Singh was acquitted, Thakar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were convicted and sentenced. Through this appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, they have questioned their conviction and sentence. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 29th March 1984, Gurdip Singh PW 3 had gone from his village Bullo to Shahwala to attend Akhandpath at the house of Gurcharan Singh PW 4. After the Akhandpath Gurdip Singh and Gurcharan Singh went to the fair at the grave of Peer Sheikh Sultan. Gurdip Singh PW 3, along with his son Gurnam Singh (deceased) and Gurcharan Singh, PW 4 were returning to their homes after attending the fair when the appellants came there in a tractor trolly driven by Avtar Singh co-accused. On spotting the complainant party Thakar Singh raised a lalkara to finish the father and the son, whereupon, Mukhtiar Singh, appellant fired from his gun hitting Gurnam Singh, son of Gurdip Singh PW 3. Gurdip Singh PW 3 thereupon raised an alarm. Thakar Singh, appellant snatched the gun from Mukhtiar Singh and fired four more shots from the gun resulting in the death of Jassa Singh and injuries to Gurcharan Singh PW 4. Shamsher Singh PW 5, Makhan Singh, Jarnail Singh, Gurmej Singh, Baldev Singh, Atma Singh and Jit Singh PWs. The appellants, thereafter, left the spot in the trolly. The occurrence took place at about 5.30 p.m. and leaving the dead body in the charge of Inder Singh Nambardar and the village chowkidar Gurnam Singh left for Police Station Zira to inform the police. First Information Report was lodged at the police station at 6.10 p.m. by Gurnam Singh. The special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 8 p.m. on the same day. The injured were removed to the hospital. Balkar Singh SHO PW 12, on receipt of the information about the arrival of the injured at the hospital proceeded to the hospital and recorded their statement. He also prepared the inquest report of the deceased and collected blood stained earth from the spot vide seizure memo Ex. P. 50. One empty cartridge was also recovered from the spot and seized vide memo, Ex. P. 51. He also prepared the inquest report of the deceased and collected blood stained earth from the spot vide seizure memo Ex. P. 50. One empty cartridge was also recovered from the spot and seized vide memo, Ex. P. 51. Both the appellants, along with Avtar Singh surrendered before Balkar Singh, SHO PW 12 on 8th April 1984. They were taken into custody. Mukhtiar Singh appellant produced his licensed gun and the same was taken into possession by PW 12. The empty cartridge and the seized gun were sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, who submitted his report to the effect that the empty cartridge had been fired from the said gun. 3. The prosecution with a view to connect the appellants with the crime, examined Dr. J. S. Gujral PW 1, Bachan Lal PW 2, Gurdip Singh, father of Gurnam Singh (deceased) PW 3, Gurcharan Singh PW 4, Shamsher Singh PW 5 and Balkar Singh PW 12. The other injured witnesses and some other formal witnesses were offered from cross-examination. They are PW 6 to PW 11. 4. The trial Court noticed the medical evidence and after carefully analysing other evidence led by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the First Information Report had been lodged with promptitude and that the evidence of PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 inspired confidence. Before the trial Court, neither the place of occurrence nor the death of Gurnam Singh and Jassa Singh or the receipt of injuries by PWs. 4, 5 and 6 to 11 was challenged on behalf of the defence. The arrest of the appellants, the recovery of the cartridges from the place of occurrence the seizure of the gun as also the report of the Ballistic Expert were also not put in issue before the trial Court either. The trial Court on an appraisal of the evidence found that the prosecution had established the case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Thakar Singh, appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for the murder of Jassa Singh. He was also convicted for an offence under Section 302/34, I.P.C. for the murder of Gurnam Singh and under Section 307, I.P.C. for causing injuries to the injured prosecution witnesses. He was further found guilty and convicted for an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. He was also convicted for an offence under Section 302/34, I.P.C. for the murder of Gurnam Singh and under Section 307, I.P.C. for causing injuries to the injured prosecution witnesses. He was further found guilty and convicted for an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Mukhtiar Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for the murder of Gurnam Singh. He was also found guilty and convicted for an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. For the offences under Section 302, I.P.C. the appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life while for the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. Thakar Singh was sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment on each of the eight counts. Both the appellants were also sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences, were, however, directed to run concurrently. 5. Mr. M. S. Gujral, the learned senior counsel and Mr. Dhingra, Advocate, appearing for the appellants have taken us through the evidence. It is submitted that the occurrence did not take place in the manner suggested by the prosecution and that the possibility that an altercation had taken place before the trolly of the accused was surrounded, cannot be ruled out. It is submitted that since it was a chance meeting, the appellants could not be clothed with the intention of committing the murder of Gurnam Singh and Jassa Singh and that looking to the nature of the injuries on the injured prosecution witnesses, it appears that shots had been fired from a distance and the assailants were not identified. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish that Thakar Singh had fired four shots as alleged and the sustenance for the argument is sought from the fact that only one empty cartridge was recovered from the spot. We have given our thoughtful considerations to the submissions raised at the bar. 6. Since, neither the death of Gurnam Singh and Jassa Singh, nor the injuries received by PW 4 to PW 11 at the place of occurrence has been disputed, we do not consider it necessary to reproduce either the medical evidence or the evidence concerning the recovery of blood stained earth and the empty cartridge from the spot. The trial Court has in any case reproduced the same in extenso. The trial Court has in any case reproduced the same in extenso. The statements of Gurcharan Singh PW 4, Shamsher Singh PW 5, who are both injured witnesses has not at all been demolished during the cross-examination. They have given a consistent version about the manner in which the occurrence took place. Both these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but their testimony, however, has remained unshaken. They deposed not only about their visit to the fair, but also about the manner in which the occurrence took place. Their evidence has impressed us and we find that the trial Court was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon their testimony. The evidence of Gurdip Singh PW 3 lends enough corroboration to the statements of PW 4 and PW 5. PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 appear to be reliable and trustworthy witnesses. The minor discrepancies in their evidence are of no consequence. PW 4 and PW 5 are stamped eye witnesses, being themselves injured and they would not leave their assailants and name the appellants falsely. The argument that PW 3 Gurdip Singh is a got up witness, needs a notice, only to be rejected. His evidence is clear and cogent. His son Gurnam Singh was shot at and had succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Gurdip Singh PW 3 lodged the FIR with utmost promptitude within about forty minutes of the occurrence. The prompt lodging of the FIR by him, in which all necessary details of the occurrence have been given lends enough assurance to the presence of PW 3 at the spot. His testimony has remained unshaken. We do not find any reason to doubt his veracity. We are not impressed by the argument that the occurrence may have taken place in a different manner. No such suggestion was put to any of the prosecution witness and we find that there is no material on the record from which any such inference may even otherwise be available. The argument is wholly conjectural. In view of the cogent evidence of PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 about the manner of occurrence, the submission that the assailants could not be identified has no basis and deserves to be rejected without any further consideration. 7. The prosecution, in our opinion, has successfully established the case against both the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. In view of the cogent evidence of PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 about the manner of occurrence, the submission that the assailants could not be identified has no basis and deserves to be rejected without any further consideration. 7. The prosecution, in our opinion, has successfully established the case against both the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall surrender to the bail bonds and on their failure to do so, they shall be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of their sentence. Appeal dismissed. For Citation:  1995 Cri. LJ 3628