JUDGMENT The appellant along with Rai Singh, Ganpat and Bhaga Singh were sent up for trial in connection with the murder of Ram Pratap, nephew of the first informant Gopi Ram, P.W.5. The appellant was charged for offences under Sections 302, 307/3, I.P.C. and S. 25 Arms Act; Rai Singh for offences under Sections 302/34,307, I.P.C. and S. 25 of the Arms Act. Ganpat for offences under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 307, I.P.C. and Bhaga Singh for an offence under Section 30, of the Arms Act. After trial, the learned Judge of the Special Court at Ferozepur acquitted Ganpat and Bhaga Singh. The appellant was imposed the sentence of life imprisonment for the offences under Section 302, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for 14 months for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Rai Singh was sentenced to undergo 14 months R.I. for the offence under Section 25, Arms Act. Rai Singh has not filed any appeal against his conviction and sentence. The State has also not filed any appeal against the acquittal of Ganpat and Bhaga Singh. The appellant - Palia has filed this appeal under Section 14, of the Terrorists Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984. 2. The prosecution case is that about 7 months prior to the occurrence, Police from Sirsa came to village Karandi in order to arrest Palia appellant in a case under the Arms Act. On reaching the village they made enquiries about the whereabouts of the house of Palia. Palia appellant, suspected that P. W. 5 had given information to the police against him. Oh 15th February, 1984 at about 5.30 p.m. Gopi Ram, P.W.5 was standing in front of his house along with Ram Pratap deceased. Palia armed with a pistol, Rai Singh and Ganpat armed with 12 bore guns came there. Ganpat raised a lalkara exhorting his companions to finish Gopi Ram, P.W.5, Palia, appellant, fired from his pistol. Gopi Ram, P.W.5 got aside and the shot hit Ram Pratap who on receipt of the injury fell down. Rai Singh and Ganpat then fired one shot each towards Gopi Ram, P.W.5, but none hit him. After making unsuccessful attempt on the life of Gopi Ram P. W. 5, the appellant along with his co-accused went away from the spot. Gopi Ram, P.W.5 got aside and the shot hit Ram Pratap who on receipt of the injury fell down. Rai Singh and Ganpat then fired one shot each towards Gopi Ram, P.W.5, but none hit him. After making unsuccessful attempt on the life of Gopi Ram P. W. 5, the appellant along with his co-accused went away from the spot. Gopi Ram, P. W. 5 left for Police Station Sardulgarh and met Joginder Singh, SHO P.W.7 at the bus stand and narrated the occurrence to him. His statement Ex. P-7 was recorded at the bus stand by Joginder Singh, P. W. 7, SHO at 7.30 p. m. The same was sent to the police station for registration of the case and formal FIR Ex. P-7/B was registered. Copy of the FIR was despatched to the Ilaqa Magistrate, who received it on 16th February, 1984 at 10.40 a.m. Ram Partap who had been seriously injured was taken to the Primary Health Centre from where Dr. Arun Kumar P.W.1 referred him to the Civil Hospital at Mansa. Within a few hours of his arrival at the Civil Hospital at Mansa, Ram Partap succumbed to the injuries. On the request of the police the post-mortem on the dead body of Ram Partap was performed by Dr. Jankar Raj Goel P. W. 3. II injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased. P. W. 3 opined that the injuries on the deceased had been caused by fire arm. 3. The appellant was subsequently arrested on 19th February, 1984 along with a pistol loaded with a cartridge. One more cartridge was recovered during the search of the appellant. Rai Singh and Ganpat were arrested on 24-2-1984 and at that time Ram Singh was carrying a 12 bore gun. 4. The Investigating Officer P. W. 7 during the Investigation, after reaching the place of occurrence had, besides collecting blood stained earth from the spot vide Memo Ex. P-9 also recovered one round pellet, one tall pellet, two plastic pieces, one cork of the empty and one piece of card board vide Memo Ex. P-10. P.W.3, who performed the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased, had removed from the dead body 7 metallic pieces/pellets which were put in a sealed phial and handed over to the police. P-10. P.W.3, who performed the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased, had removed from the dead body 7 metallic pieces/pellets which were put in a sealed phial and handed over to the police. After arrest of the appellant three weapons including the pistol seized from the appellant were sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab. The ballistic expert in his report Ex. P.23 stated that the firing mechanism of all the three weapons was "found to be in a serviceable condition but the date of their last firing could not be ascertained." 5. The Trial Court after noticing the prosecution case, acquitted Bhag Singh observing : "At the very outset the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has not been able to connect the licenced gun of Bhag Singh with the crime. As such charge against Bhag Singh accused under Section 30, Arms Act fails. Bhag Singh accused who is on bail is hereby acquitted." 6. The Trial Court also found the case against Rai Singh and Ganpat not to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and observed : "According to the prosecution Rai Singh and Ganpat accused had fired from the guns but none was hit. To me, there appears to be an exaggeration in the case of the prosecution so far as Rai Singh and Ganpat accused are concerned. So, case against Rai Singh and Ganpat accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt." 7. The Trial Court, thus did not believe theversion of Gopi Ram P. W. 5, insofar as the complicity of Rai Singh and Ganpat is concerned. Since Gopi Ram P. W. 5, uncle of deceased is the sole eye witness and his testimony with regard to the complicity of Rai Singh and Ganpat has not been accepted by the Trial Court, it would be desirable and prudent to look for independent corroboration of his testimony to uphold the conviction of the appellant. 8. That Ram Partap died as a result of injuries caused by fire arm was neither challenged in the Trial Court nor before us. 8. That Ram Partap died as a result of injuries caused by fire arm was neither challenged in the Trial Court nor before us. The only corroborative piece of evidence relied upon by the Trial Court to convict the appellant is the FIR but having not accepted the version contained in the FIR insofar as the complicity of Rai Singh and Ganpat is concerned, the Trial Court should have sought some independent corroboration of the testimony of P. W. 5 to convict the appellant. 9. As already noticed, the Investigating Officer had recovered one round pellet, one tall pellet, two plastic pieces, one cork of the empty and one piece of the card board from the scene of occurrence. P. W. 3 on performing the post-mortem on the dead body had removed 7 metallic pieces/pellets from the body of the deceased and handed them over to the police. These articles ought to have been sent to the ballistic expert, to whom the weapons were sent, for examination. From the report of the ballistics expert, it transpires that none of these articles was sent to him for opinion. There is no explanation forthcoming on the record as to why the same were not sent? This omission to get the articles connected with one weapon seized from the appellant detracts materially from the reliability of the prosecution case. That apart, the occurrence took place at about 5.30 p.m. on 15-2:1984 and deceased Ram Partap had received serious injuries. He was removed to the dispensary only at about 10.30 p. m. This also creates a doubt about the correctness of the version of Gopi Ram, P. W. 5 with regard to the time of occurrence or even the lodging of the FIR by him at 7.30 p. m. because no explanation has also been furnished by the prosecution for the delay in the receipt of the special report by the Magistrate on 16-2-1984 at 10.40 a.m. 10. In the absence of independent corroboration of the testimony of Gopi Ram P. W. 5, circumstantial or otherwise, and the infirmities pointed out by us above, it would not be safe to rely only upon his sole testimony to uphold the conviction of the appellant. In our opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The appellant is on bail. In our opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal allowed. For citation:   1995 Cri. LJ 3232