JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Resham Singh stands convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar camp Sri Karanpur vide his judgment dated 11.9.91 under section 302, 307 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC, 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 307 IPC and 6 months rigorous imprisonment and.a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 27 Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the FIR Ex.P 9 lodged on 24.10.87 at 10 p.m. i.e. just after the occurrence, is that at about 8.30 p.m. accused Resham Singh went to the Dhani of Harbhajan Singh having his body covered by blanket and he called Jasvendra Singh and when Jasvendra Singh went out of the house at that time Harbhajan Singh and Gurdayal Singh also reached there. It was further stated that accused started abusing Harbhajan Singh and his family members and also the persons who had gone there from Punjab and when Harbhajan Singh prayed that he should not behave in such a manner, the accused took out a gun and fired at Harbhajan Singh. He again fired and as a result of the injuries Harbhajan Singh fell down. His mother and wife rushed and fell on Harbhajan Singh. In the meantime, accused once again fired and this caused injuries to the mother of Harbhajan Singh. It was further stated in the FIR that Harbhajan Singh died on the spot and accused threw him in the cotton crop. This report was lodged by Lakhbir Singh who is the son of deceased Harbhajan Singh and nephew of accused. On this report, police registered the case No. 141/87. During investigation, the police inspected the site, interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused and on his information recovered a gun. After completion of the investigation, challan was submitted. Charges under Sections 302, 307 IPC and 27 of Indian Arms Act were framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PW 1 Raghuveer Singh, PW 2 Neki Ram, PW 3 Dr. Iqbal Singh, PW 4 Lakhbir Singh, PW 5 Pritam Kaur, PW 6 Gurmeet Kaur, PW 7 Sudesh Kumar and PW 8 Om Prakash, Sub Inspector. Charges under Sections 302, 307 IPC and 27 of Indian Arms Act were framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PW 1 Raghuveer Singh, PW 2 Neki Ram, PW 3 Dr. Iqbal Singh, PW 4 Lakhbir Singh, PW 5 Pritam Kaur, PW 6 Gurmeet Kaur, PW 7 Sudesh Kumar and PW 8 Om Prakash, Sub Inspector. Accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.PC stated that the witnesses have given false statements. He further stated that he and his brother Harbhajan Singh anted to marry his daughter at some place but his brother-in-law brought some person from Punjab and got his brother murdered. According to him he has been implicated in this case so that his daughter may be married to some other person by him brother-in-law. Accused did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments convicted, and sentenced the accused as above. 3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record of the case. 4. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the three eye witnesses examined in the case bore ill will against the accused as he has kept a lady in his house who was of lower caste and therefore, they have given false statements against him. He submitted that the injuries could not be caused by the fire arm in the manner deposed by the eye-witnesses and therefore, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. He also urged that the prosecution has not examined the other eye-witnesses who were present at the spot and, therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has tried to support the judgment of the trial Court. 6. PW 3 Dr. Iqbal Singh is the Medical Officer who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of Harbhajan Singh and had examined the injuries of PW 5 Pritam Kaur. He has deposed that there were following ante mortem injuries on the person on Harbhajan Singh which were caused by fire arm:- 1. Lacerated wound of extraneous 1 cm. x 3/4 cm. Left deltroid region posteriorly. 2. Wound of Exit 3 cm.x 11/2 cm. Left side back at mid scapula interior to left scapula side. 3. He has deposed that there were following ante mortem injuries on the person on Harbhajan Singh which were caused by fire arm:- 1. Lacerated wound of extraneous 1 cm. x 3/4 cm. Left deltroid region posteriorly. 2. Wound of Exit 3 cm.x 11/2 cm. Left side back at mid scapula interior to left scapula side. 3. Wound of Entrance 1 cm. x 1 cm. Left side back Lateral to thoracic vertibra at 3rd intercostal space. 4. Wound of Exit 4 cm. x 31/2 cm. supra sternum at medial ends of both clavices. 5. Wound of Entrance 1 cm. x 1 cm. Left side chest back inferior angle of left scapula at 7th rib. 6. Wound of Exit 21/2 cm.x 13/4 cm. Left side chest anterior 7 cm. intero lateral to Injury No. 5 and 51/2 cm. medial superior to left nipple. Dr. Iqbal has further stated that on opening the body he had found compound fracture of sternum, both clavial bones, 3rd left rib and the 7th rib. According to him the deceased had died because of the excessive haemorrhage and shock caused by rupture of aortic arch (the main blood vessel) and the injuries were caused by fire arm. He has further deposed that on 24.10.87 at 10 p.m. he had examined the injuries of Pritam Kaur and there was one injury of the size of 7 cm. x 21/2 cm. on her right elbow which was caused by gun shot. Learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously challenged the medical evidence produced in the case. We also find noting the cross-examination of Dr. Iqbal as to disbelieve him. The trial Court has therefore, rightly found that Harbhajan Singh had suffered gun shot wound and had died of those injuries and that Pritam Kaur had also suffered injuries by fire arm. 7. Now we proceed to consider the arguments advanced by Mr. Garg. The three eye witnesses Lakhveer Singh (PW 4), Prita Kaur (PW 5) and Gurmeet Kaur (PW 6) are the son, mother and widow of the deceased. All of them have given graphic account of the occurrence. They have deposed that accused Resham Singh went to their Dhani and started abusing them and on this Harbhajan Singh (deceased) requested the accused not to behave in that manner. All of them have given graphic account of the occurrence. They have deposed that accused Resham Singh went to their Dhani and started abusing them and on this Harbhajan Singh (deceased) requested the accused not to behave in that manner. According to them as Harbhajan Singh prayed, the accused moved in backward direction and when the deceased put his Turban in the feet of the accused, he went backward and the moment Harbhajan Singh took a turn, the accused fired at him and after Harbhajan Singh went at some distance, the accused again fired. They have further deposed that in order to save Harbhajan Singh, Pritam Kaur fell on him and at that time the accused again fired which first struck Pritam Kaur and then Harbhajan Singh. The witnesses have also deposed that accused pulled Harbhajan Singh and threw him In the cotton crop. 8. Undoubtedly, all the three witnesses are close relatives of the deceased. However, it is futile to urge that these witnesses are interested in the case and therefore, their testimony should not be believed. The relative witnesses cannot be called interested witnesses. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of " State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki" reported as 1981 CAR 282 while dealing with the relative witnesses have observed as follows "True, it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an interested witness. She is related to the deceased Related is not equivalent to `interested'. A witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye-witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be interested. 9. The occurrence took place outside The Dhani of Harbhajan Singh and therefore, the presence of all the three witnesses at that place was natural. Pritam Kaur even had suffered gun shot injuries in that very occurrence. It cannot be believed that these witnesses would falsely implicate the accused simply on the ground that he was having a lady of low caste in his house. Pritam Kaur even had suffered gun shot injuries in that very occurrence. It cannot be believed that these witnesses would falsely implicate the accused simply on the ground that he was having a lady of low caste in his house. It might be true that the family members were not happy with the conduct of the accused in keeping a low caste lady as his wife yet it cannot be believed that the mother, brother-in-law and nephew of the accused would implicate him falsely in a murder case. Pritam Kaur at least could not have any reason to implicate her son in the murder. She had already loss one son in the occurrence and she would be the last person to implicate her second son in the case if he were to be innocent. 10. Much stress was laid on the fact that the witnesses have tried to conceal the presence of Avtar Singh at the time of occurrence. In our opinion, there is nothing on record to believe that Avtar Singh was there at the Dhani at the time of occurrence. The argument has been developed on the basis of FIR which recites the name of Avtar Singh, in the First information Report Ex.P 9, it was only stated that Avtar Singh alongwith Gurdayal Singh and jasvender Singh had gone to the Dhani. The three persons might have gone together in day time. There is nothing on record to presume the presence of Avtar Singh at the time of occurrence, more so, when Lakhveer Singh was not confronted with the FIR Ex.P 9 when he was in the witness box. Had it been done, the witness would have explained as to in what context he had mentioned the name of Avtar Singh. Then it is not understood as to why the witnesses would think of leaving Avtar Singh if he was the real culprit. One can understand ones attempt to implicate his enemies in addition to the real culprit. But it is unbelievable that the eye witnesses would leave the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. That being so, the argument that Avtar Singh or any other person had committed murder has no foundation to stand. 11. The next contention of Mr. One can understand ones attempt to implicate his enemies in addition to the real culprit. But it is unbelievable that the eye witnesses would leave the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. That being so, the argument that Avtar Singh or any other person had committed murder has no foundation to stand. 11. The next contention of Mr. Garg was that according to the post mortem report the accused had suffered 3 injuries by fire arm whereas in the FIR it was stated that only two fires had hit the deceased. His further submission was that one misfired projectile and one empty was found on the spot and all this shows that they had not witnessed the occurrence. There is no substance in this contention. It is true that only one emptee was found at the spot and the remaining two tempters were not recovered by the Investigating Officer. It is pertinent to state that the place where the occurrence had taken place was sandy and there was cotton crop hereby. It appears that the bullets got embedded somewhere in the sand or lost in the crop and therefore, they could not be traced out. The fact that the two tempters could not be traced out on the spot does not diminish the value of the direct evidence of the eye-witnesses. The testimony of the three eye-witnesses also cannot be doubted in view of the fact that one misfired cartridge was also recovered from the place of occurrence. After Harbhajan Singh fell down, the witnesses were bound to be fear sticken. It is possible that they did not notice if there was more attempt by the accused. It is also possible that the bullet fell down while loading the fire arm. The finding of the misfired cartridge, in our opinion, does not diminish value of the eye-witnesses. Since one bullet had first hit Pritam Kaur and thereafter it had hit the deceased, not much importance can be attached to this fact that in the FIR it was stated that only two rounds fired by the accused had hit the deceased. 12. The FSL Report Ex.P 30 further corroborates the prosecution version. Since one bullet had first hit Pritam Kaur and thereafter it had hit the deceased, not much importance can be attached to this fact that in the FIR it was stated that only two rounds fired by the accused had hit the deceased. 12. The FSL Report Ex.P 30 further corroborates the prosecution version. It has been opined by the Ballistic Expect that the country-made gun (recovered at the instance of the accused) sent to him could be fired and that the misfired cartridge (found at the spot) and the cartridge case (recovered at the spot) were fired by the said gun. 13. There is also not much substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Jasvender Singh and Gurdayal Singh have not been examined by the prosecution and therefore adverse inference should be drawn against it. It is not necessary for the prosecution to examine each and every witness who might be present at the time of occurrence. That apart, it has not come on record that at the time the accused had discharged the fire arm, the two persons were present there. The possibility that Gurdayal Singh and Jasvender Singh had left the scene of occurrence when the accused started abusing his brother Harbhajan Singh and his family members, cannot be ruled out. In any case when there is no inconsistency in the statements of the three witnesses which are fully supported by the medical evidence, no adverse inference can be drawn on this basis. 14. There is absolutely no material on record to accept the defence version that the murder was committed by Avtar Singh who had also come from Punjab. Accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C has stated that some persons were brought from Punjab in order to kill Harbhajan Singh. It is not understood as to why Gurdayal Singh brother-in-law of the accused would think of murdering Harbhajan Singh. It may be that the daughter of the accused was living with Gurdayal Singh who is her maternal uncle and he might be interested in the marriage of the girl as the accused was having some other lady in his house after the death of Gurdayal Singh's sister but that could not be the ground to do away with the life of Harbhajan Singh. If there was anything in the mind of Gurdayal Singh, it could be against the accused who having kept a lady made the life of the children of her sister miserable. Simply because Gurdayal Singh and Jasvender Singh had gone to village 140 on that day for holding talks about the marriage of the daughter of the accused, it cannot be presumed that they could commit murder of Harbhajan Singh. 15. No other point on which Mr. Garg sought acquittal of the accused, survives. The conviction of the appellant under Sec. 307 IPC also deserves to be upheld as he had fired the gun on Mst. Pritam Kaur when she had fallen on Harbhajan Singh. It was clearly an attempt to cause the death of Pritam Kaur. So also his conviction under Sec. 27 of Arms Act is sustainable as he had used the contrary made gun without holding a valid licence. 16. Consequently, it is found that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the accused. No interference is called for in the Judgment of the trial Court. The appeal being devoid of force is hereby dismissed. *******