JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.1.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, convicting the appellants of the offence under section 302/34 IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. one thousand and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. Accused-Sukh Deo Singh has also been convicted for the offence under section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo three months' R.I. He has further been convicted of the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to three years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further undergo six months' R.I. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 9.8.1992, PW 2 Labh Singh submitted a written FIR Ex.P/1 at 9.30 a.m. at Police Station. Lalgarh Jatan, District Sri Ganganagar, stating inter alia that in the morning at about 8.30, his father Jagraj Singh left the house for Sadul Shahar. He along with his maternal father-in-law PW 1 Gola Singh R/ o Singhpura followed his father. Jagraj Singh was two bighas ahead of them. At about 8.45 to 9.00 a.m., his father reached in the play ground of the school. At that time, accused-Sukh Deo Singh and Karam Singh, both the sons of Mukhtyar Singh, came out from the shrubs. Accused-Sukh Deo Singh was armed with a pistol, whereas Karm Singh was carrying 'Sela' with him. They challenged his father Jagraj Singh saying that they were waiting for him and they will give him a lesson for grabbing their land. Accused-Sukh Deo Singh with intention to kill, fired from the pistol at his father and Karam Singh gave a `Sela' blow in his stomach. His father tried to catch hold of the `Sela' and while he was to fall on the ground, Sukh Deo Singh again fired from the pistol at his father causing injuries to him. On challenge by the informant and Gola Singh, they ran away towards the village. They took care of his father who had smeared with blood. After floundering for some time, his father died on the spot. On challenge by the informant and Gola Singh, they ran away towards the village. They took care of his father who had smeared with blood. After floundering for some time, his father died on the spot. He also stated that there was a serious dispute between the parties with respect to partition of the land. Accused Sukh Deo Singh and Karam Singh had killed his father on account of enmity. On this report, police registered an FIR for the offences under sections 302 & 34 IPC and 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and proceeded with investigation. On the basis of this report, PW 7 ASI Satyapal Sharma informed the SHO, P.S., Lalgarh Jatan, through wireless, who was at Sangaria in connection with the Government duty. He proceeded along with other police staff on the spot. The SHO also reached on the spot immediately at 11.30 a.m. He inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex.P/ 3 and Ex.P/ 3-A. The inquest report Ex.P/4 was also prepared. The dead body was sent for post-mortem. Both the accused persons were arrested on 13.8.1992. After usual investigation, police laid a charge-sheet against both the appellants for the aforesaid offences. 3. Both the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined ten witnesses and produced number of documents. The accused persons in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. They did not produce any witness in their defence. The trial Court relying on the testimony of eye-witnesses PW 1 Gola Singh, PW 2 Labh Singh and other witnesses and circumstantial evidence, held that appellants guilty of committing murder of Jagraj Singh and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 4. We have heard Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia, learned counsel for the complainant. 5. We have scanned prosecution evidence carefully. PW 1 Gola Singh stated that his niece is married to PW 2 Labh Singh. In the evening of preceding day of the incident he had gone to village Banvali to meet his niece. Jagraj Singh had a dispute with his younger brother Mukhtyar Singh with respect to partition of the land and, as such, the police had arrested the persons of both the groups. In the evening of preceding day of the incident he had gone to village Banvali to meet his niece. Jagraj Singh had a dispute with his younger brother Mukhtyar Singh with respect to partition of the land and, as such, the police had arrested the persons of both the groups. In the morning of the day of incident, deceased-Jagraj Singh for getting his sons released on bail, left the house for Sadul Shahar at about 8.30 a.m. The told them that Court may ask for two sureties as such, they should also accompany him. He alongwith Labh Singh followed Jagraj Singh. They were to board the bus from the bus stand near village Banvali. At about 8.45 a.m. they reashed near the School. Jagraj Singh was two bighas ahead of them. They saw that abruptly the accused-Sukh Deo Singh and Karam Singh came out from the shrubs. Sukh Deo Singh was armed with pistol and Karam Singh was carrying of `Sela' with him. Sukh Deo Singh challenged Jagraj Singh saying that they were waiting for him. Saying so, Sukh Deo Singh fired the pistol at Jagraj Singh. Karam Singh gave a `Sela' blow in the stomach. Jagraj Singh resisted the attack and was taking retreat. However, he fell down on the ground. Accused-Sukh Deo Singh fired two shots at Jagraj Singh. They challenged the accused persons on which they retorted that if they come forward, they would meet the same fate. However, they fled away. They went near Jagraj Singh. He flounder and died. Labh Singh went to the Police Station to lodge a report. PW 1 Gola Singh, another eye-witness, narrated the incident as given in the FIR PW 3 Mander Singh is the son of deceased-Jagraj Singh. He gave details of enmity between the parties. He stated that his father and father of the accused persons were the real brothers. There was a partition of the land. His grand father died sometime back. Mukhtyar Singh alongwith his sons forcibly took the possession of eighteen bighas of land. He has also stated that a day before the incident in proceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C., his brothers and the sons of Mukhtyar Singh were arrested. He produced a certified copy of the complaint Ex.P/11 and the order of the learned Magistrate Ex.P /12 of the release of the sons of Mukhtyar Singh. PW 4 Jeet Singh is the motbir. He has also stated that a day before the incident in proceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C., his brothers and the sons of Mukhtyar Singh were arrested. He produced a certified copy of the complaint Ex.P/11 and the order of the learned Magistrate Ex.P /12 of the release of the sons of Mukhtyar Singh. PW 4 Jeet Singh is the motbir. PW 5 Om Prakash and PW 6 Chet Ram are the police officials. They have given the connecting evidence with respect to carrying the incriminating articles to Forensic Science Laboratory. PW 7 Satyapal Sharma is the A.S.I., who received the oral report Ex.P /1. 6. PW 8 Dr. Om Prakash Sharma conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Jagraj Singh. He found the following injuries on his person : 1. Multiple Lacerated wound ⅛" x ⅛" in area 41/2" 41/2" below left Nipple on Chest. Injuries inverted by firearm, Few muscle deep, few cavity deep. 2. Multiple lacerated wound ⅛" x ⅛" in area 51/2" x 4" below Rt. Nipple inverted. Few Muscle deep, some cavity deep (chest) by fire arm. 3. Penetrating wound 1/1/2' x1/2. x cavity deep 11/4" below right nipple. 4. Penetrating wound 11/2" x1/2" cavity deep 2" above right nipple. 5. Penetrating wound 11/2" x1/2'. x cavity deep -3" medial to right nipple. 6. Penetrating wound 11/4" x1/2" Cavity deep Rt. upper chest. 7. Penetrating wound 11/4" x1/2" abdomen cavity deep right Hypochondrium. 8. Penetrating wound 11/4" x⅓" x cavity deep right side abdomen 5" below umbilicus. 9. Penetrating wound 11/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep right ingvinal regions. 10. Penetrating wound 11/4" x 1/2" x cavity deep in centre of chest. 11. Penetrating wound 11/2" x 1/2" x cavity deep in epigrestrium. 12. Penetrating wound 11/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep. Left shoulder anteriorly. 13. Incised wound 11/4" x 1/2" x bone deep. Rt. side nose. 14. Incised wound 11/4" x ⅓" x Muscle deep Rt eye brow laterlly. 15. Incised wound 11/2" x ⅓" x muscle deep. Left cheek. 16. Incised wound 21/4" x ⅓" x muscle deep back of left hand. 17. Incised wound 11/4" x 1/4" x muscle left arm medially ⅓rd. 18. Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep below injury No. 17. 19. Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep Rt. arm. 20. Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep. Below injury No. 19. 17. Incised wound 11/4" x 1/4" x muscle left arm medially ⅓rd. 18. Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep below injury No. 17. 19. Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep Rt. arm. 20. Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep. Below injury No. 19. 21. Abrasion 3/4" x 1/4" left lower back. He has proved the post-mortem report Ex.P/34. In his opinion, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries on lungs, liver and heart. He also stated that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. In his opinion, the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also stated that injuries could be caused by firearm and a sharp-edged weapon. 7. PW 9 Sarwar Ali stated that he was S.H.O. of the Police Station, Lalgarh Jatan. He has given all the details of the investigation. PW 10 Rampratap is the person who has taken the photographs of the dead body. 8. It is contended by Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the appellants, that infact PW 1 Gola Singh and PW 2 Labh Singh are not the eye-witnesses of the incident but they have been subsequently planted to falsely implicate the appellants. Impeaching the evidence of the said eye-witnesses, learned counsel submits that according to the prosecution, deceased- Jagraj Singh had left the house for going to Sadul Shahar in order to get his sons released on bail. According to Mr. Garg, this statement on its face is false as there was no question of going to the Court for getting the deceased's sons released on bail as it was Sunday. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor submits that sons of Mukhtyar Singh i.e. the father of the accused persons and sons of deceased-Jagraj Singh were detained in custody in proceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C. a day before. They were to be produced before the Magistrate on 9.8.1992. Learned Public Prosecutor has invited our attention to the certified copy of the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 9.8.1992 (Ex.P /12). The said order clearly indicates that all the accused persons were produced before the learned Magistrate, who asked them to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-each. As the brothers of the accused persons had furnished the bonds, they were released. The said order clearly indicates that all the accused persons were produced before the learned Magistrate, who asked them to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-each. As the brothers of the accused persons had furnished the bonds, they were released. However, Jagraj Singh could not reach to the Court as he was murdered and, therefore, his sons could not be released and they were remanded to the judicial custody. This clearly shows that proceedings were under taken by the executive Magistrate on Sunday and Jagraj Singh had left the house for attaining the Court for furnishing bond to get his sons released. Thus, there is no merit in the first contention of Mr. Garg and the same is rejected. 9. Mr. Garg has criticised the evidence of both the eye-witnesses on another ground that though as per their version seeing pistole fire by the accused at Jograj Singh, they reach near him to take care, but there was no spot of blood on their clothes, particularly when the body of the deceased was smeared with blood. PW 2 Labh Singh in the cross-examination has given explanation saying that there was no blood on their clothes as they did not go very close to the body of his father. Labh Singh has stated that as his father had died on the spot, he immediately rushed to the Police Station. This conduct of Labh Singh cannot said to be unnatural keeping in view the fact that a day before, a quarrel had taken place between both the parties and their family members were in jail and he had seen the accused persons killing his father. In such circumstances, instead of taking any risk, he might have thought it proper to rush to the Police Station leaving behind PW 1 Gola Singh. PW 1 Gola Singh had stated that. Jagraj Singh had died on the spot and Labh Singh had gone to the Police Station and he was sitting beneath the tree near the body of Jagraj Singh. Thus, there is no substance in this criticism as well. 10. It is next contended by Mr. PW 1 Gola Singh had stated that. Jagraj Singh had died on the spot and Labh Singh had gone to the Police Station and he was sitting beneath the tree near the body of Jagraj Singh. Thus, there is no substance in this criticism as well. 10. It is next contended by Mr. Garg that the claim of the prosecution that the FIR was lodged within half an hour, in itself suggests that FIR is a fabricated document inasmuch as to it could not have been lodged in such a short time at the Police Station, Lalgarh Jatan, which is admittedly at the distance of 9kms. from the place of the incident. According to the learned counsel, it is impossible that Labh Singh could have covered distance of 9kms. within half an hour. In this regard, PW 1 Gola Singh has categorically stated that they reached near the school at about 8.45 a.m. and when they were at a distance of two bighas with Jagraj Singh; the accused persons came out from the bushes and attacked on him. Thus, the incident appears to have taken place at about 8.45 a.m. No question has been put to PW 2 Labh Singh as to how could he travel 9kms. within 30 to 45 mintues. The defence has also not asked any question to the Investigating Officer as to whether it was possible for Labh Singh, PW 2, to travel 9 kms. within the said period. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is a bus stand near the place of the incident and, as such, Labh Singh could have boarded the bus and reached Sadul Shahar within no time. Be that as it may, it is not possible for this Court to say that Labh Singh, PW 2, could not have travelled 9kms. within 30 to 45 minutes for lodging the FIR. Thus, none of the criticisms made as above, is sustainable. Inspite of searching cross-examination of both the eye-witnesses, nothing has been elicited to discredit credibility of these witnesses. They are the most natural witnesses. Thus, in our opinion, the learned trial Judge has rightly placed reliance on the testimony of PW 1 Gola Singh and PW 2 Labh Singh. 11. There is also circumstantial evidence to connect the appellants with the alleged crime. They are the most natural witnesses. Thus, in our opinion, the learned trial Judge has rightly placed reliance on the testimony of PW 1 Gola Singh and PW 2 Labh Singh. 11. There is also circumstantial evidence to connect the appellants with the alleged crime. The weapon of offence namely pistol has been recovered from accused-Sukhdeo Singh vide recovery memo Ex.P /13 in pursuance of the information given by him Vide memo Ex.P/37. The recovery has been proved by PW 9 Sarvar Ali. PW 3 Mander Singh and PW 4 Jeet Singh are the witnesses of the recovery. They have stated that 12 bore country made pistol was recovered in their presence in pursuance of the information given by the accused-Sukhdeo Singh. The pistol was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Jaipur. The prosecution has produced the FSL report Ex.P/47. In the opinion of the expert, the 12 bore country made pistol is serviceable firearm. 14 pellets were recovered lying near the dead body vide Ex.P/24. The empty cartridges and wads were recovered from the place of incident vide Ex.P/24 & 22. They were packed and sealed on the spot and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Ex.P/47, it is opined by the Dy. Director, FSL, that the pellets from packet `G' and five wads from packet `H' could have been fired from 12 bore country made pistol (W/1). It is made clear that 12 bore country made pistol was marked as W/1 and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory under packet `J'.PW 8 Dr. Om Prakash has found firearm injuries on the dead body of Jagraj Singh. There is also evidence that 23 pellets were taken out from the dad body and they were seed and put in packet `O'. The said packet was received by the Forensic Science Laboratory. A criticism has been made with respect to the said 23 pellets on the ground the there is no mention of taking out 23 pellets from the dead body in the post-mortem report. PW 8 Dr. Om Prakash has also not confirmed the fact of taking out of pellets from the dead body. We have read the statement of Dr. Om Prakash. He has not said that the pellets were not recovered from the dead body. He has stated that he does not remember if 23 pellets were taken out from the dead' body. Om Prakash has also not confirmed the fact of taking out of pellets from the dead body. We have read the statement of Dr. Om Prakash. He has not said that the pellets were not recovered from the dead body. He has stated that he does not remember if 23 pellets were taken out from the dead' body. There is nothing unusual. A doctor may not remember if he had actually taken out the pellets or not. There is an evidence that 23 pellets were sealed and they were taken to the Police Station. They were sent in packet `O' from the office of the Superintendent of Police to the Forensic Science Laboratory. In the opinion of the Dy. Director of the FSL, different sizes lead pellets from packets `G' and `Q' and five wads from packet `H' could have been fired from 12 bore country made pistol. Even if the evidence of taking out of 23 pellets is taken out, there is sufficient evidence to show that the pistole recovered from the accused-Sukhdeo Singh and the pellets taken out from the body of the deceased and empty cartridges and wads have also been recovered and there is a report of the Forensic Science Laboratory to the same effect. Vide Ex.P /40, two empty cartridges of 12 bore country made pistol and one blood stained shirt has been recovered. The recovery has been proved by PW 9 Sarvar Ali. PW 3 Mander Singh and PW 4 Jeet Singh are the motbirs, who proved the recovery. The Serologist vide FSL report Ex.P/48 has opined that `kameej', Art. 10, was stained with human blood.Thus, the commission of crime by accused-Sukh Deo Singh is proved by the testimony of two eye-witnesses namely Gola Singh, PW 1 and Labh Singh, PW 2, corroborated by the recovery of the pistol and blood stained shirt. In view of this, we uphold the finding of the learned trial Court holding the appellant-Sukh Deo Singh guilty of murder of Jagraj Singh and convicting him of the offence under section 302 IPC. 12. As regards the second appellant-Karam Singh, in addition to the statements of two eye-witnesses PW 1 Gola Singh and PW 2 Labh Singh, there is also evidence of recovery of `Sela' vide Ex.P/15. PW 9 Sarvar Ali has stated that accused-Karam Singh gave information vide Ex.P/38 pointing out the place where `Seta' had been concealed. 12. As regards the second appellant-Karam Singh, in addition to the statements of two eye-witnesses PW 1 Gola Singh and PW 2 Labh Singh, there is also evidence of recovery of `Sela' vide Ex.P/15. PW 9 Sarvar Ali has stated that accused-Karam Singh gave information vide Ex.P/38 pointing out the place where `Seta' had been concealed. In pursuance of that information, the recovery has been made vide Ex.P/ 50. PW 3 Mander Singh and PW 4 Jeet Singh are the motbirs of the recovery. The `Sela' has been found to be blood stained vide FSL report Ex.P/48. The Serologist has expressed as a result of serological examination that Exhibit No. 11 marked by him, taken out from packet `M', `Sela', is stained with human blood. He also found `kameej' (Article 7) and `pagdi (Article 8), which belonged to the deceased, stained with human blood. They were found to be of `AB'. group. He further found that the `Sela' was also the same `AB' group. Thus, there is an evidence that the blood an the `Sela' and the blood on the clothes of the deceased are of the same blood group. It may be stated that out of the 21 injuries on the person of deceased-Jagraj Singh, except injuries Nos. 1 & 2 caused by firearm, all the injuries are caused by `Seta'. At this stage, a criticism has been made by the learned counsel that Dr. Om Prakash in his cross-examination has admitted that the injuries have been caused by three different weapons i.e. firearm, weapons of blunt and sharp-edges. It is stressed that the prosecution has not explained as to how the injuries by blunt object have been sustained by the deceased. We have seen all the injuries. Except injuries Nos. 9 & 12 other than the firearm injuries Nos. 1 & 2, all the injuries have been caused by sharp-edged weapon. Injuries Nos. 9 and 12 are, as follows : "Penetrating wound 11/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep right ingvinal region. Penetrating wound 11/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep. Left shoulder anteriorly.The aforesaid injuries can be caused by the sharp-edged weapon as well.Thus, the statement of the two eye-witnesses that Karam Singh assaulted deceased-Jagraj Singh by `Sela' is corroborated by the medical evidence as well.14. Penetrating wound 11/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep. Left shoulder anteriorly.The aforesaid injuries can be caused by the sharp-edged weapon as well.Thus, the statement of the two eye-witnesses that Karam Singh assaulted deceased-Jagraj Singh by `Sela' is corroborated by the medical evidence as well.14. With respect to motive PW 3 Mander Singh stated that the deceased and father of the accused persons were brothers and there was a dispute between them with respect to the land. His grand father died only few days back. Mukhtyar Singh, father of the accused persons, forcibly took the possession of 18 bighas of land with the help of his sons, which led to the various litigations and quarrel between the parties. Apprehending the breach of peace a day before Police had taken proceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C. in which members from both the parties were detained and they were asked to furnish bond for maintaining peace.15. In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge of murder of Jagraj Singh against the accused-appellants. They have been rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court for the various offences as mentioned in the judgment.Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellants will undergo the remaining part of the sentence.Appeal disallowed. *******