JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, convicting the accused appellant Pritam Singh under sections 148, 452, 302, 307/149 and 324/149, I.P.C., accused Gurmukh Singh and Chhinda Singh under Sections 148, 452, 302/149, 307 and 324/124, accused Kala Singh under Sections 148, 452, 302/149, 307/149 and 324, I.P.C. and accused Hardutt Singh under Sections 148, 452, 302/149, 307/149 and 324/149, I.P.C. and sentencing accused Pritam Singh, Kala Singh, Chhinda Singh, Gurumukh Singh and Hardutt to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 148, I.P.C. and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default thereof to suffer one months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 452, I.P.C., sentencing Pritam Singh for offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and Kala Singh, Chhinda Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Hardutt Singh under Section 302/149, I.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default thereof to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment, sentencing Gurmukh Singh and Chhinda Singh under Section 307 and Pritam Singh, Kala Singh and Hardutt Singh under Section 307/149, I.P.C. to suffer five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default thereof to suffer two months R.I., sentencing Kala Singh under Section 324, I.P.C. and Pritam Singh, Chhinda Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Hardutt Singh under Section 324/149, I.P.C. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and as canvassed before us by the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on 14.10.1993, at about 6.15 PM. an information was sent by Primary Health Centre, Pilibanga to the Police Station, Pilibanga regarding some incident and this information was entered in Rojnamcha of Police Station, Pilibanga (Ex.R/34). After receipt of the said information the Station House Officer along with his associates proceeded to Primary Health Centre and after reaching there, he recorded the statements of injured Govind Singh (Ex.P/8). The injured Govind Singh stated that at 5.00 PM. in the evening, he along with his sons Makhan Singh, Gurnam Singh, Niranjan Singh, Pyara Singh and his grand son Dilip were preparing the roof of the Kotha. The injured Govind Singh stated that at 5.00 PM. in the evening, he along with his sons Makhan Singh, Gurnam Singh, Niranjan Singh, Pyara Singh and his grand son Dilip were preparing the roof of the Kotha. Niranjan Singh and Makhan Singh were on the roof, he and Gurnam Singh were inside the Kotha whereas Pyare Singh and Dilip Singh were also inside the Kotha. All of sudden, they heard some Lalkar from the field of narma which is just adjacent to his Dhani. Thereafter all of the accused appellants came out from the field. Pritam Singh was having a 12 bore gun, Gurmukh Singh and Chhinda Singh were having 12 bore pistals, Kala Singh was having sword and Hardutt Singh was having Khanda in his hand. At that time, Hardutt Singh exhorted as to what the accused were watching, shoot them. Then Niranjan Singh came out. Pritam Singh fired on Niranjan Singh and he fell down. Makhan Singh was also going out, then Gurmukh Singh fired from pistol on him and hit him. Chinda Singh fired on Gurnam Singh. Kala Singh gave sword blow to him which landed on his left hand. Thereafter, accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence. They attended the injured Niranjan Singh but he died. It was also alleged by the complainant that Hardutt Singh was his real brother and the occurrence took place on account of dispute regarding the partition of the land. On this information, a case under Section 302, I.P.C. was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the site plan and completed necessary formalities. After completion of the investigation, the police filed challan against the accused appellants. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused appellants and during trial as many as 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case and got certain documents exhibited. After completing the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as aforesaid. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor we have re-appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and have heard the counsel for both the parties. After completing the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as aforesaid. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor we have re-appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and have heard the counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused prays for acquittal of all the accused persons claiming that several circumstances have not been proved by the prosecution and several serious doubts arise in the prosecution story due to lack of certain evidence and the accused persons should get benefit of the same. The learned counsel pointed out to us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that serious infirmity remained in the prosecution evidence and consequently the conviction as recorded by the trial Judge is not maintainable. 4. Shri H.S. Kharlia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons relied on following circumstances for his contention that the prosecution has failed to prove its case : (1) The scrutiny of the spot panchnama and other relevant documents show no blood on the spot nor any bloody soil is recovered from the spot. If injuries as alleged by the witnesses have really been caused by the accused presence of blood at the place alleged by the complainant is natural and essential. It is alleged by Govind Singh he was given sword blow on his hand by Kala Singh. If that injury was caused to him it must have bled profusely and the circumstance of not finding any blood on the spot, therefore, indicates that the occurrence did not take place where alleged by the prosecution. (2) There is no evidence of neighbouring people coming to the spot after hearing shots. (3) According to the prosecution the deceased Niranjan Singh was coming down from the roof and, therefore, he necessarily had his back towards the assailants and there is injury in the chest of the deceased which could not have occurred if this allegation is true. (4) All the witnesses of the prosecution on whom reliance is placed by the learned trial court, state that the complainant party was busy in making repairs and alteration of their house and construction activity was going on. However there are no signs of construction activity on the spot. (4) All the witnesses of the prosecution on whom reliance is placed by the learned trial court, state that the complainant party was busy in making repairs and alteration of their house and construction activity was going on. However there are no signs of construction activity on the spot. (5) There are no bullet marks on the wall behind the scaffolding from which the deceased Niranjan Singh was coming down. The existence of such bullet marks is necessary according to the ballistic science. (6) Accused Kalu and Chhinda Singh have been over implicated. (7) Few empty cartilage's have been recovered from the crop and, therefore, possibility of fire having taken place from crop is not over ruled. If such is the case, there is no question of the accused persons being identified as has been done by the prosecution witnesses. (8) The witnesses have deposed that photographs of the scene of occurrence were taken. However, no photograph has been produced showing the state of construction, showing the state of construction material or bullet marks. These photographs are not produced or not taken because if taken and produced they would have proved the contention of the accused that there was no construction going on, there was no construction material and there was no bullet mark and therefore, the scene of occurrence was not one as alleged by the prosecution. (9) The totality of the circumstances mentioned above, therefore, create reasonably doubt that the incident occurred at some other place than the one alleged by the complainant and that the incident was perpetrated by the persons other then the accused persons. 5. We will have to consider each of these contentions in the light of the evidence as is led by the prosecution and re-appreciated by us in order to find out and ascertain whether the finding of conviction as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is correct or otherwise. 6. The first contention is that no blood or blood stained soil was recovered from the spot. The spot panchnama also does not show existence of blood on the spot and therefore, the witnesses are liable to be disbelieved when they say that the offence occurred at the spot mentioned in the punchnama. We are unable to agree with the submission as all the eye-witnesses have categorically stated that the offence took place where they sought it taking place. We are unable to agree with the submission as all the eye-witnesses have categorically stated that the offence took place where they sought it taking place. They have describe position in which the injured persons were sitting or working and the manner in which they were hit by the accused party disproves any allegation or suggestion that offence did not occur where it was alleged to have occurred. 7. It was then contended that admittedly according to the prosecution, there was gun fire when the accused fired at the deceased and the injured. Necessary consequence of such gun fire according to the learned counsel would be rushing of the people in the neighbourhood to the spot. No such evidence of any neighbouring witness reaching the spot immediately after hearing the shots is led by the prosecution and therefore, it is alleged that no incident took place at the spot alleged by the prosecution. Here also the submission is baseless. PW. 3 Govind Singh, RW. 4 Gurnam Singh and Makhan Singh each of whom has been injured in the firing that was opened by the accused, they have categorically stated that they were assaulted by the accused party. Merely because no adjoining neighbour came on the scene, it cannot be said that no incident took place. Evidence of PW. 6 Satnam Singh is also very pertinent in his regard. He arrived at the scene of offence immediately after it occurred and saw the deceased and the injured lying on the spot and he was immediately told by RW. 3 Govind Singh that they have been assaulted by the accused persons. The discovery of the deceased and injured at the site by PW. 6 and disclosure of the entire incident of RW. 3 to RW. 6 proves that the offence took place at the spot mentioned by the witnesses, merely because no neighbouring witness came on the spot after hearing the shots, it cannot be said that the incident has not occurred at all. 8. The third contention raised on behalf of the accused was that; "According to the prosecution the deceased Niranjan Singh was coming down from the roof and, therefore, he necessarily have his back towards the assailants and there is injury in the chest of the deceased which could not have occurred if this allegation is true." 9. According to us, this contention is also ill-founded. According to us, this contention is also ill-founded. There is no evidence to show that the deceased Niranjan Singh was coming down from the roof with his back towards the assailants, there is no evidence to show that he was coming down a ladder, there was only scaffolding raised for going up the roof which could be used for getting down the roof without turning back towards the others. No question in this regard has been asked to any of the witnesses, such question could have easily be answered by the witnesses who were present when the firing took place. Because the injury is on the chest of deceased Niranjan Singh, it cannot be said that the offence did not occur where it is alleged or that he was shot by some one else from the opposite side. 10. It was then contended by the learned counsel that the spot inspection note does not disclose any construction activity going on at the scene where the firing took place. The complainant party was busy in making repairs to their house and while they were so doing, they were assaulted by the accused. Beyond this factual statement, the fact of construction activity has no relevance to the incident and therefore, even if evidence regarding construction activity was available, it was not placed before the Court. Absence of construction activity or any evidence in relation to that cannot ipso facto mean that the entire story of the complainant is false. This ground also deserves to be rejected. 11. It was then contended by the learned counsel that; "There are no bullet marks on the wall behind the scaffolding from which the deceased Niranjan Singh was coming down. The existence of such bullet marks is necessary according to the ballistic science." 12. Reliance was placed for this proposition on the principle of ballistic science that the spread of a 12 bore bullet is in a defined course and if the contention of the prosecution is to be accepted that the accused fired at the complainant from 22 feet, the spread of the pellet would necessarily result in piercing the wall behind the scaffolding. In our opinion, this contention is baseless for the reasons that the gun used by the accused persons is not a standard gun, the bullets used were also not standard bullets and consequently, the requirement of ballistic science regarding spread of pellets from a 12 bore bullet need not be fulfilled. In the present case, the spread could be less or more and when a witness has personally seen bullet being fired and hitting a persons, merely because, there is no evidence of fall out, it cannot be said that the witness is liable to be disbelieved particularly when fall out from a country gun and a country bullet is unpredictable. This contention also therefore, fails. 13. It was then contended by the learned counsel that the record shows recovery of some cartridges from the crop standing near the house of the deceased and therefore, the possibility of fire having taken place from crop cannot be over ruled. It is true that such possibility cannot be over ruled but unless the empty cartridges recovered from the field and crop are proved to have been fired from the gun of the accused. It cannot be said that tire fire was opened from the crop. The identification of the accused by the prosecution witness is clear and cannot be clouded by such hypothetical submission, it deserves to be rejected. 14. It is then contended that photographs of the dead body could have been taken of the construction site and the bullets marks to prove the contention of the prosecution, though, It is true that this could be done. Failure on the pert of the prosecution to do so cannot disprove ocular testimony of the injured witnesses, existence of construction activity or presence of construction material is irrelevant for the purpose of determining of commission of offence which in the present case is proved beyond doubt by the eye-witnesses to the incident. 15. None of these circumstances or contentions as raised create any doubt in our mind regarding the place of incident or the incident having place at the instance of the accused only. In our opinion, therefore, none of the contentions borne out by the record. There is no reason to disbelieve the eye-witnesses, there present is natural, their deposition is natural. There is no reason that they should implicate others when they have seen the accused persons committing the offence. In our opinion, therefore, none of the contentions borne out by the record. There is no reason to disbelieve the eye-witnesses, there present is natural, their deposition is natural. There is no reason that they should implicate others when they have seen the accused persons committing the offence. It is not possible that they would allow the real criminal to go free and roping the accused merely for avenge certain previous enmity. There is thus, no error in the findings arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. We endorse each of them. 16. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******