JUDGMENT 1. - Appellants Gurdeep Singh and Tek Chand have been convicted for offence u/s 302 and 302/34 IPC respectively by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, Camp Suratgarh dated 17.5.1997. Both of them have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both the appellants have also been convicted for offence u/s 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 20.8.1993 at about 12.30 p.m. P.W. 1 Baldev Singh lodged a first information report at Police Station, Suratgarh stating inter-alia that there was a dispute between them and their cousin brother appellant Gurdeep Singh with respect to the land. On the same day, he alongwith his younger brother Gejasingh (deceased) and father P.W. 3 Jogendra Singh had gone to the field for collecting fodder. At about 10 a.m. while they were returning, Gurdeep Singh and one unidentified person carrying pistols in their hands, came from the side of canal. Gurdeep Singh exhorted his companion to kill the enemy. At the same time, Gurdeep Singh fired the pistol hitting the chest of Geja Singh, on account of the fire shot, his. brother fell down. His companion fired from the pistol hitting the knee of Geja Singh. Out of fear, he alongwith his father hide themselves behind the shrub. Appellant Gurdeep Singh and his companion ran away. He also stated that near the spot, Kashi and Phoola were also grazing the cattle. With their help, Geja Singh was brought to the house in a camel-cart, where he succumbed to the injuries. He also gave description of the companion of Gurdeep Singh. On this information, police registered a case for offence u/s 302 read with 34 IPC and proceeded with investigation. After usual investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the appellants for offence u/ss. 302, 302/34 IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 13 witnesses and produced certain documents. After usual investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the appellants for offence u/ss. 302, 302/34 IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 13 witnesses and produced certain documents. The appellants in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. They have stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity. The trial court relying on the testimony of the eye witnesses, namely P.W. 1 Baldev Singh, P.W. 3 Jogendra Singh corroborated by the prompt first information report and the medical evidence, found the prosecution case proved and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as noticed above. 3. Assailing the conviction, it is contended by Mr. H.S. Kharlia, learned counsel for the appellants that so far as second appellant Tek Chand is concerned, there is no evidence against him worth the name. It is submitted that admittedly, he was not known to the eye witnesses and in spite of that no identification parade was arranged. He has also criticised the evidence of recovery of pistol. As regard first appellant Gurdeep Singh, it is submitted that the statement of P.W. 1 Baldev Singh and P.W. 3 Jogendra Singh is not at all reliable. It is also submitted that both the witnesses have tried to falsely implicate Tek Chand and as such there is no guarantee that they are making true statement with respect to Gurdeep Singh as well. It is also argued that most material witness Raju has not been examined. It is also submitted that the story of camel-cart has been introduced at a later stage. He has also pointed out that there are certain discrepancies with respect to the recovery of the pistol. It is lastly submitted that no blood was found on the clothes, ground, grass etc. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the prosecution case. 4. P.W. 5 Dr. Om Prakash Sharma has stated that he conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Geja Singh and noticed as many as 18 injuries. The injuries were anti-mortem in nature and they were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also stated that the cause of death was gun-shot injury, particularly injury No. 1. Om Prakash Sharma has stated that he conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Geja Singh and noticed as many as 18 injuries. The injuries were anti-mortem in nature and they were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also stated that the cause of death was gun-shot injury, particularly injury No. 1. He has proved the Post Mortem Report Ex. P/3. It is not necessary to reproduce the injuries as the factum of homicidal death by gun-shot has not been disputed by the defence. 5. P.W. 1 Baldev Singh has reiterated the statement made by him in the first information report. He also stated that his elder brother Baldev Singh, hearing the narration of the incident, immediately expressed that the unknown person must be Tekchand Kumhar. He also stated that he had seen Tekchand earlier occasion with Gurdeep Singh, but he was not knowing his name. In spite of lengthy cross- examination, nothing has been elicited to dis-credit the testimony of this witness. 6. P.W. 2 Balveendar Singh has stated that on the date of incident, his father Jodgendra Singh alongwith his brothers Baldev Singh and Geja Singh went to the field for collecting the fodder. He went to his barani field. In the afternoon, one boy came to him and informed that his brother Geja Singh has been murdered by Gurdeep Singh. He arrived at the house about 4 p.m. He went to the hospital, where his brother Baldev Singh and father Jodgendra Singh told him that Geja Singh was murdered by Gurdeep Singh and his companion by pistol. He disclosed the name of companion of Gurdeep Singh as Tekchand. 7. P.W. 3 Jodgendra Singh has stated that Surjeet Singh and his younger brother were serving at Hisar. He has a house in village Amarpura. There was a dispute between him and his brother Surjeet Singh with respect to the land. About 8-9 months back, his son Balveendar Singh was threshed by Gurdeep Singh and Surjeet Singh. He also stated that on the date of incident, he alongwith his son had gone to Suratgarh farm for collecting fodder. At about 10 a.m. when they were on way of their house, Gurdeep Singh and one un-named boy came from the canal side carrying pistols in their hands. Gurdeep Singh fired pistol at Geja Singh, which hit his chest. He also stated that on the date of incident, he alongwith his son had gone to Suratgarh farm for collecting fodder. At about 10 a.m. when they were on way of their house, Gurdeep Singh and one un-named boy came from the canal side carrying pistols in their hands. Gurdeep Singh fired pistol at Geja Singh, which hit his chest. The second fire made by the unknown person hit Geja Singh, he alongwith his son hide themselves behind the shrub. The accused persons ran away towards the eastern side. Geja Singh was immediately taken to their house in the camel-cart with the help of Kashiram and Phoola Ram, who were grazing the cattle in the near-about area. He alongwith Balveender Singh went to the Police Station, Suratgarh and lodged the first information report. He also stated that police immediately reached on the spot and prepared the inquest report. It is also stated that empty cartridge was recovered from the spot. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not knew the appellant Tekchand prior to the date of incident. 8. The conviction of both the appellants is based on the testimony of the eye-witnesses namely P.W. 1 Baldev Singh and P.W. 2 Jodgendra Singh. As far as accused-appellant Tekchand is concerned, both the witnesses have not given his name. It is of course true that they have identified him in the Court, but identification is not proceeded by the Identification Parade. The other evidence against the appellant Tekchand is recovery of the pistol. As in absence of Identification Parade, the prosecution has failed to establish the presence of appellant Tekchand simply on the basis of recovery of a pistol, the appellant Tekchand cannot be connected with the alleged crime. Thus, we are of the view that the trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellant Tekchand. He deserves to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 9. So far as the first appellant Gurdeep Singh is concerned, the only criticism against the eye witnesses is that they have falsely implicated Tekchand and as such there is no guarantee of their version being true against Gurdeep Singh, the criticism levelled by the learned counsel is not sustainable. Both the witnesses have stated that Gurdeep Singh was accompanied by the unknown person. The name of the said person was disclosed by P.W. 1 Baldev Singh. Both the witnesses have stated that Gurdeep Singh was accompanied by the unknown person. The name of the said person was disclosed by P.W. 1 Baldev Singh. Thus, it was guess work of Baldev Singh. There is no reason to dis-believe the statement of P.W. 1 Baldev Singh and P.W. 3 Jogendra Singh, brother and father of deceased respectively. The incident has taken place at about 10 a.m. The first information report was promptly lodged at 12 noon. In the F.I.R., the name of Gurdeep Singh finds place. The Post Mortem Report Ex. P/13 shows that the deceased received gun-shot injuries. Accordingly to P.W. 5 Dr. Om Prakash Sharma, Geja Singh died of gun-shot injuries. Therefore, the statement of both the witnesses find corroboration from the medical evidence as well. The pistol has also been recovered in pursuance of the information given by the appellant Gurdeep Singh. 10. P.W. 13 Ramu Singh has stated that Gurdeep Singh was arrested vide Ex. P/24 on 31.8.93. The pistol was recovered vide Ex. P/14 in pursuance of the information given vide Ex. P/26. The pistol was sent to he Forensic Science Laboratory. The Ballistic Expert vide Ex. P/29 has expressed that the 12 bore country made pistols were serviceable fire arms, he also opined that the lead pellets contained in packet C could have come out from damaged 12-bore cartridge from packet 'B'. The learned counsel has made some criticism with respect to the recovery of the pistol, but they are of insignificant nature. The statement of the two eye-witnesses also find corroborations from the recovery of the pistol. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge against the appellant Gurdeep Singh for the murder of Geja Singh. The trial Court has rightly convicted the first appellant Gurdeep Singh for offence u/s 302 IPC. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant Tekchand for offence u/s 302/34 IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act is quashed and set aside and he is acquitted of the offence u/s 302/349 IPC. The conviction of the appellant Gurdeep Singh for offence u/s 302 IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act is confirmed. The sentence awarded to him on both the counts is maintained. The appellant Tekchand is on bail. His bail bonds stands discharged. The conviction of the appellant Gurdeep Singh for offence u/s 302 IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act is confirmed. The sentence awarded to him on both the counts is maintained. The appellant Tekchand is on bail. His bail bonds stands discharged. The appellant Gurdeep Singh shall serve out the remaining part of the sentences.Appeal partly allowed. *******