JUDGMENT 1. - This State appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.1.1978 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar acquitting the accused respondents of offence under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 and 27 of te Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW/1 Avtar Singh lodged the F.I.R. Ex. P/1 at Police Station Anoopgarh on 24th May, 1975 at 3.15 P.M. stating interalia that he alongwith the deceased Hardayal Singh and Nirmal Singh after taking lunch at about 1.30 P.M. had gone to meet his father-in-law Ajayab Singh at the village 58 G.B. PW/2 Suchha Singh also followed them but he was 22-25 steps behind them. When they reached near the 'culvert' all the accused persons Gajjan Singh, Kalwant Singh, Surjan Singh, Dalip Singh and Swroop Singh surrounded them. Seeing them, PW/2 Succha Singh ran away towards his house. They also tried to run away. Nirmal Singh tried to run away but, he was hit by a gun fire. It was also stated that Nirmal Singh tried to run away but Pakhar Singh exhorted to kill him, saying that he should not escaped alive. On this, Gajjan Singh and Surjan Singh fired, which hit him as well as Hardayal Singh. Hardayal Singh fell down. There was a second fire which struck on his shoulder. It was also stated that the accused persons asked Nirmal Singh and Hardayal Singh to enter in their house. On this information, police registered a case of offence under Section 302, 307, 147, 148 & 149 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After usual investigation police laid chargesheet against the accused Gajjan Singh, Kalwant Singh, Arjun Singh, Surjan Singh, Swroop Singh, Dalip Singh and Pakhar Singh for the aforesaid offence. 3. The accused persons denied the guilt and claimed trial. During the trial, prosecution examined 7 witnesses. PW/1 Avtar Singh and PW/2 Suchha Singh were examined as eye witnesses of the incident. In statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the accused persons stated that the prosecution evidence appearing before them is false. The accused Gajjan Singh stated that Suchha Singh and Ajyab Singh are their enemies and through their relatives they hired the deceased Nirmal Singh and Hardayal Singh to kill them. On the date of incident in the afternoon. In statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the accused persons stated that the prosecution evidence appearing before them is false. The accused Gajjan Singh stated that Suchha Singh and Ajyab Singh are their enemies and through their relatives they hired the deceased Nirmal Singh and Hardayal Singh to kill them. On the date of incident in the afternoon. Kalwant Singh and Narendra had gone to the canal for cleaning of the tractor. Six persons from the family of the witnesses and the accused persons tried to kill them. They chased them carrying guns in their hands. They also fired but somehow they could reach safe at their houses. It was further stated that both the deceased. Ajyab Singh and Ram Pratap Vishnoi armed with guns reached to the house of the accused persons and started firing. They wanted to enter into the house for which, they broke the window. They also fired at the gate. Seeing all this, the accused Gajjan Singh fired from the gun from the 'Chopara', which hit Avtar Singh. Hardayal Singh and Nirmal Singh. Hardayal Singh Nirmal Singh died on the spot. The witnesses and their other associates pick up the guns and ran away from the spot. The accused persons apprehending that the dead bodies may not be taken away from the witnesses, brought them inside the house. The information of the incident was also lodged at the police station by the accused persons. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence on record found that the complainant party was the aggressor and the accused persons fired the gun in exercise of right of private defence. In view of the finding, the trial court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted all the accused persons of the charges levelled against them. 4. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Kharlia, learned Counsel appearing for the accused respondents. 5. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Judge has committed an error in discarding the evidence of two eye witnesses and relying upon the defence version. On the other hand Mr. Kharlia has supported the judgment of the trial court. 6. We have scaned the prosecution evidence carefully. 7. PW/1 Avtar Singh has stated that he had gone to his in law's house at 58 G.B. alongwith his friends Hardayal Singh and Nirmal Singh. On the other hand Mr. Kharlia has supported the judgment of the trial court. 6. We have scaned the prosecution evidence carefully. 7. PW/1 Avtar Singh has stated that he had gone to his in law's house at 58 G.B. alongwith his friends Hardayal Singh and Nirmal Singh. After taking lunch at about 1.30 P.M., he alongwith Hardayal Singh, Nirmal Singh and Suchha Singh proceeded towards the field of his father-in-law Ajyab Singh. Suchha Singh was travelling at the distance of 20-25 steps behind them. When they reached near the culvert, Gajjan Singh, Kalwant Singh, Surjan Singh, Dalip Singh and Swroop Singh met them. All the accused persons surrounded them and took them towards their houses. Nirmal Singh tried to run away but, Gajjan Singh fired at him. Nirmal Singh fell down infront of house of Singra Singh. He alongwith Hardayal Singh ran towards the western side. Kalwant Singh and Surjan fired at the accused persons which hit him and Hardayal Singh. Hardayal Singh fell down. When he tried to pick up Hardayal Singh, Kalwant Singh made a second fire, which struck on his back. He ran away leaving Hardayal Singh. While running towards the Gurudwara, he looked at the back. He saw that the accused persons had lifted Hardayal Singh and Nirmal Singh and they were taking them towards the house of Arjun Singh. PW/2 Suchha Singh stated that in the morning at about 8 A.M. PW/1 Avtar Singh came to their house alongwith the deceased Nirmal Singh and Hardayal Singh. He has also given narration of the incident as given by the PW/1 Avtar Singh. 8. PW/6 Dr. Kailash Nath Markanday stated that he conducted the post mortem of the dead bodies of the Nirmal Singh and Hardayal Singh. He found following injuries on the body of Nirmal Singh: 1. Gun shot wound 11/4" x 11/4" x thorasic cavity deep rounded at the fourth thorasic vertabrae of back. 2. Gun shot wound ⅓" x ⅓" x thorasic cavity deep x oval on the right side of chest near and below to the lateral side of right clavicle. 3. Gun shot wound ⅓" x ⅓" x thorasic cavity deep x oval on the left side of chest near left nipple. 4. Gun shot wound ⅓" x ⅓" x thorasic cavity deep x ovel on the left side of chest 2" above injury No. 3. 5. 3. Gun shot wound ⅓" x ⅓" x thorasic cavity deep x oval on the left side of chest near left nipple. 4. Gun shot wound ⅓" x ⅓" x thorasic cavity deep x ovel on the left side of chest 2" above injury No. 3. 5. Abrasion 3" x ⅓" x oblique on the left forearm medially. 9. He proved the post-mortem report Ex. P/8. In his opinion the deceased has died of shock and hamohrrage due to the injuries to the lungs and heart. Injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 10. Dr. Kailash Nath also stated that on the same day he conducted the post mortem of the deceased Hardayal Singh and found the following injuries on his person: 1. Burn .2" x .15" x superficial layer of skin oval on the left cheek. 2. Burn .2" x .15" x superficial layer of skin oval on the right side of neck medial border of sterno mastoid muscle. 3. Burn .2" x .16" x superficial layer of skin oval on the right side of chest 2" lateral to sternum at the level of 2nd rib. 4. Burn .2" x .15"x superficial layer of skin oval 1" lateral to injury No. 3. 5. Burn .2" x .15" x superficial layer of skin oval on the right side of chest near lateral end of clavicle. 6. Burn .2" x .15" x superficial layer of skin, oval 1" below medial end of left clavicle. 7. Burn .2" x .15" x superficial layer of skin, oval 11/2" below to injury No. 6. 8. Burn .2" x .17" x superficial layer of skin, oval 2" lateral and below to injury No. 7. 9. Burn .2" x .15" x superficial layer of skin, oval on the 6th rib 4" lateral to sternum on left side. 10. Burn .2" x .15" x superficial layer of skin, oval 2" lateral to the left nipple. 11. Burn. 18" x .15" x superficial layer of skin, oval 1" below to injury No. 10. 12. Burn .2" x .15" x superficial layer of skin, oval 2" lateral to injury No. 11. 13. Burn .2" x .15" superficial layer of skin oval, 3" lateral to left nipple. 14. Burn .2" x .15" x superficial layer of skin on the 8th rib laterally. 15. 12. Burn .2" x .15" x superficial layer of skin, oval 2" lateral to injury No. 11. 13. Burn .2" x .15" superficial layer of skin oval, 3" lateral to left nipple. 14. Burn .2" x .15" x superficial layer of skin on the 8th rib laterally. 15. Burn .2" x .15"x superficial layer of skin, oval below and lateral to injury No. 14. 16. Burn .2" x .15" x superficial layer of skin, oval on the medial wall of left axilla near base of axilla. 17. Burn .2" x .15" x superficial layer of skin oval 1/2" medial and below to injury No. 16. 18. Burn .2" x .15" x superficial layer of skin oval 1/2" lateral to injury No. 17. 19. Burn .2" x .15" x superficial layer of skin on the medial wall of axilla 3" below injury No. 15. 20. Burn .2" x 15" x superficial layer of skin, oval on the medial wall of axilla 1" lateral to injury No. 19. 21. Burn .2" x 15" x superficial layer of skin, oval 1" medial to injury No. 19. 22. Burn ,2" x 16" x superficial layer of skin oval on the left side of abdomen below 12th rib laterally. 23. Burn .2" x 15" x superficial layer of skin oval on the left side of the abdomen. 5" lateral to umblicus. 24. Burn .2" x 17" x superficial layer of skin oval on the left side of abdomen below injury No. 23. 25. Burn .2" x 15", superficial layer of skin, oval on, the back of left arm medially. 26. Bum .2" x 15" x superficial layer of skin oval on the back of left arm 11/2" to injury No. 25. 27. Burn .2" x 15" x superficial layer of skin, oval on the back of left forearm medially 5" below elbow joint. 28. Bum .2" x 15" x superficial layer of skin oval on the back of left wrist medially. 29. Gun shot wound .2" x 16" thorasic cavity oval on the medial wall of axilla in the third intercostal space. 30. Gun shot wound .2" x 15" thorasic cavity oval on the fourth intercostal space of left side 2" lateral to left nipple. 31. Gun, shot wound .2" x 15" x thorasic cavity oval on the 5th intercostal of chest laterally. 32. 30. Gun shot wound .2" x 15" thorasic cavity oval on the fourth intercostal space of left side 2" lateral to left nipple. 31. Gun, shot wound .2" x 15" x thorasic cavity oval on the 5th intercostal of chest laterally. 32. Gun shot wound .2" x 15" x thorasic cavity oval on the fifth left intercostal space 1" lateral to injury No. 31. 33. Gun shot wound .2" x 15" x thorasic cavity oval on the 6th intercostal space left side laterally. 34. Gun shot wound .2" x 15" x muscles deep oval on the 6th left intercostal space 4" lateral to spernum. 35. Gun shot wound .2" x 15" x muscles deep oval on the left lateral side of abdomen 2" below 12th rib. 36. Gun shot wound ⅓" x ⅓" x muscles deep oval 1" lateral to 2nd lumber vertebrae on the right side of back. 37. Abrasion 1" x 1" x irregular on the right ankle joint laterally. 38. Abrasion 2" x 1/2" x irregular on the back of left leg 5" above left ankle joint. 11. In his opinion the cause of death was shock and hamoharrage due to the injuries to the lungs and heart. He also stated that he found 8 pellets of fire arm, 7 of small size and one met allic pellet of big size. Pellets were sealed vide Ex. P/9. In his opinion injuries No. 1 to 28 were caused by fire arm and injury Nos. 28 to 36 were entrance wounds caused by fire arm. He proved the post-mortem report Ex. P/10. 12. He also examined PW/1 Avtar Singh and prepared the injury report Ex. P/12 as follows: 1. Gun shot wound ⅓" x ⅓" x 3" oval on the left arm anteriorly at middle. 2. Gun shot wound ⅓" x ⅓" depth cannot be ascertained oval on the right side of the back close to vertibrael column. 3. Gun shot wound 1/2" x ⅓" not probed, oval on the right shoulder anteriorly depth not probed. 4. Gun shot wound ⅓" x ⅓" x oval on the right fore arm medially. 13. He found all the injuries grievous in nature caused by fire arm. 14. Thus, it is evident that the deceased Nirmal Singh and Hardayal Singh died of homicidal death. 4. Gun shot wound ⅓" x ⅓" x oval on the right fore arm medially. 13. He found all the injuries grievous in nature caused by fire arm. 14. Thus, it is evident that the deceased Nirmal Singh and Hardayal Singh died of homicidal death. The significant features appearing in this case are that the prosecution has failed to show the reasons for the presence of the deceased Hardayal Singh and Nirmal Singh in the village. It has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses that the way which passes through the houses of the accused persons is not an ordinary short route for going to the field of the complainant party. The enmity between the parties is not in dispute. In the morning a incident had taken place between the parties. This clearly shows that the complainant party deliberately opted to pass through the route on which the houses of the accused persons ate situated. There are signs of fire at the gate of the house of the accused persons. The sight plan shows that bodies of the deceased persons were dragged from point B & C inside the house of the accused persons. The say of the accused persons is that Gajjan Singh fired to defend himself and other persons, as there was an attack on their houses by the persons hired by Ajyab Singh through PW/1 Avtar Singh. These circumstances positively indicates that Ajyab Singh had brought the deceased Hardayal Singh and Nirmal Singh to finish persons from the accused party. There is an ample material on record to show that the deceased persons were of notorious character and they were capable of being hired for the purpose of killing a person. 15. In view of the aforesaid, we find no infirmity in the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge which calls for interference by this Court in this State appeal. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly rejected.Appeal dismissed. *******