Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. Gurcharan Singh (42) appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa for the murder of his brother Gurbachan Singh (66) by shooting him in the abdomen at 7 P.M. on May 29, 2000 in the street in front of the deceaseds house. 2. The learned trial Judge vide judgment dated September 18, 2001 found Gurcharan Singh guilty of the murder and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C., pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Gurcharan Singh was also found guilty of attempt to murder Gurbachan Singhs son Savinder Singh (PW12) and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Furthermore, Gurcharan Singh was convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. All sentences were directed to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved, Gurcharan Singh has filed the present appeal. 3. Harnam Singh of Himatpura died in 1984 leaving behind 90 Kanals of land and his widow Harbans Kaur, sons Gurbachan Singh (deceased), Sarwan Singh and Gurcharan Singh (accused) and also two daughters Veer Kaur (PW1) and Balbir Kaur, Gurbachan Singh (deceased) had three sons Narinder Singh (PW8), Satpal Singh (PW9) and Savinder Singh (PW12). The accused and the deceased had separate residences and were also separate in cultivation. Gurbachan Singh had managed to improve the quality of the land in his share and this was cause of frequent quarrels between him and the accused. 4. On May 28, 2000 at 6 P.M. the accused had told Savinder Singh (PW12), son of the deceased, to leave his field. After this quarrel the accused came to Gurbachan Singhs house armed with his licensed 12 bore S.B.B.L. gun. The deceased was standing outside the front gate of his house. The accused threatened the deceased with dire consequences and raised a lalkara that he would kill him and his family members for not handing over possession of the cultivable land. After hearing the commotion Narinder Singh (PW8) and his brother Satpal Singh (PW9) reached the spot. The deceased was standing outside the front gate of his house. The accused threatened the deceased with dire consequences and raised a lalkara that he would kill him and his family members for not handing over possession of the cultivable land. After hearing the commotion Narinder Singh (PW8) and his brother Satpal Singh (PW9) reached the spot. The deceased tried to pacify his brother but the accused fired a shot from his gun which hit the deceased in his abdomen and as a result of which he fell on the ground and the accused ran away from the place of the occurrence declaring that he would also kill Savinder Singh (PW12). 5. At about this time Savinder Singh (PW12) was returning to the house from his fields and he heard sound of gun fire and commotion. He then saw the accused running towards him armed with a gun and he started running back, the accused chased him and fired a shot from his gun but the shot did not hit Savinder Singh. 6. Gurbachan Singh was evacuated from the village in a jeep to be taken to General Hospital, Sirsa but he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The Medical Officer at the Hospital declared that he had been brought dead. The Medical Officer also sent a report regarding this fact to S.H.O., P.S. City, Sirsa at 8 P.M. Thereafter, Narinder Singh (PW8) set out to report the matter to Police Station, Rania and on the way at Ottu Head he met Inspector, Rajinder Singh (PW13) and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. The recording of the said statement was concluded at 11 P.M., which was sent to the Police Station and case was registered at 11.30 P.M. Special report of the case was received by the Magistrate at 1.50 A.M. in the small hours of May 29, 2000. 7. The investigation was commenced by Inspector Rajinder Singh who went straight to the hospital and prepared inquest report on the dead body of the deceased and dispatched it for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Y.K. Mahipal (PW1), Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sirsa at 10 A.M. on May 29, 2000. The Medical Officer found the following injuries on the dead body: "1. A lacerated wound 2 cms x 2cms on right subcostal region, 6 cms to right of midline. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Y.K. Mahipal (PW1), Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sirsa at 10 A.M. on May 29, 2000. The Medical Officer found the following injuries on the dead body: "1. A lacerated wound 2 cms x 2cms on right subcostal region, 6 cms to right of midline. Its edges were inverted. There was collar of abrasion around the wound with tattooing. Bleeding was present (fluid blood). 2. There were three abrasions contusions of size 2cms x 2cms and 2cms x 1-1/2cms and 2cms x 2cms situated respectively, 1cm medial to injury No. 1 and 1/2cm below injury No. 1 and 7 cms below injury No. 1 and all the three were reddish in colour. 3. A lacerated wound 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 cms, situated on right lumber area, 4cms right of mid-line and 2 cms below last rib. Edges of the wound were everted and free flow fluid blood was present." 8. The Medical Officer also found that the right side of the heart contained fluid blood, whole of the liver including gall bladder were badly lacerated through and through and the right kidney was also lacerated. The peritoneum was pale and contained free fluid blood measuring approximately one litre. In the opinion of the Medical Officer cause of death was shock due to the injuries which had been caused by a fire arm and were ante-mortem in nature. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was variable (later on clarified as between fifteen minutes and one hour) and between death and post-mortem about fourteen hours. Further investigation of the case was entrusted to Inspector Dharamlal Singh (PW11) who inspected the spot and searched for the accused. At the spot blood stained soil was lifted and taken into possession and a site plan was also prepared. The accused was arrested on June 7, 2000 while approaching Kariwala on being identified by Mohinder Singh and Narinder Singh. At that time the accused was also carrying his gun, which was also taken into possession. 9. The recovered fire arm had been sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban where the Scientist reported that he had detected some signs of combustion of smokeless powder from the barrel of the gun and its firing mechanism was in working order. At that time the accused was also carrying his gun, which was also taken into possession. 9. The recovered fire arm had been sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban where the Scientist reported that he had detected some signs of combustion of smokeless powder from the barrel of the gun and its firing mechanism was in working order. The clothes of the deceased and the blood stained earth were also examined at the laboratory and while human blood was found on the clothes, the material on the sample of earth had been disintegrated. After completion of the investigation the accused was sent up for trial. 10. A. the trial the accused was charged under Section 302 I.P.C. for the murder of his brother Gurbachan Singh, under Section 307 I.P.C. for attempt to murder Savinder Singh and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. The main witnesses examined at the trial were Dr. Y.K. Mahipal (PW1), Narinder Singh (PW8), Satpal Singh (PW9), Inspector Dharamlal Singh (PW11), Savinder Singh (PW12) and Inspector Rajinder Singh (PW13). The accused was examined without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the various items of prosecution evidence were put to him. The accused accepted that all three brothers were residing separately and had separate cultivation for the past fifteen years but the ownership of the land was joint. However, the accused denied that the deceased had improved his land or that he wanted the said land from the deceased. The accused gave the following counter story : "There is a passage in the land of the complainant party to have access to my land. On the day of alleged occurrence PW Savinder Singh, my nephew, was closing the said path at about 6.00 P.M. I raised an objection for the same. Savinder Singh quarrelled with me in the fields and abused me. I gave 2/3 slaps to Savinder Singh. We were separated-by Santosh Singh son of Bhag Singh and Harjit Singh came from the fields to his house, after extending threat to me that he would come back and each a lesson to me. After about one hour, my sister Veer Kaur came to me in the fields and told that Savinder Singh was coming to kill me with the gun of his father Gurbachan Singh. After about one hour, my sister Veer Kaur came to me in the fields and told that Savinder Singh was coming to kill me with the gun of his father Gurbachan Singh. Gurbachan Singh intercepted Savinder Singh PW in his Court-yard and caught the barrel of the gun. During this process, the gun triggered and the accidental fire hit Gurbachan Singh, who died at the spot in his house. Savinder Singh ran away. Veer Kaur further told me that I should not go to the house and advised me to go to relations. The occurrence in the house of Gurbachan Singh was witnessed by Veer Kaur and Harbans Kaur. Narinder Singh and Satpal PWs had not witnesse any occurrence. The dead-body was taken to the hospital by Mohinder Singh PW only. The place of occurrence has been wrongly shifted from the house to the street. My gun was taken into possession by the police on the next date of occurrence. I was produced before the police by my relations and was not arrested by the police, as projected by the prosecution." 12. When called upon to enter defence, the accused examined his sister Veer Kaur (55) as D.W. 1 and his sisters son Harjit Singh as D.W. 2 in support of the version given in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused also tendered in evidence copies of jamabandies and mutations relating to the land holding of the brothers and various mutations of the revenue record. 13. The main question to be considered in this appeal is whether the evidence on record supports the prosecution evidence or whether it confirms that Gurbachan Singh was accidentally shot by his son Savinder Singh (PW12) in a scuffle when the father was trying to stop the son who was determined to shoot the accused for having slapped by him. The defence version was that the father had tried to snatch the loaded gun away from his son, they had grappled and in the process the gun went off and the shot hit the deceased on the abdomen. 14. The defence version was that the father had tried to snatch the loaded gun away from his son, they had grappled and in the process the gun went off and the shot hit the deceased on the abdomen. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case because firstly, under injury No. 1 (lacerated wound 2cm x 2cm on the right subcostal region) there was a collar of abrasion around the wound with tattooing, therefore, this injury was the result of gun being discharged from a distance of eighteen inches or less and not one karam (5.5 feet) as stated by Satpal Singh (PW9) in cross- examination. Secondly, the three abrasions/contusions described under injury No. 2 (2cm x 2cm, 2cm x 1-1/2 cm and 2cm x 2cm) below injury No. 1 were caused by the guns barrel hitting the abdomen of the deceased in a jabbing manner during the struggle. Therefore, the deceased had been shot at from a close range which caused a lacerated wound under injury No. 1 but before he received this injury he had also been repeatedly jabbed in the abdominal area when he had also been repeatedly jabbed in the abdominal area when he was trying to pull the gun away from his son in the tussle. Reference was made to the evidence of Veer Kaur (DW 1) and Harjit Singh (DW 2), who both gave a graphic account of the manner in which the occurrence had actually taken place. 15. One of the well known tests to determine the veracity of the prosecution evidence is the promptness with which the eye-witnesses lodge the information with the police. The delay in reporting the matter certainly castes a shadow of doubt on the entire prosecution case and occasionally the accused reap the benefit of doubt because Courts tend to hold that the prosecution version was the result of consultation between members of the victims family who had finalised the story after carefully studying the medical evidence and arranging for witnesses to give false evidence, in the present case the same test must be applicable to the defence version which was revealed for the first time when it was suggested to Narinder Singh (PW8) in cross-examination on January 10, 2001, nearly one and a half years after the occurrence. According to Veer Kaur (DW 1) she had protested against the implication of the accused at the time of the bhog ceremony but she had been advised to keep quiet on the assurance that the witnesses would resile at the trial. This explanation cannot be accepted. According to the defence version the accused was not even at the spot but in his fields when the deceased received the gun shot injury. However, the accused did not lodge any protest or complaint against his being named as the prime accused in the F.I.R. If the accused was innocent and falsely involved in the case, he and his supporters would have moved heaven and earth to get the case properly investigated instead of waiting for the trial to commence to reveal their cards. 16. It is at this stage that the ingenuity of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant should be considered. The story of the struggle between the deceased and his son was built up on the basis of what the defence perceived or read into the post-mortem report. According to the counsel, tattooing was the effect deposit of carbon and the shot must have been discharged from a distance of less than eighteen inches and the wads had passed through the body. The three abrasions at the site, of injury No. 2 were the result of jabbing with the guns barrel because they corresponded to the diameter of the barrel and the deceased had been jabbed thrice giving rise to the three abrasions/contusions. It is no doubt a clever analysis of the medical evidence which has led to a clever defence being put forth but the defence version is quite worthless. It is impossible to discard the prosecution version first placed before the investigating agency in the statement of Narinder Singh (PW8) at 11 P.M., a mere four hours after the occurrence which took place at 7 P.M. The case registered at 11.30 P.M. and the special report delivered to the Magistrate at 1.50 A.M. on May 29. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant took us through the evidence of C. Rameshwar Dass (PW5). 17. The learned counsel for the appellant took us through the evidence of C. Rameshwar Dass (PW5). This witness testified, on the basis of affidavit, which was primarily with regard to getting the post-mortem of the dead body conducted but this witness had nothing to say in his affidavit as regards being entrusted with the task of taking the statement of Narinder Singh (PW8) to the Police Station for registration of F.I.R. C. Rameshwar Dass is mentioned in the police proceedings as the person through whom the statement was sent to the Police Station but this was not a part of his testimony at all. This Constable was also not the person who had delivered the special report since that was done by C. Surjit Singh (PW6) who had testified on affidavit that on May 29 he was present at the Police Station when M.H.C. Balbir Singh gave the special report for delivering it to the Area Magistrate and other senior officers. C. Surjit Singh (PW6) was cross-examined and confirmed that he received the special report at 12.30 A.M. and delivered the report to the Area Magistrate at about 1.30 A.M. at Sirsa, a distance of 26 kms from the Police Station and had gone in a private jeep. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the cross- examination of C. Rameshwar Dass (PW5) trying to establish that the witness had been present with the Investigating Officer of the case on May 28 and Narinder Singh complainant never met the Investigating Officer on that evening but met him at the hospital at 11.05 A.M. on May 29. The witness was categoric that Narinder Singh (PW8) did not meet the police on the night intervening May 28 and 29. It is obvious that C. Rameshwar Dass was tricked into saying that the complainant did not meet the police on the night of the occurrence. Although it is true that C. Rameshwar Dass did take the statement of Narinder Singh (PW8) for registration of the case but the witness was not questioned regarding this aspect at all. Consequently, it must be accepted that what is mentioned in the police proceedings on this aspect of the case has gone unchallenged and must be true. Although it is true that C. Rameshwar Dass did take the statement of Narinder Singh (PW8) for registration of the case but the witness was not questioned regarding this aspect at all. Consequently, it must be accepted that what is mentioned in the police proceedings on this aspect of the case has gone unchallenged and must be true. The witnesses was a mere Constable who was a part of the police party headed by the Investigating Officer Inspector Rajinder Singh, S.H.O., P.S. Rania and would not be likely to be watching the various steps taken in the investigation or noticing the witnesses the Investigating Officer met and interrogated. Therefore, nothing much would turn on the inconsequential statement made by C. Rameshwar Dass in cross- examination regarding the first informant not meeting the police on the night of the occurrence whereas this Constable did take the statement to the Police Station for registration of the case and on its basis F.I.R. was registered at 11.30 P.M., the special report delivered to the Magistrate at Sirsa by 1.50 A.M. on May 29. 19. Having considered all aspects of the case, find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.