JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal. J.:-To act for safety and security of the general public to protect the human rights and to take care of the poor and helpless people has now become a foreign subject to the constabulary. They in utter disregard to the office and while taking undue benefit of their uniform exploit the same to the best possible against the poor and helpless society and for them due respect to the uniform is no more the principle of the police force. 2. It is one of the such cases where accused-appellant Kulbir Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) an S.P.O. of the Home Guard Department took the law in his own hands and he allegedly attracted by the money in the hands of Satish Kumar, caused homicidal death of Anil Kumar and tried commit murder of Dhanno in three hours of 17.11.1994. As a sequel of which he had to face trial and ultimately he has been convicted by learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide its judgment dated 21.2.1997 whereby he has been slapped with life imprisonment for committing murder of Anil Kumar; four years sentence for attempting to commit murder of Dharma (PW8) and two years sentence under Section 27 of Arms Act. Besides, he was also fined for the aforesaid offences. 3. The incident took place on 18.11.1994 at 4.00 AM at Saban Bazar, Ludhiana, when Anil Kumar, Satish Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Jamna Parshad were on the shop of Gopi Chand and were unloading the bamboos from the tempo (four wheeler). Satish Kumar while standing out side the shop was counting the money for payment to the tempo driver. In the meanwhile, accused Kulbir Singh, Baljinder Singh and Surinder Singh came there and started intervening in the business of Satish Kumar and asked them to explain the source of money and further compelled him to hand over the money to them. On resistance being shown by Satish Kumar, a scuffle ensued. When Anil Kumar (deceased) tried to intervene, Kulbir Singh accused in anguish, fired from his rifle at him. In the meanwhile Dharma who also happened to be there tried to catch hold of Kulbir Singh, then on the exhortion of Baljinder Singh and Surinder Singh he again fired at Dhannu causing him injuries. Anil Kumar succumbed to the injuries at the spot, whereas Dharma was rushed to CMC, Hospital, Ludhiana. All the accused were overpowered. In the meanwhile Dharma who also happened to be there tried to catch hold of Kulbir Singh, then on the exhortion of Baljinder Singh and Surinder Singh he again fired at Dhannu causing him injuries. Anil Kumar succumbed to the injuries at the spot, whereas Dharma was rushed to CMC, Hospital, Ludhiana. All the accused were overpowered. 4. On hearing telephonic message, SI Surjit Chand reached the spot, recorded statement of Satish Kumar and sent the same to the police station, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PK/2 was registered by ASI Kashmiri Lal at 5.30 AM which was received by the ILlaqa Magistrate on 18.11.1994 at 8.00 AM through constable Sucha Singh No.2378. SI Surjit Chand had conducted the inquest report Ex.PB; prepared site plan of the place of occurrence; sent the dead body for postmortem examination; and collected the blood stained earth. He also took into possession the empties Ex.P6 and EX.P7 and seized the service rifle EX.P5 along with 8 live cartridges from the possession of Kulbir Singh through seizure memo EX.PM/1. The completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 5. The accused Kulbir Singh was charged under Section 302/307 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, whereas accused Baljinder Singh and Surinder Singh were charged for the aforesaid offences with the aid of Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. On trail, the prosecution examined Dr. S.K. Sharma (PW1), Dr. Yogesh Mohindru (PW2), Dr. Sanjay Pal (PW3), Dr. Pamela Jeyaraj (PW4), HC Harbhajan Singh (PW5), HC Inderjit Singh (PW6), Satish Kumar (PW7), Dharmu (PW8), ASI Karnail Singh (PW9), HC Gurnam Singh (PW10), Harminder Singh (PW11), CI Harjit Singh (PW12) and SI Surjit Chand (PW13). After tendering into evidence report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PU and Ex.PV, the prosecution closed its evidence. 7. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. Accused Kulbir Singh further explained as under:­ “On the night of 18.11.1994, with SPO Baljinder Singh were patrolling in the area of Talab Bazar and during the course of patrolling, found that one of the shops was open. 7. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. Accused Kulbir Singh further explained as under:­ “On the night of 18.11.1994, with SPO Baljinder Singh were patrolling in the area of Talab Bazar and during the course of patrolling, found that one of the shops was open. In order to check up as to why it was opened during the night, I went to the shop and there I found some persons including Dharmu and when I enquired as to what they were doing at that odd time, they forcibly took me inside the shop and tried to snatch my service rifle, which in the scuffle was discharged and the bullet after piercing the shutter of the shop hit someone standing out side. They had also taken Baljinder Singh inside the shop and had given him injuries and I was confined inside, the shop before the police recovered me. The bullet had also pierced through the shutter fixed at the shop.” 8. The accused Baljinder Singh and Surinder Singh (since acquitted) also made identical statements. I need not to repeat the same as they have been acquitted in the case. 9. In defence, the accused examined Dr. U.S. Sooch (DW1) who stated that on 21.11.1994, he had examined, Baljinder Singh and found the following injuries on his person:­ 1. Bluish black contusion 3 “x 3 “ on the top of right shoulder. 2. Lacerated wound 1/2"x1/2" on the top of vertex with swollen margins and yellowish discharge. 3. Black scabbed abrasion 1"x 1" on the mid of right shin. 4. Bluish swelling just above the right knee. 5. Brownish black scabbed abrasion 1/6"x1/6" on the back of the left wrist. 10. The Medical Officer further opined that the injuries were simple in nature as a result of blunt weapon and could be self-suffered also. 11. The trial Court after scanning the evidence concluded in favour of Baljinder Singh and Surinder Singh accused and acquitted them while extending them benefit of doubt. However, accused Kulbir Singh was convicted and sentenced accordingly. Hence this appeal. 12. We have heard Mrs. Baljeet Kaur Mann, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.S. Bhinder, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab and scrutinized the records of this case very carefully. 13. Autopsy on the dead body of Anil Kumar conducted on 18.11.1994 at 11.45 AM by Dr. However, accused Kulbir Singh was convicted and sentenced accordingly. Hence this appeal. 12. We have heard Mrs. Baljeet Kaur Mann, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.S. Bhinder, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab and scrutinized the records of this case very carefully. 13. Autopsy on the dead body of Anil Kumar conducted on 18.11.1994 at 11.45 AM by Dr. S.K. Sharma (PW1) reveals as under :­ 1. Lacerated wound 1 cm round with inverted margins with burning and scorching on the outer part of right elbow joint, approximately 1 cm below the joint. 2. Lacerated wound 2 cms margins inverted on the medial side of right elbow joint, just opposite to injury No.1. The underlying bone was fractured and muscles torn. 3. Lacerated wound 3 cms with margins inverted on the outer and lower part of the right chest on mid axillary line. 4. Lacerated wound 3 cms with margins inverted on lower part of the middle part of the middle of back. On exploration of chest, right lung and pleurae, diaphramas, liver, left lung and pleurae were ruptured. Blood was present in the thoracic. 14. Similarly, the “medical report prepared by Dr. Yogesh Mehendru (PW2), who had examined Dharmu, reveals that the injury just below the elbow was the result of gun shot. Dr. Sanjay Pal (PW3), who medico-legally Dharmu on 18.11.1994 at 4.55 AM, CMC, Hospital, Ludhiana observed the following injury on his person :­ 1. Wound 4 cms x 1 cm left elbow, with the foreign body in side. He also proved his injury report EX.PG and photo stat copy Ex.PE of the bed head ticket. Dr. Pamela Jeyraj (PW4) deposed that on 18.11.1994 Dharmu was brought to CMC Hospital, by Hari Chand at 4.30 AM. The aforesaid medical evidence reveals that the injuries suffered by the deceased as well as injured were the result of the fire arm. 15. The injured was admitted in the CMC, Ludhiana without any wastage of time i.e. at 4.30 AM and the injuries on the person of Baljinder Singh reportedly being superficial in nature ‘could be self suffered. Even otherwise, the defence set up by the accused that Baljinder Singh suffered injuries in a scuffle between Anil Kumar and Kulbir Singh is totally false for variety of reasons. He got himself medically examined after three days. Even otherwise, the defence set up by the accused that Baljinder Singh suffered injuries in a scuffle between Anil Kumar and Kulbir Singh is totally false for variety of reasons. He got himself medically examined after three days. If he had really suffered injuries during the occurrence then he would have immediately rushed to the hospital for his examination and treatment. Secondly, he being the member of the constabulary would have got recorded the DDR regarding the manner in which he had suffered injuries but that was not so done. Since the injuries were simple in nature and as per doctor the same could be self suffered, therefore, there is every chance that such injuries had been fabricated to set up a false defence. 16. There is a prompt lodging of the FIR in this case. The occurrence took place at 4.00 AM, the statement EX.PK of Satish Kumar was recorded and completed at 5.30 AM, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PK/2 was recorded at 5.45 AM on the same day and it reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 8.00 AM. As such, the prompt lodging of the FIR affirms the genuineness and truthfulness of the prosecution version coming from the mouth of Satish Kumar (PW7) an eye witness and Dharmu (PW8) an injured witness. 17. Moreover, there is no denying a fact that Anil Kumar died a ­ homicidal death and Dharmu (PW8) had suffered injuries. The injuries on the body of Anil Kumar (deceased) and Dharmu were the result of the fire arm. The injuries on the person of Anil Kumar were ante-mortem and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. While not denying the injuries, the accused set up a different version that the gun was discharged suddenly due to the scuffle but the same has not been proved to be correct. To prove the occurrence, the prosecution examined Satish Kumar (PW7) and Dharmu (PW8). Both the witnesses had absolutely no motive to implicate the accused Kulbir Singh. Be that it may, Satish Kumar was the brother of the deceased but that fact by itself cannot be taken as sufficient circumstance for falsely implicating Kulbir Singh accused or to hold him as partisan witness. Both the witnesses had absolutely no motive to implicate the accused Kulbir Singh. Be that it may, Satish Kumar was the brother of the deceased but that fact by itself cannot be taken as sufficient circumstance for falsely implicating Kulbir Singh accused or to hold him as partisan witness. Not only the accused who have admitted about the fact that the shots were discharged from the rifle Ex.P5, but this fact also stands proved by the report Ex.PU of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab which reveals that the cartridge cases EX.P6 and EX.P7 recovered from the scene of crime had been fired from the service rifle EX.P5 issued to Kulbir Singh-accused. , 18. Both, Satish Kumar (PW7) and Dhannu (PW8), stamped witnesses have consistently deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 4.00 AM when Satish Kumar along with Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar were unloading the bamboos from the four wheeler and he was counting the money for payment to the tempo driver, then accused came there and enquired about the source of money at which altercation emerged. Resultantly, Kulbir Singh accused fired shots at Anil Kumar and on the instigation of two other accused, Kulbir Singh again fired a shot at Dharmu injuring him. Both the witnesses were subjected to scorching cross examination but nothing fruitful could be elicited from their testimonies to doubt the prosecution version and to bring such facts as to support the defence set up by the accused. It is also amply established that the occurrence took place outside the shop and dead body was lying outside the shop. Though the accused had the audacity to condemn Satish Kumar on the plea that he was a relative witness but the law never extend such hand for dubbing such witnesses as false merely on the ground of relationship. It has been invariably held by the Apex Court that the relative witnesses would be the last persons to implicate the false persons and substitute them in place of real culprits. In the absence of proof of any serious enmity, prejudice or bias against the accused which such witnesses may be developing against the accused it would be unjust to disbelieve them particularly if such witnesses instead of facing lengthy cross examination, stand the test of time and remain consistent in their statements, and. stand supported by some other evidence. In the absence of proof of any serious enmity, prejudice or bias against the accused which such witnesses may be developing against the accused it would be unjust to disbelieve them particularly if such witnesses instead of facing lengthy cross examination, stand the test of time and remain consistent in their statements, and. stand supported by some other evidence. In this case, though Satish Kumar had relationship with Anil Kumar (deceased), yet Dharmu had neither axe to grind against the accused nor had any relationship with the deceased, therefore, there is no reason to condemn his testimony and it would be an insult to the injury if his testimony is disbelieved. Their evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence and recovery of weapon and empties from the spot. The defence set up by the accused that the occurrence took place inside the shop where the trigger of the rifle was pressed per chance due to the scuffle and it after hitting the deceased pierced through the shutter is also far from believing. In this regard, it may be mentioned that though Kulbir Singh accused has stated that the occurrence took place inside the shop but Baljinder Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not stated a word that he was confined in the shop and the injuries were caused to him or that he was recovered from inside the shop along with Kulbir Singh accused by the police. A reference to the site plan Ex.PQ also makes it abundantly clear, that the dead body of Anil Kumar was recovered from outside the shop. The blood stained soil was also lifted from outside the shop. Though the accused have tried to take shelter of the testimony of Dharmu (PW8) to urge that the occurrence took place inside the shop, yet from the combined reading of the statement of Dharmu (PW8), it. transpires that in the examination in chief, he had clearly testified that none was inside the shop. He being an illiterate and rustic witness could not be expected to face three astute lawyers at the time of cross examination who confused him and made him to state that the accused were inside the shop when they fired. Had it been correct, then Baljinder Singh accused would have stated so in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 19. He being an illiterate and rustic witness could not be expected to face three astute lawyers at the time of cross examination who confused him and made him to state that the accused were inside the shop when they fired. Had it been correct, then Baljinder Singh accused would have stated so in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 19. As regards the other argument that according to the postmortem examination report Ex.PA, four injuries were found on the body of Anil Kumar, which could be said to be a result of at least two shots, whereas the case of the prosecution is that the accused fired only one shot at Anil Kumar, therefore, benefit of doubt should go to the accused. 20. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions, we do not refrain from observing that in view of the admission made by the accused that the injuries were suffered from the rifle belonging to the accused Kulbir Singh. The accused could not be extended any benefit of doubt for non explaining the two injuries. In any case, on cursory look of the statement of Satish Kumar, we are of the view that the witness has duly explained the injuries in his statement in the Court while testifying that Kulbir Singh accused on the exhortion of Baljinder Singh and Surinder Singh accused fired at his brother Anil Kumar and the shots hit his brother near the armpit and chest. Thus, the aforesaid statement reveals that Satish Kumar never talked about one shot but he talked about more than one shot. However, the non lifting of third empty from the spot will not in any way affect or annihilate the version set up by the prosecution. As a matter of fact, the accused never intended to deny the occurrence but they tried to take the defence of sudden quarrel and discharging of gun, per chance which they have badly failed to prove. Nevertheless, for want of any active participation of Baljinder Singh and Surinder Singh accused in the commission of the crime and for non attribution of any injury to them, they were extended benefit of doubt, yet the prosecution has been successful in establishing the case against Kulbir Singh accused beyond reasonable doubt. The elaborate judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, is based on appreciation of the evidence in right perspective. The elaborate judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, is based on appreciation of the evidence in right perspective. The elaborate discussion of all the facts requires us to appreciate the observations made by him regarding complicity of the accused in the commission of the crime. 21. The police force may not need any- exceptional high standard of education, but form great integrity and strength of character, combined with the wisdom- which comes to some - though not all - men when they had a wide and valid experience of human nature and it cannot be expected from them that they while getting undue benefit of the odd hours and the helplessness of the poor labourers, turn to be robbers, thieves or dacoits and pounce upon them to snatch their belongings. If, our own security forces start acting in such a high handed manner, then who would be on the fore front to save the life and liberty of the society as a whole, therefore, if guilty persons are not brought to book, and some leniency is shown towards them then public faith in the judicial administration of justice will be shaken and the fearful society will turn to be violent to create lawlessness and anarchy. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find, any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. ————————————