H. Imtiyaz Husssain, J. 1. Pritam Singh S/o Dalmani R/o Dalwa, Tehsil Gool was put on trial for offence of murder. The Additional Sessions Judge, Reasi by judgment dated 29th August 2006 passed in File No. 51/ASJR of 1999 held him guilty and convicted him under sections 302/307 RPC and 5/27 Arms Act. By an order dated 30th August 2006, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 6000/- for offence under section 302 RPC and to five years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- in proof of offence under section 307 RPC. He has also been sentenced to three years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 in proof of offence under section 5/27 Arms Act. The court has directed that in default of payment of fine under section 302 RPC he shall undergo imprisonment for six months and in default of payment of fine under section 307 RPC the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for two months and in default of payment of fine under section 5/27 Arms Act he shall further undergo imprisonment for one month. The court has made a reference of the case to this court for confirmation in so far as sentence of imprisonment for life is concerned. 2. Aggrieved by the same, appellant has preferred the present appeal. Prosecution started on the basis of a telephonic message given by one Constable Nazir Ahmad No.863 posted in STF Group Sangaldan on 31 December 1998 that he has got information from reliable source that on that date at 7 p.m appellant who is a VDC member with an official rifle 303 issued to him, fired at one Irfan Mohd Khan and Altaf Hussain causing death of Irfan Mohd Khan and grievous injuries to Altaf Hussain. On receipt of this information FIR No. 13/1999 was registered in Police Station Gool for offence under sections 302,307 RPC and 3/25 Arms Act and investigation of the case was started. The postmortem of the dead body of Irfan Mohd Khan was conducted and injured Altaf Hussain was referred to Govt. Hospital, Jammu for treatment. Appellant was arrested and Rifle 303 No. 30639/x was seized. As per the investigation, it came out that appellant is a member of Village Defence Committee (VDC), Dalwa to whom a Rifle 303 had been issued by the police along with 100 cartridges. Hospital, Jammu for treatment. Appellant was arrested and Rifle 303 No. 30639/x was seized. As per the investigation, it came out that appellant is a member of Village Defence Committee (VDC), Dalwa to whom a Rifle 303 had been issued by the police along with 100 cartridges. On the fateful day (i.e. on 31.12.1998) appellant alongwith the deceased and said Altaf Hussain, who were his friends was going to his house and when they reached near a nullah in the jungle, he told them to go back. When the deceased and Altaf Hussain turned to go back to their houses, appellant fired from the Rifle 303 on both of them, due to which Irfan Mohd Khan got killed and Altaf Hussain received grievous injuries. 3. The appellant before the trial court was charged under sections 302/307/326 RPC and 3/27 Arms Act. Prosecution in support of the case examined Mohd Farooq , Nazir Ahmad , Shabir Ahmed, Riyaz Ahmed, Chuni Lal , Sharifa Begum, Mohd Sharief, Alaf Hussain , Om Parkash, Nazir Ahmed, Dr. Mohd Saleem Wani, Gulzar Ahmed Bhat and Mst. Rahmi. Out of these witnesses, PW Altaf Hussain is the only witness to the occurrence. Appellant, deceased and the witness belong to the same village. His house is at a distance of 30/40 yards from the house of deceased Irfan Mohd Khan. He states that on 31.12.1998 in the evening appellant along with the deceased came to his house, he told him to accompany him for some distance as he has to go to his house. On this, they i.e. the appellant, deceased Irfan Mohd Khan and the witness went together for 400 yards where nallah Chanji is situated. They crossed the nallah and the appellant told them that since his house is nearby they should go back. As both of them turned to proceed to their houses, appellant fired upon them with his 303 rifle. Appellant first fired upon deceased Irfan Mohd Khan. He sustained bullet injuries on his back which went through his chest. He fell down on the ground. The appellant fired upon him also which caused injuries and he raised hue and cry. The appellant struck him on his head with the rifle due to which he sustained injury on the head and he became unconscious. On gaining consciousness he dragged himself and reached the house of Dr Chuni Lal. He fell down on the ground. The appellant fired upon him also which caused injuries and he raised hue and cry. The appellant struck him on his head with the rifle due to which he sustained injury on the head and he became unconscious. On gaining consciousness he dragged himself and reached the house of Dr Chuni Lal. During this period VDC members reached on spot and took him to the house of Dr. Chuni Lal. He informed them about the incident. 4. PW Mohd Farooq states that on 31.12.2998 appellant Irfan Mohd Khan had come to his shop and asked him to accompany them to the house of Mohd Shafi to celebrate 31st December 1998 but on the next day he came to know that appellant had killed Irfan Mohd Khan and injured Altaf Hussain. 5. PW Nazir Ahraed, constable No. 863/SGC states that on 31.12.1998 when he was posted in STC Sangaldan, he came to know that firing had taken place at Dalwa and the appellant had fired a shot due to which one person namely Irfan Mohd Khan had died on spot and the other namely Altaf Hussain got injured. He informed the police station about the incident and went on spot along with the police. 6. PW Shabir Ahmed is the brother of deceased Irfan Mohd Khan. He states that the occurrence took place on 31.12.1998. He has got two houses. One house is in Mora Shrikund and other is at Chanji. On 31.12.1998, he had sent Irfan in the morning to Chuni Lals house and himself he had gone to Shrikund and came back in the evening to Mora Chanji. He did not found his brother there so he told his elder brother Riaz that Irfan was not present in either of the houses. Later on, Lal Singh and Pratap Singh came to his house and told them that accused Pritam Singh and Irfan were together and that Pritam Singh was armed with the rifle. They went in search of Irfan. They went to the house of Mohd Shafi also. Next morning they found dead body of Irfan near the house of Chuni Lal. Altaf Hussain was also in injured condition in the house of Chuni Lal. 7. PW Riaz Ahmed states that Mohd Irfan and Bashir Ahmed Wani are his brothers. Mohd Irafan was killed by the appellant on 31.12.1998. 8. Next morning they found dead body of Irfan near the house of Chuni Lal. Altaf Hussain was also in injured condition in the house of Chuni Lal. 7. PW Riaz Ahmed states that Mohd Irfan and Bashir Ahmed Wani are his brothers. Mohd Irafan was killed by the appellant on 31.12.1998. 8. PW Chuni Lal states that he was posted as Medical Assistant at Sangaldan. On 31.12.1998 at 7.45 p.m, he heard noise of three gun shots. His house is on the lower side of the road in Dalwa. He also heard Altaf Hussain was shouting and asking for help. They found that Altaf Hussain was in injured condition. They kept him in the Verandah of his house and gave him medical aid. Altaf Hussain told them that appellant had fired upon them and that Irfan who was with them has died on spot due to the firing. 9. PW Sharifa Begum states that about one and half year back she was at her house with her son Altaf Hussain. In the evening appellant came there armed with the rifle. He was accompanied by Irfan. Appellant told her son to accompany them, thereafter Altaf went with both the persons. 10. PW Mohd Sharief states that on 31st December 1998 he heard a sound of 2/3 gun shots and in the morning came to know about the occurrence. 11. PW Om Parkash states that the occurrence is of 1st January 1999, during the night he heard the sound of a fire. He went on spot on the morning of 1st January 1999 where the dead body of Irfan was lying. Injured Altaf Hussain was in an injured condition. 12. PW Nazir Ahmed is the witness of seizure memos EXPW-NA/1, EXPW-NA/2, EXPW-NA3/EXPW-NA/4 and EXPW-NA/5. 13. PW Mohd Saleem is the witness to seizure memo EXPW-NA, EXPW-NA/7 and EXPW-OP. 14. PW Gulzar Ahmed states that he has prepared the site plan EXPW-GA of the place of occurrence. 15. PW Rahmi states that she knows the appellant. He, armed with a rifle had come to her house and asked for a hen. Despite her refusal, appellant took the hen. 16. The learned trial court placing reliance on the evidence of the prosecution held the appellant guilty and sentenced him as above. As noticed above, PW Altaf Hussain is the sole eye witness in the case. He has given a detailed account of the events. Despite her refusal, appellant took the hen. 16. The learned trial court placing reliance on the evidence of the prosecution held the appellant guilty and sentenced him as above. As noticed above, PW Altaf Hussain is the sole eye witness in the case. He has given a detailed account of the events. He has narrated how the appellant fired upon them. From his statement it appears that all the three persons i.e the appellant, deceased and the witness were friends. On 31-12-1998 they went together towards the house of the appellant. After some distance when he and Irfan returned, the appellant fired upon them with a 303 rifle due to which Irfan received injury at his back and got killed while as the witness (PW Altaf Hussain) sustained grievous injuries on his leg, which was amputated afterwards. It was on the basis of this evidence that the trial court has found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as above. In this behalf, the trial court has observed as under: "22. The main and direct evidence adduced by the prosecution in its case against accused is by way of testimony of PW Altaf Hussain who sustained injuries in the occurrence and is the sole eyewitness to the occurrence. PW Altaf Hussain has categorically stated that on evening of 31.12.1998 accused along with Irfan came to his house and on being requested by accused, he and Irfan accompanied accused Pritam Singh for some distance and when he and Irfan turned back, accused armed with a 303 rifle shot Irfan through the chest and thereafter fired a shot at him (PW Altaf Hussain) whereby he sustained an injury on his leg which was amputated afterwards. PW Altaf Hussain has further stated that accused had come near him and told him "that you are still alive" and attacked him on the head with the rifle but whereby he sustained an injury on the head and became unconscious." "62. The prosecution case stands amply established from the evidence of the witnesses especially Altaf Hussain and Chuni Lal. There evidence is in conformity with the case made out in the FIR. The unchallenged evidence on record is that the occurrence has taken place as alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution case stands amply established from the evidence of the witnesses especially Altaf Hussain and Chuni Lal. There evidence is in conformity with the case made out in the FIR. The unchallenged evidence on record is that the occurrence has taken place as alleged by the prosecution. All these circumstances when considered together with the ocular testimony of the eyewitnesses cogently and conclusively establish the guilt of accused beyond any shadow of doubt." 17. It is pleaded by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal and it was vehemently argued by the learned defence counsel that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. Learned counsel states that the court has not taken note of the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, which go to the very root of the case. According to the learned counsel a bare perusal of the statement would show that he is not a trustworthy witness. His statement is false besides also suffering from inherent infirmities and improbabilities. While elaborating his plea, the learned counsel has referred to various excerpts of the statement of the said witness. He has pointed out that the witness states that after shaking hands with the appellant, when he and the deceased were returning and proceeding to their house, the appellant fired gun shots on the deceased. The gun shot according to the witness was fired at the back of the deceased, it came out from the chest but the medical report has contradicted this fact wherein it is shown that the bullet hit in the chest and came out of the back. Thus there being a serious contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence, statement of said Altaf Hussain cannot be believed. It is also stated that as per the witness, the occurrence took place when it was moon light and the things were visible at a distance but the other prosecution witnesses have categorically stated that it was dark and the things were not visible. Pointing out to other contradictions, learned counsel states that PW Altaf Hussain has stated that only two fires were shot at the time of occurrence while as other prosecution witnesses have stated that during that night more than fifteen gun shots were fired and it looked like an encounter having taken place. Pointing out to other contradictions, learned counsel states that PW Altaf Hussain has stated that only two fires were shot at the time of occurrence while as other prosecution witnesses have stated that during that night more than fifteen gun shots were fired and it looked like an encounter having taken place. Another contradiction, which according to the learned counsel has appeared in the evidence and is fatal for the prosecution case, is that the-eye witness states that the appellant and the deceased had come to him from the house of the deceased while as the father of the deceased has stated that he had two houses situated at two different places i.e at village Sarkandi and at village Chanji. His father further states that when the occurrence took place, they were residing in the house situated at village Chanji and his son Mohd Irfan deceased was coming from the house situated at Sarkandi towards his other residential house at Dalwa Chanji. According to the learned counsel this aspect of the case has been altogether overlooked by the trial court. 18. Heard. We have gone through the statements of prosecution witnesses to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel but we find that all these contradictions are of minor nature and cannot discredit the statements of prosecution witnesses particularly the testimony of PW Altaf Hussain. We find that the version of the witness who was himself injured in the incident, is quite consistent and reliable. He has given an account of the incident lasting for a few minutes leading to the death of Arif Mohd. He has also spoken how he received injuries. There was no reason for him to invent a story to implicate the appellant who was his friend and against whom he had no animosity. If some armed outsiders were responsible for this incident, as was suggested by the counsel for the appellant, the witness would not have gone to the extent of suppressing that incident and implicated his own friend, the appellant. We do not think that by any reasonable standards, the factors pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant would make a dent on the overwhelming prosecution evidence. The said witness is very clear on the material fact i.e regarding the act of the appellant in causing death of Irfan Mohd and injury on the person of the witness. We do not think that by any reasonable standards, the factors pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant would make a dent on the overwhelming prosecution evidence. The said witness is very clear on the material fact i.e regarding the act of the appellant in causing death of Irfan Mohd and injury on the person of the witness. While minutely perusing the statement of the witness we find he has given a detailed account of the events in a natural way and can, therefore, be safely relied upon to convict the appellant. Supreme Court in almost an identical case in Brij Lal v. State of Haryana AIR 2002 SC 291, where a similar argument was raised rejected the contention and observed that when it is clearly proved that it was the accused and none else who was responsible for the crime, minor discrepancies in the evidence will lend assurance to the credibility of prosecution case. The Court held: "It is argued that as per the inquest report the main injury on the deceased was shown to have been caused on the back side of the head, whereas the medical evidence showed that injury was caused by a fire arm from the front side of the deceased. The Investigating Officer could not detect the entry wound possible because the head must have been smeared with blood. The evidence of two eyewitnesses clearly showed that appellant first shot deceased Dharam Paul and there was a second shot at PW4 Ram Kishan. It is true that PW3 deposed that appellant first shot his brother Dharam Paul on the backside of the skull. But the medical evidence shows that this shot hit on eye brows. Based on this, it was contended that it was not the appellant but somebody else hiding on the rear side must have caused this injury. We do not find any force in this contention. The incident happened all of a sudden and when firing took place it would be difficult to state on which part of the body the bullet hit. In the instant case, the evidence of PW4 shows that he himself sustained an injury at the hands of the appellant. It is clearly proved that it was the appellant and none else who was responsible for the crime. The minor discrepancies in the evidence only lend assurance to the credibility of prosecution case". 19. In the instant case, the evidence of PW4 shows that he himself sustained an injury at the hands of the appellant. It is clearly proved that it was the appellant and none else who was responsible for the crime. The minor discrepancies in the evidence only lend assurance to the credibility of prosecution case". 19. The contradictions, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant were brought to the notice of the trial court too. The trial court has in this behalf observed as under:- "23. It is settled principle of law that while assessing and evaluating the evidence of the eye witnesses, the Court must adhere to two principles namely, (i) whether in the circumstances of the case, it was possible for the eye witnesses to be present at the scene and (ii) whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable. Credibility of a witness has to be decided by referring to his evidence and finding out how he has fared in cross-examination and what impression is created by his evidence taken in other context of the case and not by entering into the realm of conjectures and speculations. (Karanjit Singh v. State of J&K, 2005(2) JKJ 71). 24. In the present case there is nothing on record to detract from the evidentiary value of the testimony of the injured witness Altaf Hussain. The testimony of PW Altaf Hussain is further corroborated by evidence given by PW Chuni Lal PW Altaf Hussain has deposed that he had dragged himself near the house of Dr. Chuni Lal and during this period VDC members reached the spot and had taken him to the house of Dr. Chuni Lal. Witness Chuni Lal deposed that at 7.45 pm on 31.12.1998, he heard noise of three gunshots. Injured Altaf was brought to his house when he gave him medical aid. And Altaf Hussain had informed that Pritam Singh had shot him and that Man who was with him has died on spot. Even in his cross-examination, PW Chuni Lal testified to the fact that the injured Altaf Hussain when brought to his house was conscious and had informed him that Pritam Singh had shot him." While referring to the bullet injuries on the person of deceased the trial court has observed as under- "30. Even in his cross-examination, PW Chuni Lal testified to the fact that the injured Altaf Hussain when brought to his house was conscious and had informed him that Pritam Singh had shot him." While referring to the bullet injuries on the person of deceased the trial court has observed as under- "30. Learned counsel for accused has submitted that there is material contradiction in the ocular and, medical evidence and casts doubt on the prosecution case as coming out in the testimony of witness Altaf. The learned counsel has submitted that PW Altaf has stated that accused fired a bullet which entered Man though his back and came out through the chest whereas the postmortem report of Man is to the effect that the bullet entered through the chest and came out through the back. And placed reliance upon Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1981 SC 1578, Amar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 826 and Kalyan v. State of U.P., AIR 2001 SC 3976." 20. On going through the reasons recorded by the trial court we find that the trial court has properly appreciated and replied the contentions raised by the learned counsel. 21. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to examine the Doctor, who conducted post mortem of the deceased and the Investigating Officer who conducted investigation in the case. According to the learned counsel since non-production of these witnesses is not explained by the prosecution, this fact alone would discredit the whole prosecution case. Other omissions of the Investigating Officer have also been projected to attack the prosecution version. For instance, it was pointed out that the ballistic expert was not examined. It is submitted that there is delay in submitting the occurrence report to the local magistrate. It is also submitted that the motive for the crime has not been given. 22. On consideration of the submissions, we do not find any force in these as non-examination of these witnesses in the facts of the present case would not be material and the same by itself would not negate the circumstances which have proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Absence of motive also is not fatal for the case. Absence of motive also is not fatal for the case. The lapses in the investigation or the prosecution case, for whatever reason it be, do not, to any material extent, affect the veracity of P.W Altaf Hussain who has given a consistent version of the occurrence. 23. In these circumstances, we find the prosecution has succeeded by leading direct evidence in the case to establish the guilt against the appellant. In the light of the overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence, it has been established beyond shadow of doubt that the appellant killed Irfan Mohd. Khan and caused injury to F.W. Altaf Hussain with his 303 rifle. 24. The appellant has not raised any positive defence. He in reply to the questions put to him under section 342 Cr. PC regarding the circumstances appearing against him, stated that he was net aware thereof. 25. In these circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant is upheld. 26. Reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Reasi is hereby allowed and the sentence imposed on the appellant stands confirmed. Order accordingly.