Judgment Mohinder Pal, J. 1. By this judgment Murder Reference No. 4 of 2009 (State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh alias Jiti) and Criminal Appeal No.989-DB of 2009 (Jagjit Singh alias Jiti and another v. State of Punjab) arising out of, F.I.R. No. 12 dated 16.2.2006 under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short `the Act) registered at Police Station Kurali against Jagjit Singh alias Jiti and Baljit Singh (hereinafter referred to as `the accused) along with Baldeep Kaur, Ranjit Singh, Devinder Singh and Ranjit Kaur (acquitted by the trial Court) are being disposed of. 2. Vide judgment of conviction dated 28.10.2009 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, accused Baljit Singh was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code for committing murders of Ravinder Singh, Kulwant Singh and Balwinder Singh and Sections 25 and 27 of the Act whereas accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti was convicted under Section 302 of the Code for committing the murder of Ravinder Singh and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code for committing the murders of Balwinder Singh and Kulwant Singh. 3. As per the sentence order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned trial Judge, accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti was sentenced to death under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code, subject to confirmation by this Court. Accused Baljit Singh was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code. Under Section 25 of the Act, accused Baljit Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Accused Baljit Singh was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 27 of the Act. The sentences awarded to accused Baljit Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Act were ordered to run concurrently. 4. 500/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 27 of the Act. The sentences awarded to accused Baljit Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Act were ordered to run concurrently. 4. The instant case was registered against the accused on the basis of statement made before Sub Inspector Tarlochan Singh by complainant Baljit Singh. 5. Ravinder Singh (deceased), Kulwant Singh (deceased) and Balwinder Singh (deceased) were real brothers Accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti and Baljit Singh are also real brothers. 6. On 16.2.2006 at about 7.30 A.M, complainant Baljit Singh along with Harnek Singh were coming back to their houses from the fields. When they were about 20 yards behind the house of Baljit Singh son of Ujjagar Singh, Ravinder Singh (deceased) nephew of complainant Baljit Singh, was seen coming from the Dairy Farm. When Ravinder Singh (deceased) reached near the house of Baljit Singh son of Ujjagar Singh, accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti, armed with a 12 bore gun, accused Baljit Singh, armed with a pistol, along with acquitted accused Ranjit Singh, armed with a `Gandasi, acquitted accused Devinder Singh, armed with a `Kulhari, also reached there. Accused Baljit Singh raised a `Lalkara that Ravinder Singh (deceased) should not be allowed to escape and land should be given to him. Thereafter, accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti, accused Baljit Singh and acquitted accused Ranjit Singh and Devinder Singh threw Ravinder Singh on the ground. Accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti fired a shot from the at the chest of Ravinder Singh. After hearing the gun shot, Kulwant Singh and Balwinder Singh (brothers of Ravinder Singh) also reached there. Accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti and accused Baljit Singh started firing upon Kulwant Singh and Balwinder Singh with their respective weapons. Ravinder Singh and Balwinder Singh died at the spot whereas Kulwant Singh succumbed to the injuries on 17.2.2006 at Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (for short `P.G.I), Chandigarh. 7. The accused had carried the dead bodies of Ravinder Singh and Balwinder Singh and injured Kulwant Singh near the gate of their house. Accused Baljit Singh took `Gandasi from acquitted accused Ranjit Singh and gave a blow with it on the head of accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti. 8. 7. The accused had carried the dead bodies of Ravinder Singh and Balwinder Singh and injured Kulwant Singh near the gate of their house. Accused Baljit Singh took `Gandasi from acquitted accused Ranjit Singh and gave a blow with it on the head of accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti. 8. The occurrence was also witnessed by Sohan Singh son of Ujjagar Singh and Paramjit Singh son of Sarwan Singh. 9. The motive behind this occurrence was that Jasbir Singh, father of Ravinder Singh (deceased), Kulwant Singh (deceased) and Balwinder Singh (deceased) had purchased some land from Bhola Singh and Amarjit Singh. The said vendors are the sons of accused Jagjit Singh alias Jitis fathers brother. Accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti used to demand the said land from Ravinder Singh (deceased), Kulwant Singh (deceased) and Balwinder Singh (deceased) as their father, namely, Jasbir Singh, brother of complainant Jagjit Singh, had died. Accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti used to declare that in case the said land was not returned, Ravinder Singh, Kulwant Singh and Balwinder Singh would be done to death. 10. The accused were arrested and the weapons of offence were recovered from them. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. I After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session at Rupnagar for trial. 12. Charge was framed against the accused under Sections 120-B, 148, 149, 201, 302 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Code. Besides, charge under Sections 25 and 27 of the Act was framed against accused Baljit Singh. The accused did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed a trial. 13. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. K.K. Gupta (P.W.1), Raj Kumari (P.W. 2), Dr. Sanand (P.W. 3), Dr. Besides, charge under Sections 25 and 27 of the Act was framed against accused Baljit Singh. The accused did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed a trial. 13. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. K.K. Gupta (P.W.1), Raj Kumari (P.W. 2), Dr. Sanand (P.W. 3), Dr. Puneet Setia (P.W. 4), complainant Baljit Singh (P.W. 5), Harnek Singh (P.W. 6), Sohan Singh (P.W. 7), Harpal Singh (P.W. 8), Gurdip Singh (P.W. 9), Draftsman Mukesh Kumar (P.W. 10), Lady Constable Sushila Devi (P.W.11), Patwari Chattarpal Singh (P.W. 12), Sub Registrar Major Gurjinder Binepal (P.W.13), Piara Singh (P.W. 14), Gurdev Singh (P.W. 15), Head Constable Mohinder Singh (P.W. 16), Head Constable Surinder Pal (P.W. 17), Assistant Sub Inspector Nirmal Singh (P.W. 18), Charanjit Kaur (P.W. 19), Sub Inspector Gurmit Singh (P.W. 20), Deputy Superintendent of Police Raj Kumar (P.W. 21), Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Darshan (P.W. 22), Sub Inspector Tarlochan Singh (P.W. 23), Head Constable Bhajan Singh (P.W. 24), Assistant Sub Inspector Baldev Singh (P.W. 25) and Sub Inspector (Retd.) Nachhatar Singh (P.W.26). 14. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti stated that occurrence in this case had taken place at the Farm House of the deceased; that neither he (accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti) nor any other member of his family had gone to the said Farm House on the day of occurrence; that the said Farm House was situated at a distance of about 1 Kilometer from the house of Baljit Singh Harijan; and that he (accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti), his wife, mother and brother had been falsely involved due to old enmity with the complainant. He further stated that on the day of occurrence, when he was returning from the side of the house of Baljit Singh Harijan many members of the Saini community were running towards the said Farm House; that they attacked him when he was in the said street; that he ran towards his house and Baljit Singh complainant gave a `Gandasi blow on his head; and that he saved himself by entering in his house. Accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti further stated that he had suffered very serious injuries and was got hospitalized by the police in the P.G.I and other hospital; and that he informed the police about this attack on him but the police connived with the complainant party and falsely involved him and his co-accused in this case as a counter-blast to the above attack and on account of old enmity. 15. Similar stand, as taken by accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti, was taken by accused Baljit Singh in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. The accused examined Dr. Amit Vashishat (D.W. 1), Gurcharan Singh (D.W. 2) and Gian Singh (D.W. 3) in defence. 17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 18. In this case, eye-witness, account has been furnished by complainant Baljit Singh (P.W. 5) and Harnek Singh (PW. 6). Complainant Baljit Singh (P.W. 5), while deposing in Court, almost reiterated the version as contained in his statement made before Sub Inspector Tarlochan Singh (P.W. 23) leading to the registration of the instant case against the accused, described above. Harnek Singh (P.W. 6) corroborated the statement of complainant Baljit Singh (P.W. 5) on all the material particulars of the case. Both these witnesses were subjected to a searching and lengthy cross-examination by the counsel for the accused in the trial Court, but nothing could be elicited therefrom which could shatter the veracity of the version given by them. There is another important witness of the prosecution, namely, Sohan Singh (P.W. 7), who had seen the accused taking the victims towards their (accuseds) house after inflicting firearm injuries to them (victims). It may be mentioned here that in the grounds of appeal taken in Criminal Appeal No. 989-DB of 2009, it has been mentioned that Sohan Singh was not examined by the prosecution, which, apparently is a ground against record. Both Harnek Singh (P.W. 6) and Sohan Singh (P.W. 7) are independent witnesses having no relationship with Ravinder Singh (deceased), Kulwant Singh (deceased), Balwinder Singh (deceased) and complainant Baljit Singh (P.W. 6). Besides, both Harnek Singh (P.W. 6) and Sohan Singh (P.W. 7) had no ill-will or malice towards the accused so as to falsely implicate them in such a heinous crime where three gruesome murders have been committed in broad day light. Besides, both Harnek Singh (P.W. 6) and Sohan Singh (P.W. 7) had no ill-will or malice towards the accused so as to falsely implicate them in such a heinous crime where three gruesome murders have been committed in broad day light. 19. As admitted by accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti and accused Baljit Singh in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, enmity existed between the accused party and the complainant party. Complainant Baljit Singh (P.W. 5) has also deposed about this enmity. He stated that Jasbir Singh, father of Ravinder Singh (deceased), Kulwant Singh (deceased) and Balwinder Singh (deceased) had purchased some land from Bhola Singh and Amarjit Singh. The said vendors were sons of accused Jagjit Singh alias Jitis fathers brother. Accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti demanded the said land from the deceased as their (deceaseds) father Jasbir Singh had expired. Accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti used to declare that in case the said land was not returned, Ravinder Singh, Kulwant Singh and Balwinder Singh would be done to death. Piara Singh (P.W. 14), Reader to Tehsildar, Kharar, deposed that vide Sale Deed No. 1936 dated 14.7.1992 (Exhibit P.W. 9/B) Bhola Singh and Amarjit Singh sons of Prem Singh residents of Village Takipur had sold 2 Kanals 9 Marlas of land in favour of Jasbir Singh resident of Village Takipur. In his cross-examination, Piara Singh (P.W. 14) stated that Village Takipur is towards the side of Chandigarh. Village Takipur falls in Tehsil Kharar, which is about 20 kilometers from Chandigarh. The prices of land are sky-rocketing in this area. It was this land which was the bone of contention between Ravinder Singh (deceased), Kulwant Singh (deceased) and Balwinder Singh (deceased), who were real brothers and accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti and Baljit Singh, who are also real brothers, and had motivated accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti and accused Baljit Singh to commit this heinous crime of murdering Ravinder Singh, Kulwant Singh and Balwinder Singh, who were legal owners of this land after the death of their father Jasbir Singh. 20. Learned counsel for accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti and accused Baljit Singh argued that both the eye-witnesses, namely, complainant Baljit Singh (P.W. 5) and Harnek Singh (P.W. 6) did not see the occurrence and they furnished a concocted version while deposing in Court. 20. Learned counsel for accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti and accused Baljit Singh argued that both the eye-witnesses, namely, complainant Baljit Singh (P.W. 5) and Harnek Singh (P.W. 6) did not see the occurrence and they furnished a concocted version while deposing in Court. According to the learned counsel, the conduct of these witnesses was not natural as they did not try to intervene to save the deceased from the hands of these accused. He contended that the occurrence did not take place in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. It has also been argued that failure of the prosecution to explain satisfactorily the injury on the person of accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti casts a serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution version. 21. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti and accused Baljit Singh, but do not find any substance therein which may compel this Cour to take a different view than the one taken by the trial Court so far as truthfulness of the prosecution version is concerned. No doubt, Baljit Singh (P.W. 5) is the real uncle (fathers brother) of the three deceased, namely, Ravinder Singh, Balwinder Singh and Kulwant Singh, but his testimony cannot be discarded merely on this account, particularly when his statement finds complete corroboration from the testimony of Harnek Singh (P.W.6), who, as stated above, is an independent witness having no enmity with the accused or any relationship with the complainant party. Further, the evidence of complainant Baljit Singh (P.W. 5) and Harnek Singh (P.W. 6) gets support from the version given by Sohan Singh (P.W. 7), another independent witness, who had seen the accused taking the victims towards their (accuseds) house after inflicting firearm injuries to them. The ocular version) gets complete corroboration from the medical evidence furnished by Dr. K.K. Gupta (P.W. 1), Dr. Sanand (P.W.3) and Dr. Puneet Setia (P.W. 4). 22. Dr. Sanand (P.W.3), who, on 16.2.2006, was working as Senior Medical Officer in the Emergency Casualty, P.G.I, Chandigarh, stated that Ravinder Singh (deceased) had been brought, in an unconscious stage with history of gunshot injury, to the Emergency Surgical O.P.D on 16.2.2006 at about 8.45 A.M. Ravinder Singh was bleeding from front of the chest, from the entry wound, staining the shirt There was no respiration. Blood pressure, pulse and heart sound were not recordable. Both pupils were dilated and fixed. E.C.G did not show any activity of the heart. So, Dr. Sanand (P.W. 3) declared Ravinder Singh dead at about 9.30 A.M. 23. Dr. K.K. Gupta (P.W. 1), in the company of Dr. P.S. Sapra and Dr. Adarshapal Kaur, had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ravinder Singh. A gun shot wound was observed on the chest of deceased\Ravinder Singh. A bullet was found lying in the left lung tissue just above the heart. The cause of death in the case of deceased Ravinder Singh was cardio respiratory arrest due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the said gun shot wound. 24. Dr. Puneet Setia (P.W.4), on 17.2.2006, in the company of Dr. Y.S. Bansal, had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Balwinder Singh. Gun shot entry wound, which was abdominal cavity deep, was found on the left side of front of abdomen. Multiple pellet injuries ere present in the mesentery and both intestines. Multiple pellets were found embedded in chest and abdominal cavity. Besides, some other injuries which were abrasions and contusions, were observed on the dead body of Balwinder Singh. In the opinion of the Doctors, the cause of death of Balwinder Singh was shock due to haemorrhage, consequent upon injury No. 1 i.e gun shot injury on the abdomen. The injuries were opined to be ante mortem in nature. According to the Doctors, injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 25. Dr. Puneet Setia (P.W. 4) along with Dr. Y.S. Bansal had also conducted post mortem on the dead body of, Kulwant Singh on 18.2.2006. Multiple pellets were recovered from peritoneum cavity. Both intestines showed multiple pellet injuries. A few pellets were recovered. In the opinion of the Doctors, the cause of death of Kulwant Singh (was shock, due to haemorrhage and peritonitis, consequent upon the gun shot injuries to the abdomen.) Injury No. 1 i.e "surgically made laparatomy wound covered with surgical bag. Margins of laparatomy wound stitched with surgical bag. Dimensions being 22 x 19 cms. Wound was present over front of abdomen in midline" was opined to be a surgical exploration of gun shot wound. Besides this injury, some scabbed abrasions were observed on the chest and back of abdomen of Kulwant Singh (deceased). Margins of laparatomy wound stitched with surgical bag. Dimensions being 22 x 19 cms. Wound was present over front of abdomen in midline" was opined to be a surgical exploration of gun shot wound. Besides this injury, some scabbed abrasions were observed on the chest and back of abdomen of Kulwant Singh (deceased). All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. 26. In view of the above evidence, led by the prosecution, it cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be said that the Ocular version as furnished by complainant Baljit Singh (P.W. 5), Harnek Singh (P.W. 6) and Sohan Singh (P.W. 7) is, in any way, unnatural or exaggerated or unbelievable. Insofar as the argument of the learned counsel for accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti and accused Baljit Singh that (failure of the eye-witnesses to intervene to save the deceased from the hands of these accused makes their testimonies not worthy of credence, suffice to say that when these accused were armed with sophisticated weapons like gun and pistol and were hell-bent to commit the offence of murdering the three brothers i.e Ravinder Singh, Balwinder Singh and the accused. 27. Regarding Kulwant Singh, nobody could dare to confront the (injury on the head of accused-appellant Jagjit Singh alias Jiti, it may be mentioned here that the Doctor, who had medico-legally examined the said accused, was not produced as a witness in defence. Dr. Amit Vashishat, Senior Resident, Department of Neuro Surgery, P.G.I. Chandigarh, who had been examined by accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti in his defence as D.W.1, simply stated that the said accused had been admitted as an indoor patient on 16.2.2006 and had been discharged from the P.G.I on 18.2.2006. Accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti had come to P.G.I, Chandigarh on 16.2.2006 at about 9.10 A.M. In his cross examination, Dr. Amit Vashishat (D.W. 1), stated as under : "I cannot say whether the alleged" injury was with blunt weapon or sharp edged weapon. I have not even mentioned in the record. I had not treated the patient. There is no history for the manner of the receiving injury. It is recorded that it is a case of assault. I have also not examined the injured. The Doctor who had treated the patient had left the P.G.I. I do not think whether said Doctor knows more than me about the facts of the present case. 28. There is no history for the manner of the receiving injury. It is recorded that it is a case of assault. I have also not examined the injured. The Doctor who had treated the patient had left the P.G.I. I do not think whether said Doctor knows more than me about the facts of the present case. 28. As noticed above, accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti and accused Baljit Singh committed the murders of Ravinder Singh Balwinder Singh and Kulwant Singh by inflicting injuries to them with their gun and pistol, respectively. The admission of accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti in P.G.I with an injury on his head at the same time when the deceased were taken to the P.G.I proves, in no uncertain terms, that both these accused had committed the murders of Ravinder Singh, Kulwant Singh and Balwinder Singh in a well-planned manner. By killing three persons and then getting himself admitted in a hospital with an injury on the head by an accused, especially when the accused had dragged injured Ravinder Singh, Kulwant Singh and Balwinder Singh to the gate of their house, as has come in the evidence of complainant Baljit Singh (P.W. 5), Harnek Singh (P.W. 6) and Sohan Singh (P.W. 7) supported by the site plan (Exhibit P.W. 23/C) prepared by Sub Inspector Tarlochan Singh (P.W. 23), to show that the accused had killed Ravinder Singh, Kulwant Singh and Balwinder Singh, in self defences leads to the only inescapable conclusion that none from the side of the complainant party had inflicted this injury on the person of accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti. In the site plan (Exhibit P.W. 23/C), Mark `A is the place where accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti was standing with his accomplice; Mark `B is the place where Ravinder Singh was shot by Jagjit Singh alias Jiti; Mark `C is the place where Kulwant Singh was shot by accused Baljit Singh while he was coming to rescue Ravinder Singh; Mark `D is the same place where Kulwant Singh was shot; Mark `E in the site plan is the place where accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti shot Balwinder Singh while he was coming and accused Jagjit Singh was standing at point Mark `A; Mark `F is the place where accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti had brought Ravinder Singh in his home through gate; Mark `G is the place in front of the gate of the house of accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti and accused Baljit Singh where the accused had thrown injured Kulwant Singh after dragging; Mark `H in the site plan is the place where the accused had beaten up Balwinder Singh in the injured condition after dragging; Mark `I in the site plan is the place from where complainant Baljit Singh had witnessed the occurrence; Mark `J in the site plan is the place where the accused had raised `Lalkaras and accused Baljit Singh had himself inflicted a `Gandasi blow to accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti; Mark `K is the place from where the soil which was stained with blood on account of splitting of blood while dragging of the victims by the accused, was picked up; Mark `L in the site plan is the vacant place from where two empty cartridges were picked up from different places and Mark `M is the place from where blood-stained leave of `Bohar tree and `Paraali were picked. 29. In view of the impeccability of the evidence led by the prosecution, discussed above, which falsified the theory of self-defence sought to be propounded by the accused, in the first instance, after murdering Ravinder Singh, Kulwant Singh and Balwinder Singh, accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti and accused Baljit Singh backtracked from this version and in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pleaded that the occurrence in this case had taken place at the Farm House of the deceased. 30. 30. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no option but to uphold the conviction of accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti and accused Baljit Singh for the aforesaid offences. 31. For awarding the capital punishment of death to accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti, the learned trial Judge observed that it was accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti, who had initiated the firing from his licenced DBBL gun by firstly killing Ravinder Singh, who was unarmed, at the spot and that accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti did not stop there and continued firing from his gun aiming at remaining two victims namely Balwinder Singh and Kulwant Singh, who had intervened to save Ravinder Singh. The learned trial Judge was of the view that the crime committed by accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti was not only brutal, heinous and cold-blooded but also conscience shocking of the community at large. According to the learned trial Judge, the case of accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti was covered within the category of rarest of the rare cases. 32. Insofar as the role of accused Baljit Singh, the trial Judge formed the opinion that his case did not stand on the same footing as that of accused Jagjit Singh alias Jiti as he (accused Baljit Singh) had been convicted under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of the Code and his role and action did not fall in the category of rarest of the rare cases. 33. In the case of Parkash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra, 2002(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 212 wherein the accused had killed his brother, brothers wife and four children over partition of property, the Honble Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment by holding that it was a heinous crime but not a rarest or rare case on account of following reasons: "(i) Accused committed the offence out of frustration as his deceased-brother was not partitioning the joint property.