JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. Informant Lakkha Singh gave a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) on 18.02.2004 to the Station Officer of PS Jaspur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar, regarding the killing of his nephew Angrej Singh. 2. According to the informant, on 18.02.2004, at 8:00 a.m., his neighbours Kuldeep Singh, Ajmer Singh, Kashmir Singh, Balvinder Singh, Narender Singh, Jaspal Singh and Satnam Singh were widening the road in such a way that the width of their gool (a water channel for irrigation) was going to shorten. Informants father Banta Sigh, brother Balbeer Singh, informant himself, informants nephew Angrej Singh and Gurmail Singh refrained them (accused) from doing so. Informant and others reminded them that Panchayat has fixed 7 ft. of widening, whereas the accused persons were widening the road by 8 ft., but the accused persons did not budge. Kashmir Singh, Narender Singh were carrying guns in their hands, Balvinder Singh was carrying gandasa (a sharp edged weapon), Jagtar Singh was having country made pistol, Satnam Singh was having gun and Ajmer Singh was having country made pistol. Balvinder Singh exhorted them to kill the informant, his family members and companions. Kashmir Singh fired upon Banta Singh, Narender Singh fired upon Angrej Singh, Jagtar Singh fired indiscriminately, which hit informant, his wife Joginder Kaur, mother Swarn Kaur, Balveer and Sukhdev. They were injured by pellets. Informant's father Banta Singh and nephew Angrej Singh were brought to the hospital, where Angrej Singh was declared brought dead. Banta Singh was referred to the higher center at Kashipur. The occurrence was witnessed by Hardev Singh and Harjinder Singh etc. [they were not examined by prosecution]. Incident took place on 18.02.2004, at 8:00 a.m., and the chik FIR was lodged with the PS concerned on the selfsame day, at 9:10 a.m. There appeared to be no delay in lodging the first information report. 3. On the basis of said first information report, which was registered as case crime No. 46/2004, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC in PS Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, the investigation began. After completion of investigation and on being satisfied with the fact that the accused-persons committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet (Ext. After completion of investigation and on being satisfied with the fact that the accused-persons committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-35) against the accused persons Kashmir Singh, Balvinder Singh, Narender Singh, Ajmer Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Jaspal Singh, Jagtar Singh and Satnam Singh, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302, IPC on 31.3.2004 in the Court of Magistrate having jurisdiction. Charge-sheets (Ext. Ka-39, Ext. Ka-44 and Ext. Ka-45) were also filed against accused Kashmir Singh, Narender Singh and Satnam Singh for the offence punishable under Section 25, Arms Act. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session. 4. When the trial began and prosecution opened its case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302, IPC were framed against the accused persons. Separate charges in respect of offence punishable under Section 25, Arms Act were also framed against three accused. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge(s) framed against them and claimed trial. As many as 11 prosecution witnesses, namely, PW 1 Lakkha Singh, PW 2 Gurmail Singh, PW 3 Dr. Madan Mohan, PW 4 Harjeet Singh, PW 5 Dr. J.K.Goel, PW 6 Banta Singh, PW 7 Dr. R.S.Aswal, PW 8 ASI Umi Ram Arya, PW 9 Const. Virender Singh, PW 10 SI Rajveer Singh and PW 11 Const. Jeevan Chandra Mishra were examined on behalf of prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the allegations and said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court convicted accused-appellants in relation to offences for which they were charged and sentenced them appropriately. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, present criminal appeals were preferred. These criminal appeals are being discussed and decided by this common judgment and order. 5. Prosecution led the evidence through PW 1, PW 2 and PW 6. PW 1 Lakkha Singh, in his examination-in-chief, proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-1) and also supported the prosecution story. It will be a mere repetition of facts, if his examination-in-chief is reproduced here, in as much as, the same was almost the verbatim reproduction of the contents of the complaint. PW 1 Lakkha Singh, in his examination-in-chief, proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-1) and also supported the prosecution story. It will be a mere repetition of facts, if his examination-in-chief is reproduced here, in as much as, the same was almost the verbatim reproduction of the contents of the complaint. The sum and substance of his evidence was that Kashmir Singh hit informant's father and Narender Singh hit Angrej Singh. When informant along with others went to save them, Jagtar Singh, Ajmer Singh and Satnam Singh fired indiscriminately upon them, whereby they sustained injuries. The dispute was over widening of road. Whereas, the accused persons were inclined to widen the road by 8 ft., the informant and his family members wanted the widening of the road to be confined to 7 ft. It may be pointed out at this stage that the blood stained earth was not sent to FSL by the investigating agency. In view of the same, it was difficult to ascertain whether the incident occurred at the same place, which was indicated by PW 1. How do we know that the incident took place there? 6. PW 2 Gurmail Singh supported PW 1. He also said that there was a dispute with the accused persons over the widening of road. Panchayat decided the bricks to be laid on 7 ft. wide road, whereas the accused persons were adamant to lay the bricks over 8 ft. wide road. The accused persons used the armaments, which they were carrying at the time of incident and as a consequence thereof, Angrej Singh died and the others sustained injuries. 7. PW 6 Banta Singh was father of informant Lakkha Singh, who narrated the prosecution story and repeated what was said by PW 1 and PW 2. PW 6 also described the armaments which were being carried by the accused persons when the incident took place. PW 6 also said that Kashmir Singh fired upon him, which hit him on neck. His tooth was also broken. He also sustained injuries on his face. Narender Singh killed Angrej Singh. Lakkha Singh, Gurmail Singh, Joginder Kaur and Swarn Kaur also sustained injuries. 8. PW 4 Harjeet Singh said that on 23.02.2004, when he was going to meet Swarn Singh at his residence, some police personnel met him at the dhaba (hotel) of Angrej Singh. He also sustained injuries on his face. Narender Singh killed Angrej Singh. Lakkha Singh, Gurmail Singh, Joginder Kaur and Swarn Kaur also sustained injuries. 8. PW 4 Harjeet Singh said that on 23.02.2004, when he was going to meet Swarn Singh at his residence, some police personnel met him at the dhaba (hotel) of Angrej Singh. Policemen were accompanied by accused Narender Singh, Satnam Singh and Angrej Singh. The police personnel told PW 4 that they were going to recover the armaments, which were used by the accused persons in course of crime. Accordingly, a 12 bore gun along with cartridges were recovered at 11:00 a.m. at the instance of Narender Singh, who killed Angrej Singh. Satnam Singh confessed that he inflicted injuries at Lakkha Singh and his family members on 18.02.2004. Satnam Singh got a 12 bore gun along with live cartridges recovered at 11:40. a.m.. Recovery memos (Ext. Ka-8 and Ext. Ka-7) were prepared on the place of recovery of such armaments. 9. PW 3 Dr. Madan Mohan examined the person of Banta Singh on 18.02.2004. PW 3 said that Banta Singh sustained firearm injuries. He was referred to higher center. PW 5 Dr. J.K.Goel conducted postmortem on the dead body of Angrej Singh on 18.02.2004 and proved PMR (Ext. Ka-16). PW 5 Dr. J.K.Goel found multiple firearm wound of injuries scattered all over the left side chest of deceased. The cause of death of victim was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem firearm injuries. PW 7 Dr. R.S. Aswal examined the injuries sustained by Gurmail Singh and proved his report (Ext. Ka-18). Gurmail Singh sustained firearm injuries. PW 7 Dr. R.S. Aswal also examined the injuries sustained by Balbeer Singh, Lakkha Singh, Joginder Kaur and Swarn Kaur on 18.02.2004 and proved their injury reports (Ext. Ka-19, Ext. Ka-21, Ext. Ka-23 and Ext. Ka-25 respectively). 10. PW 8 Inspector Umi Ram Araya was the investigating officer of the case, who proved certain prosecution documents including site plan (Ext. Ka-36) and charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-35). He also said that the letters were written to FSL. [but no report of FSL was brought on record]. PW 9 Constable Virender Singh was the witness of recovery of incriminating articles, as was PW 10 SI Rajveer Singh, who was also the investigating officer of the cases registered under Section 25, Arms Act. Ka-36) and charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-35). He also said that the letters were written to FSL. [but no report of FSL was brought on record]. PW 9 Constable Virender Singh was the witness of recovery of incriminating articles, as was PW 10 SI Rajveer Singh, who was also the investigating officer of the cases registered under Section 25, Arms Act. PW 11 Constable Jeevan Chandra was also a formal witness, who proved certain prosecution documents. 11. Initially, eight accused persons were named in the first information report, out of which, four were convicted by the court below in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 302/149, IPC. Satnam Singh, Narender Singh and Kashmir Singh were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 25, Arms Act. The dispute was as regards construction of brick path. Whereas, the accused persons were inclined to lay the brick path at 8 ft. wide road, the informant and his family members wanted the same to be confined to 7 ft. Adjoining the brick path, there was a gool (a private irrigation channel) belonging to the informant and his family. Out of 11 prosecution witnesses, PW 1, PW 2 and PW 6 were said to be the eye-witnesses. They were related witnesses. It is a settled law on the point that the testimony of related witnesses should be scrutinized with due care and caution. Those who were named in the first information report as the independent eye-witnesses, were not examined on behalf of prosecution. There is no hard and fast rule that the injured people will necessarily speak the truth. No investigation was done as regards the irrigation channel. The weapon recovered from accused Narender Singh was sent for the opinion of ballistic expert. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that the report of ballistic expert was not tendered in evidence and therefore, the same was not exhibited. We may make it clear at this stage that the report tendered by any officer of the rank of Assistant Director or above of State Forensic Science Laboratory is admissible and can be used as evidence under section 293, Cr.P.C. But certainly the pellets recovered from the body of deceased were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and in this way, recovered weapon was not connected to the crime in question. Recovery was made by IO along with police constables. Recovery was made by IO along with police constables. Satnam Singh pistol was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and no explanation was offered for the same. There were many a lacunae in the prosecution evidence. 12. Let us have a re-look at the prosecution story from a different angle. The accused persons were laying bricks on the road. Protest was made by the informant and his family members. The accused persons were armed with weapons. They were well prepared. They took out the guns and started firing. In other words, there were two groups, out of which, one group was unarmed and the members of other group were armed with deadly weapons. One person died. Others suffered injuries. They were hurt. They were lifted from the place and were taken to hospital. No one came on the spot. The independent witnesses, whose names were cited in the first information report, did not come to depose. The incident took place inside the village. The same did not happen in the jungle. There were 4-5 people on one side and 6-7 people on the other side. Every thing is to be looked at from the point of view of a prudent person. Will a prudent person believe such story? Whether the court will believe prosecution version? Is such story acceptable? Blood soaked earth was not sent to FSL. It was not established that the incident occurred at the place where the same was depicted by the prosecution. As has been said earlier that the eye-witness account given by the related witnesses should be scrutinized with vengeance. In such view of the matter, will it be safe to rely upon the prosecution version? It appears that the incident did not take place in the manner, as was indicated by PW 1, PW 2 and PW 6. Prosecution could not prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The convicts are entitled to get benefit of doubt. As a consequence thereof, the appeals deserve to be allowed. 13. No submission was made on behalf of revisionist Lakkha Singh in Criminal Revision No. 240 of 2007 and Criminal Revision 241 of 2007. In a way, the Revisions were not pressed. The same are accordingly dismissed. 14. Appeals preferred on behalf of the appellants Kashmir Singh, Balvinder Singh, Narender Singh and Jagtar Singh are therefore allowed. 13. No submission was made on behalf of revisionist Lakkha Singh in Criminal Revision No. 240 of 2007 and Criminal Revision 241 of 2007. In a way, the Revisions were not pressed. The same are accordingly dismissed. 14. Appeals preferred on behalf of the appellants Kashmir Singh, Balvinder Singh, Narender Singh and Jagtar Singh are therefore allowed. The judgment and order dated 23.07.2007 passed by learned trial court in respect of the aforesaid appellants is accordingly set aside. The conviction recorded in respect thereof and sentence thus awarded to them are also set aside. Appellants Kashmir Singh and Jagtar Singh are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender. Appellants Balvinder Singh and Narender Singh are in jail. They be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. An information to this effect be sent to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellants Balvinder Singh and Narender Singh are currently serving out the sentence. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the court concerned for compliance. Lower court record be also sent back. Petitions allowed.