Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1563 (RAJ)

Ram Kishan v. State of Rajsthan

2013-09-06

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, NISHA GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT : - Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This DB Cr. Appeal under Sec. 374 Cr.P.C., has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.8.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No.2, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 8/2003 whereby the present appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Appellant Ram Kishan: Under Section 302 IPC: to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act: to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Appellant Ram Singh: Under Section 302/109 IPC: to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Ranveer Singh (PW/1) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) on 3.12.2002 at Police Station Kumher Distt. Bharatpur on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered against the accused-appellants on 3.12.2002 at 6.30 p.m. The contentions in the FIR were that on the same day in the morning at about 9.00 AM there was some quarrel in between the son of Shyamveer (son of nephew of the complainant) and the children of accused appellant Ramkishan. When Kashmira, wife of present complainant went to make complaint to Ramkishan then he said that he will beat her son in the same manner and will also kill her husband. On the same day at about 5.30 P.M. when Amar Singh, deceased was going to his house from Kumher and as soon as he reached near the house of Foran Singh, PW/7, accused appellants Ram Singh and Ram Kishan came there. Ram Kishan was having a gun and barrel of cartridges and Ram Singh was carrying a lathi. It was also mentioned that Ram Singh told Ram Kishan to kill Amar Singh and Ram Kishan with an intention to kill Amar Singh opened three fires which hit Amar Singh and he sustained severe injuries, felt down on the ground. Witnesses Veer Pal @ Veero, Fateh Singh, Niranjan Singh, Jagdish and other villagers came there and he was shifted to the hospital where he was declared dead. Witnesses Veer Pal @ Veero, Fateh Singh, Niranjan Singh, Jagdish and other villagers came there and he was shifted to the hospital where he was declared dead. Case was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the appellant Ram Kishan for the offence under Section 302 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act and against Ram Singh for offence under Section 302/109 IPC. The case was committed to the Sessions Judge and it was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bharatpur. The accused appellant Ram Kishan has been charged under Section 302 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act and Ram Singh for offence under Section 302/109 IPC. To prove the case against the present appellants, prosecution has examined PW/1 Ranveer Singh, PW/2 Prem Singh, PW/3 Shyamveer, PW/4 Fateh Singh, PW/5 Dharamveer Singh, PW/6 Jagdish, PW/7 Foran Singh, PW/8 Lokesh, PW/9 Hemant, PW/10 Vishnu Prasad, PW/11 Man Singh, PW/12 Smt. Kashmira Devi, PW/13 Vikram Singh, PW/14 Veerpal, PW/15 Mahipal Singh, PW/16 Pushpendra Singh, PW/17 Dalip Singh, PW/18 Jodha Singh, PW/19 Dr. Harendra Singh, PW/20 Hari Ram, PW/21 Gyan Singh, PW/22 Om Prakash, PW/23 Yatendra Kumar Awasthi, PW/24 Harish Chand, and PW/25 Ram Niwas and produced 26 documents. The accused appellants have been examined under Section 313 and in defence no witness has been produced but to support his case, the defence has relied on Ex.D/1 to D/14. After conclusion of trial, the present appellants have been convicted and sentenced as above. Hence this appeal. 3. The contention of the present appellants is that the whole story is fabricated one. It is admitted case of the prosecution that Foran Singh has reported the incident to the police and it was reduced in Roznamcha but Roznamcha has not been produced. The entry in the Roznamcha is the First Information Report and when First Information Report of the case has not been produced, the very basis of the prosecution case has broken down. Ex.P/1, the alleged First Information Report which was lodged by Ranveer Singh is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C., as admittedly, the investigation was started after the receipt of telephone message. Ex.P/1, the alleged First Information Report which was lodged by Ranveer Singh is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C., as admittedly, the investigation was started after the receipt of telephone message. The case of the prosecution is that Ex.P/1, FIR has been lodged at 6.30 PM whereas the statements of witnesses Ranveer Singh and other reveals that within one hour it was not possible to lodge the FIR and non production of First Information Report gave rise to the adverse inference against the prosecution. PW/16 Pusphendra Singh is the star witness of the prosecution who had reached on the spot first. His statement has been taken after considerable delay of 10 days for which no explanation has been given. PW/16 Pushpendra Singh has not stated about the presence of any other eye-witness. FIR is a concocted one in which name of Pushpendra Singh has not been stated and all other witnesses are chance witnesses inimical to the present appellants and also related to the complainant; their testimony cannot be believed. Recovery of two fire-arms itself demolish the case of the prosecution. In FIR, the statement is regarding one fire-arm whereas case has been improved afterwards for having two fire-arms and recovery of two fire-arms goes against the story of the prosecution. Conviction for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act is bad as sanction has not been proved by examining the sanctioning authority. There is no motive on the part of the appellants to commit the offence; there was no previous enmity between the parties; investigation is tainted one; offence has been committed in thickly populated area but no independent witness has been produced. As regards the appellant Ram Singh, it has been stated that initially, FIR was lodged with the aid of Section 34 but the appellant has been convicted with the aid of Section 109, there is no evidence of abatement. PW/7 Foren Singh and PW/16 Pushpendra Singh has not sated that Ram Singh was on the spot and therefore, the appellant Ram Singh has been implicated falsely hence conviction is bad in law and be quashed. PW/7 Foren Singh and PW/16 Pushpendra Singh has not sated that Ram Singh was on the spot and therefore, the appellant Ram Singh has been implicated falsely hence conviction is bad in law and be quashed. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the telephone message which was received at the Police Station cannot be termed as FIR only on the ground that the said information was first in point of time or was reduced in writing because anonymous telephone message could not be termed as FIR and Ex.P/1 cannot be said to be hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. as it is the FIR of the case. If investigation has been started after receipt of information of offence, it cannot be termed as illegality as it is not necessary that a formal registration of case should have been made before proceeding to the spot. PW/16 Pushpendra Singh is not the star witness of the prosecution. He is not the eye-witness, he is only the son of the deceased and taken the deceased to the hospital. PW/7 Foran Singh has only informed the Police Station. PW/1 Ranveer Singh, PW/4 Fateh Singh, PW/6 Jagdish, PW/14 Veerpal and PW/15 Mahipal Singh, are the eye-witnesses; without delay FIR has been lodged within one hour of the incident and name of all the eye-witnesses has been mentioned in the FIR. The incident has taken place in a small village. All the witnesses are residing in the vicinity and their presence is natural and probable. Recovery has been proved by the Investigation Officer which also connect the ocular evidence. Motive is well-established as there was a quarrel between the children of the two families and accused appellants have pleaded in their statements that there is an established enmity between the parties as Ram Singh was witness against them and there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case. 5. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case. 5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that admittedly, PW/7 Foran Singh has telephoned the incident to Police Station and it was reduced in writing in the Roznamcha but Roznamcha has not been produced, meaning thereby that First Information Report of the case has not been presented by the prosecution and in light of provisions of Section 114 sub-clause (g) of the Evidence Act, due to non production of First Information Report, an adverse inference should be taken against the prosecution and their further contention is that after the receipt of information on telephone, investigation was started. PW/25 Ram Nivas has specifically admitted in his cross-examination that before registration of the case, he has started the investigation and Ex.P/7 memo of site plan, Ex.P/9, P/10, seizure of soil, Ex.P/11 seizure of cartridges and Ex.P/12 woolen cap have been prepared before the registration of the case and thereafter Ex.P/1, FIR has been lodged which is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C., and reliance has been placed on Sevi vs. State, AIR 1981 SC 1230 ; Sunil Kumar vs. State of MP, AIR 1997 SC 940 , and S.P. CBI vs. Tapan Kumar Singh, JT 2003(4) SC 26. 6. It is not in dispute that PW/7 Foren Singh has telephoned the incident to the Police Station and on receiving the information, it was reduced in daily register of the Police Station and PW/25 Ram Nivas rushed to the spot. PW/25 Ram Nivas has also admitted in his cross-examination that Foran Singh gave information to the Police Station that Ram Singh fired on Amar Singh on the way in front of his house and he has also accepted the fact that before registration of the FIR, he has started the investigation and prepared the above memos, and thereafter when he went to the spot, he came to know about the fact that injured was taken to the hospital where he died. Om Prakash, ASI was instructed to register the FIR but the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that telephone message received at the Police Station without any details cannot be treated as First Information Report. Om Prakash, ASI was instructed to register the FIR but the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that telephone message received at the Police Station without any details cannot be treated as First Information Report. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the information was having all the details about who has been injured and by whom and on what place the incident occurred. The appellant himself has submitted application u/Sec. 311 Cr.P.C., where it has been stated that who has fired on Amar Singh has not been disclosed in the telephone message. The object and purpose of telephone message given by Foran Singh was not to lodge the First Information Report but it was done only with the purpose to request officer in charge of the Police Station to reach the place of occurrence and on receiving some information without any specific details of the nature of the offence, if police officer has rushed to the spot, such information cannot be treated as First Information Report and reliance has been placed on Ramsingh Bavaji Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat, 1994(2) SCC 685 . Hence non production of Roznamcha is not significant in the present facts and circumstances of the case as PW/7, Foran Singh has stated all which he had said on telephone to the Police Station. PW/16, Pushpendrasingh has also stated that he informed Foren Singh that Ram Kishan had fired opened on his father and PW/25 Ramnivas who has received the information has also deposed about the information. All these links have been established by the prosecution. In view of the above, non production of Roznamcha cannot be termed fatal for the prosecution. 7. The other contention of the counsel for the appellants is that investigation has been started before registration of the case which is a basic illegality and the prosecution case should be thrown away on this count alone. Per contra, the prosecution has relied upon Sri Sambhu Das @ Bijoy Das & Anr. vs. State of Assam, 2010(10) SCC 374 wherein it has been held in Para 20 as under: “... ... ... In order to bring such proceedings within the ambit of investigation, it is not necessary that a formal registration of the case should have been made before proceeding to the spot. vs. State of Assam, 2010(10) SCC 374 wherein it has been held in Para 20 as under: “... ... ... In order to bring such proceedings within the ambit of investigation, it is not necessary that a formal registration of the case should have been made before proceeding to the spot. It is enough that he has some information to afford him reason even to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. Any step taken by him pursuant to such information towards detention etc., of the said offence, would be part of investigation under the Code.” 8. In the light of the above, if after receiving the telephonic message, the Investigation Officer has reached to the spot and undertaken some proceedings within the ambit of investigation, it cannot be brushed aside only on the ground that a formal FIR has not been registered. The other contention of the counsel for the appellants is that Ex.P/1 FIR, which has been lodged after the initiation of investigation is hit by Section 162 and reliance has been placed on Pooran & ors. vs. State of Raj., 1993 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 390. As already stated that telephone message by Foran Singh cannot be termed as FIR in the light of Ramsingh Bavaji Jadeja (supra). The investigation undertaken before the registration of the formal First Information Report cannot be brushed aside. Ex. P/1 is the First Information Report in the present case and telephone message which contained in the Roznamcha cannot be termed as First Information Report and in view of the above facts, Ex.P/1 could not be termed as hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C., and the contentions of the appellants are not acceptable. 9. PW/1 Ranveer Singh who is the First Information Report lodger PW4 Fateh Singh, PW/6 Jagdish and PW14 Veerpal who are also named in the FIR have consistently stated that the appellant Ram Kishan has fired over Amar Singh which resulted in his death. PW15 Mahipal Singh has also corroborated the story. It is true that his name has not been stated in the FIR but only on this ground his testimony cannot be disbelieved. The contention of the appellants is that all are chance witnesses but as rightly submitted by the prosecution that incident has taken place in a small village where all the persons are living in the vicinity and their presence is probable and natural. The contention of the appellants is that all are chance witnesses but as rightly submitted by the prosecution that incident has taken place in a small village where all the persons are living in the vicinity and their presence is probable and natural. This incident is of 5.30 p.m. in the evening, it can be assumed that there would be some move-ment in the village and presence of eye-witnesses could not be disputed. FIR has been lodged within one hour of the incident and name of the eye wit-nesses have been narrated in the FIR. There was no room for any concoction. 10. It was also argued by the counsel for the appellants that first injured was shifted to the hospital, witnesses and the complainant remained there about an hour thereafter they all went to the Police Station and within one hour it was not possible to register the case but on proceeding before the police recorded on Ex.P/1, time has been specially mentioned which cannot be disbelieved. The witnesses must have stated the proximity of time which has been consumed in hospital or in way to the Police Station. It is true that witnesses are related witnesses but only on this ground, the testimony of the witnesses cannot be brushed aside when they have been named in the First Information Report. They are consistent in deposing the prosecution story and their presence is natural and probable at the spot, hence the court below has rightly relied on the testimony of PW/1 Ranveer Singh, PW/4 Fatehsingh, PW/6 Jagdish and PW/15 Mahipal Singh. 11. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that PW/16 Pushpendra Singh who has reached the place of incident first has not stated about the presence of other alleged eye-witnesses and he is the only eye-witness of the incident, but statement of PW/16 Pushpendra Singh speaks otherwise. He stated that he heard about the fact that Ram Singh and Ram Kishan are assaulting his father. He reached at the spot and Ram Kishan has left the spot after firing on his father. He stated that he heard about the fact that Ram Singh and Ram Kishan are assaulting his father. He reached at the spot and Ram Kishan has left the spot after firing on his father. In cross-examination, he has specifically stated that he saw his father lying and bleeding which clearly states that PW/16 Pushpendra Singh is not the eye-witness of the incident and PW/4 Fateh Singh has also stated that Pusphendra Singh (PW/16) who is son of the deceased has lifted his father and they all have taken the injured to the hospital, meaning thereby that Pusphendra Singh was not the eye-witness of the incident. PW/7 Foran Singh is also not the eye-witness. He has deposed that when he heard the fires, he came out of his house and saw that Pushpendra Singh was there with his father on his lap. He asked Pushpendra Singh what has happened, it was replied that Ram Singh has fired on him and ran away. Foran Singh has also not deposed that Pushpendra Singh has saw the incident. Both these two witnesses were not the eye-witnesses and if they have not mentioned the name of other eye-witnesses, it cannot be termed fatal to the prosecution as PW/1 Ranveer Singh has lodged the FIR immediately after the incident and name of the other eye-witnesses have also been narrated in the FIR. Furthermore, statement of Ram Singh and Fateh Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C., have been recorded on the day of incident i.e. 3.12.2002. Statement of Jagdish has been taken on the next day, whereas PW/16 Pushpendra Singh and PW/7 Foran Singh were not the eye-witnesses and their statements were not of much importance as regards to the manner of the incident, their statements have been taken after delay of 10 days, hence the contention of the appellants that PW/16 Pushpendra Singh is only the eye-witness and he is not the reliable witnesses, his statement has been taken after delay of 10 days, the prosecution case should be thrown away is not acceptable as rightly held by the court below that Ranveer Singh and others are the witnesses to the incident and they have supported the prosecution story consistently. 12. It is true that statement of some witnesses such as Veerpal Singh (PW/14), Mahipal Singh (PW/15) and PW/16 Pushpendra Singh have been taken with delay and PW/25, Ramnivas could not explain the delay. 12. It is true that statement of some witnesses such as Veerpal Singh (PW/14), Mahipal Singh (PW/15) and PW/16 Pushpendra Singh have been taken with delay and PW/25, Ramnivas could not explain the delay. The counsel for the appellants has relied on Imji & Anr. vs. State of Raj., 1980 RCC 231 (DB), Balvender Singh vs. State of Raj., 1983 RLR 883 (DB), Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy vs. Public Prosecutor, AIR 2004 SC 4383 ; and Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & Anr. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 1656 . In the present case, FIR has been lodged immediately and the statements of complainant and some of eye-witnesses have been recorded on the same day. If some of the statements have been taken afterwards, they will not demolish the whole prosecution case. 13. The other contention of the appellants is that no independent witness has been produced inspite of the fact that PW/1 Ranveer Singh has stated that near the vicinity of the place of occurrence, Omveer Singh, Roop Singh, Samandar Singh, Nathi, Kishansingh etc. are residing and there are shops of Hoti etc. It is true that Ranveer Singh has stated that nearby residential houses and shops are also there but Ranveer Singh has not named anybody to be present on the spot and PW/25 Ram Nivas, the Investigation officer has stated that neighbours have been investigated and nobody has narrated that he has witnessed the occurrence. 14. It is true that Ranveer Singh has stated that nearby residential houses and shops are also there but Ranveer Singh has not named anybody to be present on the spot and PW/25 Ram Nivas, the Investigation officer has stated that neighbours have been investigated and nobody has narrated that he has witnessed the occurrence. 14. The other contention of the appellants is that there was no motive on the part of both the accused appellants to commit the crime; there was no dispute between the parties but the learned Public Prosecutor has rightly pointed out that the occurrence is the outcome of quarrel which has taken place between the children of both the parties in the morning and in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellants they have specifically narrated that parties are having inimical relations as the appellant Ram Singh was the witness against Fateh Singh and Mohipal Singh in a criminal case hence the enmity has been accepted by the appellant himself and otherwise also motive is not an essential ingredient for the offence of murder and reliance has been placed on Thaman Kumar vs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2003) 6 SCC 380 , wherein it has been held: “There is no such principle or rule of law that where the prosecution fails to prove the motive for commission of the crime, it must necessarily result in acquittal of the accused. Where the ocular evidence is found to be trustworthy and reliable and finds corroboration from the medical evidence, a finding of guilt can safely be recorded even if the motive for the commission of the crime has not been proved. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the absence of any evidence on the point of motive cannot have any such impact so as to discard the other reliable evidence available on record which unerringly establishes the guilt of the accused.” In the light of above, objection of the appellants is not well founded. 15. The other contention of the appellants is that the case of the prosecution is that Pushpendra Singh (PW/16) has lifted the deceased and his blood-stained cloths has not been seized. Eye-witness Pushpendra Singh and others have supported the prosecution story. 15. The other contention of the appellants is that the case of the prosecution is that Pushpendra Singh (PW/16) has lifted the deceased and his blood-stained cloths has not been seized. Eye-witness Pushpendra Singh and others have supported the prosecution story. PW/7 Foran Singh has informed the police about the incident and PW/16 Pushpendra Singh who is son of the deceased taken the deceased to the hospital. These facts have been proved by the ocular evidence so if blood stained cloths of Pushpendra Singh have not been seized, this fact is not significant and does not cast any shadow on the veracity of the prosecution. The other contention of the appellants is that deceased has received fire injury and pallets must have been spilled in the vicinity but none of the eye-witnesses have received any pallet injury which shows that the eye-witnesses are planted one but this fact alone cannot escape the veracity of the witnesses as the receiving of any injury of eye-witnesses will depend upon the distance at which they were at the time of the incident and on the fact that in how much areas, the pallets have been spread over when the presence of the witnesses are natural, their evidence cannot be disbelieved only on the fact that they have not received any pallet injuries. This is not the case of the prosecution that any witness has tried to catch over the deceased. Per contra, the statement of witnesses Ranveer Singh is that when he was near the house of Samunder Singh he saw the fire opened at deceased Amar Singh and Fateh Singh had seen the incident when he was at the shop of Hoti, hence there no was occasion to have pallet injuries caused to the eye-witnesses and this argument is not acceptable. The other contention of the counsel for the appellants is that eye-witness has improved the version as regards to having two fire-arms during the incident the appellant Ram Kishan has taken one country-made fire-arm from knot of his cloth and fired on the deceased whereas no such statement finds place in the First Information Report. The other contention of the counsel for the appellants is that eye-witness has improved the version as regards to having two fire-arms during the incident the appellant Ram Kishan has taken one country-made fire-arm from knot of his cloth and fired on the deceased whereas no such statement finds place in the First Information Report. It is true that story as regards to having two fire-arms has been improved by the eye-witnesses but the prosecution witnesses are consistent on the point that appellant Ram Kishan has fired on Amar Singh which resulted in his death, hence this improvement cannot be termed fatal for the prosecution. The counsel for the appellants have also submitted that recovery is doubtful. Both the independent witnesses of recovery Dilip Singh (PW/17) and Jodha Singh (PW/18) have not supported the prosecution story. Thus, the recovery cannot be believed. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that PW/25 Ramnivas has supported the fact of recovery and there is no reason to disbelieve him. PW/25 Ramnivas has stated that gun and country-made pistol have been recovered on the information and instance of the appellant Ram Kishan from his residential house and this fact also corroborates the ocular evidence. 16. The learned court below has rightly relied on the statements of eye-witnesses which have been further corroborated by the medical evidence that Ram Kishan has fired on the deceased which resulted his death and there is no reason to interfere in the conviction and sentence of the appellant Ram Kishan for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant Ram Kishan has also been convicted for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act as stated earlier, country made pistol and gun have been recovered from his instance but it has rightly been contested by the counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has to prove that sanction was given by the authority after application of mind, sanction has been exhibited as Ex.P/20 but sanctioning authority has not been examined to prove the sanction and in place of sanctioning authority, PW/21 Gyan Singh has been produced who is Upper Division Clerk in Judicial Section of Collectorate, Bharatpur. In absence of proper sanction, the conviction under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act seems to be bad in law and reliance has been placed on Vithal Mahadev Patil vs. State 1996 Cr.L.J. 1796 and State vs. Fulchand, AIR 1956 M.B. 50. In the present case, when sanction has not been proved and the prosecution has not proved the fact that after application of mind, the sanction has been awarded conviction cannot be sustained under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act at the same time, Ex.P/20 speaks itself that it has been awarded without application of mind as it contains the averment that 15 cartridges were also recovered at the instance of the appellant Ram Kishan whereas 15 cartridges have been seized from the place of occurrence and never been seized at the instance of the appellant. The appellant was not in possession of 15 cartridges which shows that Ex.P/20 has been accorded without application of mind. Ex.P/20 does not contain any details about the possession of the fire-arms by the appellant and in view of above, appellant Ram Kishan deserve to be acquitted for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 17. Accused appellant Ram Singh has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 109. FIR Ex. P/1 which has been lodged at the instance of Ranveer Singh with the statement that Ram Singh has stated that we must liquidate the deceased and FIR has been registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC readwith 34. Pushpendra Singh (PW/16) has not stated anything as regards presence of Ram Singh at the spot and he has not narrated any fact regarding inducement by the present appellant, PW/7 Forean Singh has not stated anything as regards to the roll or inducement of the present appellant Ram Singh. The telephone message which has been given by Foran Singh states only in regard to Ram Kishan. Enmity is established between the parties and when Ram Kishan was having fire-arm, he was inclined to use it. There was no occasion for Ram Singh to instigate him for firing. PW/1 Ranveer Singh has materially improved his statement as regards to Ram Singh in his court-statement. The cumulative reading of statement of witnesses suggest that Ram Singh has been implicated only as he was the father of co-appellant. There was no occasion for Ram Singh to instigate him for firing. PW/1 Ranveer Singh has materially improved his statement as regards to Ram Singh in his court-statement. The cumulative reading of statement of witnesses suggest that Ram Singh has been implicated only as he was the father of co-appellant. Initially, information which was communicated to the police station, Foran Singh contends nothing about the presence of Ram Singh or any inducement as of present appellant which clearly shows the false-implication of the present appellant Ram Singh and court below has not considered the evidence in right perspective. As regards appellant Ram Singh, no overact has been attributed to him and nothing has been recovered at his instance and prosecution has failed to prove the offence of 302/ 109 against the appellant Ram Singh. He deserves to be acquitted. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of appellant Ram Kishan u/Sec. 302 IPC is maintained. However, he is acquitted of offence u/Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act whereas the accused appellant Ram Singh is acquitted of the offence u/S. 302/109 IPC. The accused appellant Ram Singh S/o Dhandhu is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused appellant Ram Singh S/o Dhandhu is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the said appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.