Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 311 (ALL)

VIRENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-01-28

ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, RAKESH TIWARI

body2013
Anil Kumar Sharma, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 04.12.2009 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Aligarh in S.T. No. 1009/2002, under section 302 IPC and S.T. No. 1010/2002, under section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Atrauli, District Aligarh, whereby the appellant had been found guilty for the offences aforesaid, sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and two years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 23.04.2002 at 00.30 A.M. Vittar Pal Singh s/o Kunwar Pal Singh, r/o Village Lohgarh, P.S. Atrauli, District Aligarh submitted a written report in P.S. Atrauli, wherein he stated that in the night of 22/23.04.2002 at about 10.30 P.M. his younger brother Pratap had gone to the house of Ram Bharose where Virendra, Pramod, Liyakat and others were also present. Virendra claimed that his Rs. 100/- had been lost which have been picked up by Pratap. Abuses were exchanged between them and Pratap came back home. Soon thereafter Virendra s/o Kamal Singh, r/o Lohgarh, P.S. Atrauli, District Aligarh came in front of the house of the complainant in search of Pratap hurling abuses at him. Staya Pal brother of Pratap, who was standing outside the house objected to it, whereupon he killed him by firing shot with country made pistol at about 11.00 P.M. The complainant further stated that they are engaged in small milk business and in the emergency light he, his brother Pratap and father have witnessed the incident. After firing shot Virendra made his escape good and the dead body is lying at the spot. On the basis of this report case at crime no. 347/2002 was registered under section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant, investigation whereof was entrusted to S.O. Gajendra Singh Rathi. He reached at the spot, interrogated the complainant, prepared site plan and inquest at 1.30 A.M. on 23.04.2002 and sent the dead body in sealed cover with usual papers for post mortem. 3. Dr. Pramod Kumar conducted autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased on 23.04.2002 at 3.30 P.M. He found that 32-years old deceased had average built body. Rigor mortis was present in both upper and lower limbs. 3. Dr. Pramod Kumar conducted autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased on 23.04.2002 at 3.30 P.M. He found that 32-years old deceased had average built body. Rigor mortis was present in both upper and lower limbs. He found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: "An entry wound of gun shot 1.0 cm x 1.0 cm x bone deep into right side of back. 15 cm below the top of right scapula at 7 O' clock position, breaking the right scapula lacerating the lower part of right lung and upper part of left lung and bullet also breaking the left second rib and collar bone. Bullet recovered in soft tissue ( muscle) of left shoulder joint anteriorly. Margins of entry wound are inverted, so direction of bullet is from posteriorly to interiorly upwards." In internal examination the doctor found that left second rib, collar bone, both pleura and both lungs of the deceased were lacerated and about one litre blood was found in thoracic cavity. Right chamber of the heart was full and left was empty. In the opinion of the doctor deceased suffered death due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem fire-arm injury about 3/4 day before. Investigation was later on transferred to SSI J. P. Bansla. On 01.05.2002, he interrogated the accused in jail with the permission of the court, who allegedly confessed his guilt and offered to get the country made pistol used in the crime recovered. Application for his police custody remand was filed by the Investigating Officer, which was allowed. On 07.05.2002 the accused during police custody remand got the country made pistol of 315 bore recovered at 3.45 P.M. which was loaded and recovery memo whereof was prepared by the police. On the basis of this recovery a case under section 25 Arms Act was registered against the accused on 07.05.2002, its investigation was entrusted to S.I. Devendra Singh. The investigation of both the cases culminated in charge sheet against the accused. 4. After committal of the cases to the court of Session they were tried together. Charges for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and 25 Arms Act were framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of the charges, the prosecution had examined the complainant Vittar Pal as PW-1, Kumar Pal PW-2, Dr. After committal of the cases to the court of Session they were tried together. Charges for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and 25 Arms Act were framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of the charges, the prosecution had examined the complainant Vittar Pal as PW-1, Kumar Pal PW-2, Dr. Pramod Kumar PW-3, Constable Ram Singh PW-4, Inspector Gajendra Singh Rathi PW-5, Constable Om Veer Singh PW-6, SI J. P. Bansla PW-7 and SI Devendra Singh PW-8. In his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. accused had again denied the entire prosecution story as also the recovery of country made pistol to the police at his instance. The accused claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the case on account of old enmity and parti-bandi. In defence Sanjay DW-1 had been examined. 5. After hearing the parties counsel the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as noted above in the judgment. Aggrieved the appellant has come up in appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the original record of the case carefully. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant criticising the impugned judgment and order of the trial court has argued following point before us: ( i) That no one has seen the incident during night and the prosecution has introduced the torch as source of light; ( ii) That the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 at the time of incident on the spot is highly doubtful; ( iii) That the prosecution had examined only interested and partisan witnesses and has withheld independent witnesses. ( iv) That the alleged ocular evidence of the incident did not find corroboration from medical evidence. ( v) That place of alleged recovery of country made pistol at the instance of the accused-appellant is open place accessible to all and sundry and there is no public witness so it is highly doubtful; and ( vi) That at the most the case is covered under section 304 part-I IPC because the facts of the case show that incident had taken place all of sudden without any pre-meditation. 8. 8. Per contra learned AGA has contended that the accused is named in the written report filed promptly by the complainant, who is an eye witness of the incident also; that the incident had taken place at the house of the deceased, so the presence of complainant and his father PW-2 is quite probable and natural; that the prosecution story is based on direct evidence, so motive has no significance; that the accused had voluntarily got the country made pistol recovered to the police; that there are lapses in the investigation, but it would not belie the otherwise reliable evidence of eye witnesses which is fully corroborated by medical evidence. 9. The alleged incident took place on 22.4.2002 at about 11 p.m. at the house of the deceased. The deceased came out on the call and abuses of the accused to Pratap and when the later objected he was shot dead by the accused with country made pistol. The report of the incident had been lodged the same night at 00.30 hrs. by the complainant at police station Atrauli situated at a distance of about 10 kms. from the village of incident. The inquest on the cadaver of the deceased was conducted by Inspector Gajendra Singh Rathi PW-5 ( the 1st investigating officer) at 1.30 a.m. to 2.30 a.m. on 23.4.2002 and the autopsy was done by Dr. Pramod Kumar at 3.30 p.m. the same day. In cross-examination complainant PW-1 has stated that he wrote the report at his house and thereafter he along with his father, Udai Pal, Dharam Pal and 3-4 others went on a tractor to the police station and handed over the report. He has further stated that the police came at about 1.15 a.m. This statement finds corroboration from Kumar Pal PW-2 ( father of complainant and deceased). The registration of the case has been further testified by Constable Ram Singh PW-4, who has stated that on 23.4.2002 at 12.30 a.m. he has registered the case at crime no. 347/2002 on the basis of written report Ex. Ka-1 submitted by the complainant. He has proved the check report and copy of GD regarding registration of the case as Ex. Ka-3 and Ka-4 respectively. In cross-examination he has stated that after this case, at 12.35 p.m. another case u/s 452, 323, 324, 506 IPC was registered. He has denied the suggestion that the report is ante-timed. Ka-1 submitted by the complainant. He has proved the check report and copy of GD regarding registration of the case as Ex. Ka-3 and Ka-4 respectively. In cross-examination he has stated that after this case, at 12.35 p.m. another case u/s 452, 323, 324, 506 IPC was registered. He has denied the suggestion that the report is ante-timed. On perusal of inquest report Ex. Ka-6 and photo lash Ex. Ka-10 prepared by PW-5 in night of 22/23.4.2002, we find that crime no. and section had been mentioned. The inquest was completed by 2.30 a.m. on 23.4.2002. In the copy of GD Ex. Ka-4 also it has been mentioned that the complainant reached the police station on a tractor. Inspector Gajendra Singh Rathi PW-5 has also stated that this case was registered on 23.4.2002 in his presence and he proceeded for the spot, recorded statement of complainant, inspected the spot and conducted inquest upon the cadaver of the deceased from 1.30 a.m. to 2.30 a.m. Thus, the external checks available on record, do also indicate that the written report of the complainant was registered at 12.30 a.m. on 23.4.2002, as such there is no delay in reporting the crime to the police. It is trite law that prompt report of an incident particularly heinous one like murder assumes importance in criminal trial as it rules out the possibilities of exaggeration and concoction of prosecution story after consultation and deliberations. 10. In the written report the complainant has stated that prior to the incident his brother Pratap had gone to the house of Ram Bharosey at about 10.30 p.m. and there a scuffle took place between him and the accused on the pretext of picking up Rs. 100/- of the later. There was exchange of hot words between them and thereafter Pratap returned back home. The accused following him reached at his house started hurling abuses, which was intercepted by the deceased and the accused fired shot on him resulting in his instantaneous death. According to the counsel for the appellant that the motive is too weak to commit a crime like murder. The argument is not without force, but experience show that nowadays murders are being committed on very trivial matters. 11. According to the counsel for the appellant that the motive is too weak to commit a crime like murder. The argument is not without force, but experience show that nowadays murders are being committed on very trivial matters. 11. The motive is locked in the mind of the accused and sometimes it becomes difficult for the prosecution to unlock the same and adduce evidence to unfold the mystery of murder. There is eye witness account of the incident, so the motive loses its significance. No doubt both PW-1 and PW-2 have stated in there cross-examination that they had no previous enmity with the accused. True it may be, but then the question arises that if the accused had not committed the murder of the deceased, then why his brother or other family members would falsely rope him in the case? It has come in cross-examination of PW-1 that the deceased had a criminal history as he was involved in several murder cases. Sanjay DW-1, a neighbour of the deceased has also stated that Vinod brother of the deceased was abducted and killed by his collaterals. He has further stated that even Pratap was also killed after the incident as he had kidnapped a girl. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the deceased may have been done to death by any of his enemy and the accused-appellant has been falsely indicted in the case. As stated earlier, there was no previous enmity between the complainant and the accused, then why would he nominate the accused falsely leaving out the real culprit? The defence witness Sanjay who is neighbour of the deceased had been examined to say that the deceased was done to death by fire-arm injury while he was sleeping on the roof of the house. However, his testimony does not inspire confidence because he has stated that at about 11 p.m. he was taking meals on the roof of his house and then he heard retort of fire from the roof of the deceased. He reached there and found Satya Pal standing and he was having fire-arm injury. He ran downwards, fell at the door and died. In cross-examination he has stated that there is no stair case in his house and he reached on the roof of the deceased after ten minutes, where 4-6 other people had also arrived. He reached there and found Satya Pal standing and he was having fire-arm injury. He ran downwards, fell at the door and died. In cross-examination he has stated that there is no stair case in his house and he reached on the roof of the deceased after ten minutes, where 4-6 other people had also arrived. He has not deposed in his examination-in-chief about the assailant. This statement of this witness is self contradictory as in examination-in-chief he has stated that after the sustaining fire arm injury the deceased climbed down and after falling at the door of the house, he died. If this witness has no stair-case in his house, therefore, it was not natural for him to have taken meals on the roof. Sanjay who appeared as DW-1 has also admitted that he has not received any summons from the Court and has come to depose along with the accused. It is not clear whether during investigation or trial, this witness has even informed the police about the incident. He has appeared in the Court for the first time four years after the incident, so no reliance can be placed on the testimony of such witness. In these circumstances, it can be said that whatever motive, the complainant has alleged in his written report was based on his own knowledge. Undoubtedly, it may not be sufficient to kill the deceased, but as already stated, the instant case is based on direct evidence of eye witnesses, so the ultimate result of the case would depend upon the reliability or otherwise of ocular witnesses coupled with medical evidence and other circumstances appearing in the case. Motive is not a sine qua non for the crime, nor it is an ingredient of the offence. 13. As regards light on the spot at the time of incident, it has come in evidence that the family of complainant was running dairy business and at that time there was light of emergency-light and moon. The accused was resident of the village of the complainant and his house is situated only at a distance of one furlong from the house of the complainant. The existence of emergency light finds place in the written report of the complainant. Although the investigating officer has not shown it in the site-plan but the complainant has stated about it in his police statement. The existence of emergency light finds place in the written report of the complainant. Although the investigating officer has not shown it in the site-plan but the complainant has stated about it in his police statement. In the Court, the complainant has stated that he was having a lighted torch at the time of incident, but it has not been mentioned by him in the written report Ex.Ka-1 nor this fact finds place in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He has stated in cross-examination that in haste he forgot to mention this fact. The investigating officer has prepared the memo about the torch of complainant and the emergency light and they had been produced by PW-1 and PW-2 in the Court at the time of their deposition. Thus, from the evidence available on record it can safely be inferred that at the time of incident there was sufficient light to see and recognise the assailant by eye witnesses and any lapse on the part of investigating officer would not belie the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. 14. The prosecution story has been criticized on the ground that only interested and partisan witnesses have been examined and no independent witness had been produced by the prosecution. It is true that both the witnesses of fact examined in the case are closely related with the deceased being his real brother and father, but that is no ground to reject their testimony. The incident had taken place at the house of the deceased at about 11 p.m., so the presence of these witnesses is quite probable and natural. It is not the law that the testimony of a related or interested witness is liable to be rejected only on this ground. It has come in evidence that deceased and his brother had a criminal back ground being involved in murder cases, so no one would come forward to depose for or against them. The prudence requires that testimony of related or interested witness should be subjected to close scrutiny with care and caution. It is equally true that a related person would not falsely indict an innocent person leaving out the real offender. As we have already noted there was no previous enmity between the families of the deceased and the accused, so question of false nomination of accused in the crime becomes meaningless. It is equally true that a related person would not falsely indict an innocent person leaving out the real offender. As we have already noted there was no previous enmity between the families of the deceased and the accused, so question of false nomination of accused in the crime becomes meaningless. In such a situation we have to carefully scrutinize and examine the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2. 15. Complainant Vittar Singh PW-1 has reiterated the contents of his written report which was lodged about 1½ hours after the incident at police station Atrauli situated at a distance of 10 Kms. from the village of incident. In the report he has named himself, his brother Pratap and father as eye witnesses of the incident. It has come in the evidence of Sanjay DW-1 that after the incident Pratap was also killed on account of kidnapping a girl and this fact has been corroborated by PW-1 in his cross-examination, therefore, it was not possible for the prosecution to examine him in order to corroborate the incident of exchange of hot words with the deceased prior to the incident at the house of Ram Bharosey. The place of incident is outside the house of the deceased. PW-1 has stated that prior to the incident they were four brothers - namely, Satya Pal, Vinod and Pratap besides him and they all were engaged in extracting milk and after collection it was taken by van of Rama Dairy by 10 or 11 p.m. The milk business of complainant and his family has not been disputed on behalf of defence. His brother Satya Pal was at home and he came out on the call of the accused and after seeing country made pistol, he bent a little. He has admitted that this fact was not mentioned in the report. As regards real incident, the trial Court has asked questions from PW-1 in the end of his cross-examination and he has stated as under: @ Hindi @ This manner of incident has been corroborated by PW-2 by stating that at the time of incident while he and his son Satya Pal were at home, his son Pratap returned back at about 10.45 p.m. and a short while thereafter hurling abuses accused Virendra came at the house and called for his son Pratap. At the door of the house Satya Pal was standing he objected to his abuses whereupon accused fired shot on Satya Pal by country made pistol, sustaining injury he fell down and died. The shot was hit on the back of right shoulder as turning around he bent. He had seen the incident in the light of torch and emergency light. In cross-examination PW-2 has stated that at the time of incident the deceased was wearing vest and brief ( kachcha) and was standing at the door of the house. Vittar Pal was at his north and he was on his southern side. Virendra had fired shot from a distance of about 5-6 steps and they ran towards him but did not try to apprehend him. There are no material contradictions in the testimony of both the witnesses of fact with regard to real incident of firing at the hands of accused on the deceased. Both these witnesses have also proved the topography of the place of incident. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 thus inspires confidence and the learned trial Court has not erred in placing reliance on them. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has criticized the investigation stating that important facts in the site-plan have not been noted and the case property was not sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. On perusal of the record we find that the investigating officer had prepared a very cursory site plan. He had not shown the places ( i) where the emergency light was kept; ( ii) from where the deceased fired shot on the deceased; ( iii) from where the witnesses saw the incident ( iv) from where the samples of plain and blood stained earth were taken. Being the senior-most officer at the police station, it was expected from him that he would certainly mention these bare facts in the site-plan. However, these lapses do not provide any benefit to the defence, because all these facts are established from the oral and documentary evidence available on record. He has not even prepared any memo for taking samples of plain and blood stained earth. The factum of blood found near the dead body of the deceased spot has been noted in the inquest report. He has not even prepared any memo for taking samples of plain and blood stained earth. The factum of blood found near the dead body of the deceased spot has been noted in the inquest report. On perusal of case-diary we find that at the end of 1st parcha dated 23.4.2002 he has noted: @ Hindi @ Even he has not forwarded the recovery memo aforesaid along with the 1st parcha of the case diary on 23.4.2002. In the cases of Acharaparambath Pradeepan versus State of Kerala, 2007( 57) ACC 293 ( SC), State of Punjab vs. Hakam Singh, ( 2005) 7 SCC 408and Dhanaj Singh vs. State of Punjab, ( 2004) 3 SCC 654 , the Hon'ble Supreme has observed that where no blood, blood stained earth or clothes, pellets, empties of cartridges used, weapons, etc. were found by the police on the spot or if found and seized but not sent by I.O. to chemical examiner or ballistic expert for examination, even then the case of prosecution cannot be thrown away merely because of such omissions and lapses on the part of the I.O. provided the case of the prosecution is otherwise proved by the credible and cogent evidence of the eye witnesses. It was further held that any irregularity or deficiency in investigation by I.O. need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved. The only requirement is use of extra caution in evaluation of evidence. A defective investigation cannot be fatal to prosecution where ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the omissions and lapses on the part of investigating officer does not shake the prosecution story at all. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the statement of Dr. Pramod Kumar PW-3 and the eye witnesses urged that the deceased could not have sustained fire-arm injury in the manner as stated by the eye witnesses. His contention is that at the time of incident the deceased was allegedly standing on the chabutra of his house, while the deceased came from the gali and fired shot on him. He further submits that in this situation the deceased was standing on higher level than the accused, so the sole fire-arm injury could not be caused. His contention is that at the time of incident the deceased was allegedly standing on the chabutra of his house, while the deceased came from the gali and fired shot on him. He further submits that in this situation the deceased was standing on higher level than the accused, so the sole fire-arm injury could not be caused. The level of the chabutra from the gali has not come in evidence. Counsel for the defence has not elicited this fact from the testimony of eye witnesses or the investigating officer. In cross-examination Dr. Kumar has stated as under ( in his own words)- @ Hindi @ The doctor has noted that the ante mortem entry wound of gun shot size 1.0 cm x 1.0 cm x bone deep into right side of back. 15 cm below the top of right scapula at 7 O' clock position, breaking the right scapula lacerating the lower part of right lung and upper part of left lung and bullet also breaking the left second rib and collar bone. Bullet recovered in soft tissue ( muscle) of left shoulder joint anteriorly. Both the eye witnesses have stated that the deceased objected to hurling of abuses by the deceased for his brother Pratap and thereafter the accused fired shot on him. In this situation, they must be facing each other and when accused took out country made pistol and aimed at the deceased, he must have tried to save himself by turning back or bending downwards. The eye witnesses have stated on these lines. Moreover, when the bullet strikes a bone in the human body, it either pierces it or changes its path depending upon the force and velocity of the bullet and strength of the bone as also space available in the body. It is not necessary that if the bullet is shot from lower level on a person sitting on higher level, it would always travel upwards. If the bullet strikes the strong bone and there is no much force in the bullet, then it can take its path downwards also. We are fortified in our view also from this fact that the bullet was recovered from the left shoulder of the deceased, otherwise it could have made exit wound in his body. The learned trial Court has also discussed this point in the impugned judgment and we do not find any perversity therein. We are fortified in our view also from this fact that the bullet was recovered from the left shoulder of the deceased, otherwise it could have made exit wound in his body. The learned trial Court has also discussed this point in the impugned judgment and we do not find any perversity therein. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the ocular account of the incident is not corroborated by medical evidence is repelled. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has castigated the conviction of the appellant u/s 25 Arms Act on the ground that the alleged recovery of country made pistol is from open place accessible to all and sundry so exclusive knowledge or possession of accused cannot be inferred. The prosecution had examined two witnesses to prove the discovery of country made pistol by the accused on 7.5.2002 at about 3.45 p.m. from a ditch hidden under the bushes by the side of the road. The weapon was not visible to any passers-by from the road. It was accused who had exclusive knowledge of the place where he had hidden the country made pistol, used in the crime. It is true that there is no public witness of this recovery, but this ground alone is not sufficient to reject the testimony of police witnesses namely PW-6 and PW-7. The Apex Court in the latest case of Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs. State by Sriramapuram P.S. and others 2012 ( 78) ACC 545 ( SC) has observed in paras-15 to 19 as under: 15. Therefore, the first question that arises for consideration is whether a police officer can be a sole witness. If so, then with particular reference to the facts of the present case, where he alone had witnessed the occurrence as per the case of the prosecution. It cannot be stated as a rule that a police officer can or cannot be a sole eye-witness in a criminal case. It will always depend upon the facts of a given case. If the testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidences, then the statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in success of the case. It will always depend upon the facts of a given case. If the testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidences, then the statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in success of the case. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people; in that event, no credibility can be attached to the statement of such witness. 16. This Court in the case of Girja Prasad ( supra) while particularly referring to the evidence of a police officer, said that it is not the law that Police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption applies as much in favour of a police officer as any other person. There is also no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of a police officer even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. If such a presumption is raised against the police officers without exception, it will be an attitude which could neither do credit to the magistracy nor good to the public, it can only bring down the prestige of the police administration. 17. Wherever, the evidence of the police officer, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. The courts have also expressed the view that no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officers merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. Such reliable and trustworthy statement can form the basis of conviction. Such reliable and trustworthy statement can form the basis of conviction. Rather than referring to various judgments of this Court on this issue, suffices it to note that even in the case of Girja Prasad ( supra), this Court noticed the judgment of the Court in the case of Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra AIR 1956 SC 217 , a judgment pronounced more than half a century ago noticing the principle that the presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons and it is not a judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds therefor. This principle has been referred to in a plethora of other cases as well. Some of the cases dealing with the aforesaid principle are being referred hereunder. 18. In Tahir v. State ( Delhi) [ ( 1996) 3 SCC 338 ], dealing with a similar question, the Court held as under:- "6. ... .In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case." 19. The obvious result of the above discussion is that the statement of a police officer can be relied upon and even form the basis of conviction when it is reliable, trustworthy and preferably corroborated by other evidence on record." In the instant case the accused could not lay any foundation to show that the local police was inimical with him in any manner. He had no criminal history, then why the police would fabricate false evidence of recovery of country made pistol against him? It was not a blind case. He had no criminal history, then why the police would fabricate false evidence of recovery of country made pistol against him? It was not a blind case. The accused was named in FIR and there were eye witnesses of the incident. The police very well knew that the evidence collected during investigation was sufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused. There is no material contradiction in the testimony of PW-6 and PW-7. Thus, there is no reason why their deposition be not accepted. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly argued that if the case of the prosecution is accepted for the sake of arguments, even then the case against the accused-appellant does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part-I or II of the Indian Penal Code. His submission is that admittedly the accused had no enmity with the deceased, on a short quarrel he fired single shot on the deceased without pre-meditation, therefore, Part 3 of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code could not be attracted because it cannot be said that the accused intended to inflict that particular injury which was ultimately found to have been inflicted. In view of our afore-stated findings, the argument has no legs to stand. As per the facts of this case, the accused had a scuffle with the brother of the deceased about half an hour before the incident. The deceased's brother came back home. The accused armed with country made pistol followed him and hurling abuses called him from the door of his house, which was objected by the deceased. The deceased did not provoke the accused at all. He had carried the country made pistol in order to kill Pratap, but as he was intercepted by the deceased, he fired shot on him causing his instantaneous death. The deceased did not provoke him in any manner. The conduct of the accused was cruel and unusual as he had taken undue advantage of being armed with country made pistol. He did not bother that he is coming at the house of the deceased who were three brothers at the time of incident and had criminal back ground. The deceased did not provoke him in any manner. The conduct of the accused was cruel and unusual as he had taken undue advantage of being armed with country made pistol. He did not bother that he is coming at the house of the deceased who were three brothers at the time of incident and had criminal back ground. In the case of Pappu v. State of M.P. ( 2006) 7 SCC 391 , the Apex Court had illuminatingly observed as under: "......The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused ( a) without premeditation, ( b) in a sudden fight; ( c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and ( d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the 'fight' occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression 'undue advantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair advantage'. In view of the above legal preposition and the facts of the instant case, in our view, the learned trial Court has not erred at all in convicting the accused for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. 20. The expression 'undue advantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair advantage'. In view of the above legal preposition and the facts of the instant case, in our view, the learned trial Court has not erred at all in convicting the accused for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. 20. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that in our opinion, the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and 25 Arms Act. The appeal sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is in jail and would serve out the remaining part of his sentence. 21. Let certified copy of the judgment be sent to the Court concerned and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh for compliance. The concerned Jail Superintendent be informed for communication to the accused-appellant.