JUDGMENT : 1. The arguments of this case concluded on 02.05.2017. Following order was passed on that date. "Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ghanshyam Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.N. Mulla, Sri Saghir Ahmad, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, Kumari Meena and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.As. for the State. We will give reasons later but we are making the operative order now. The appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 21.03.1989 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, in Sessions Trial No.258 of 1986, convicting and sentencing the appellant Mahesh Singh to undergo life imprisonment u/s 302 I.P.C. is hereby upheld by us. Appellant Mahesh Singh in on bail. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties are discharged. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, shall pass an order for taking the appellant into custody and sending him to jail to serve out the remaining part of the sentence." 2. Here are the reasons:- By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.03.1989 passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, in Sessions Trial No.258 of 1986 (State Vs. Mahesh Singh and another), arising out of case crime no.51 of 1986, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Narwal, District-Kanpur, whereby accused appellant-Mahesh Singh has been sentenced to life imprisonment. 3. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ghanshyam Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.N. Mulla, Sri Saghir Ahmad, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, Kumari Meena and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.As. for the State. 4. Course of events leading upto this appeal, as discernible from record appear to be that informant-Jagat Pal Singh (P.W.1) lodged written report, Exhibit K-1, at 05.30 A.M. at Police Station-Narwal, district-Kanpur regarding murder of his brother-Chhatra Pal Singh by the present appellant-Mahesh Singh on the exhortation of Kalloo Singh (father of appellant-Mahesh Singh) in the night intervening 2/3.6.1986 around 02.30 A.M. at village-Karbigwa. 5. This report was noted in the concerned Check FIR (Exhibit Ka-2) at Case Crime No.51 of 1986, under Section 302 IPC at Police Station-Narwal on 03.06.1986 at 05.30 A.M.. 5. This report was noted in the concerned Check FIR (Exhibit Ka-2) at Case Crime No.51 of 1986, under Section 302 IPC at Police Station-Narwal on 03.06.1986 at 05.30 A.M.. Case was registered against the accused at serial no.5 of the concerned General Diary of date (03.06.1986) at aforesaid case crime number under aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code, copy whereof is on record as Exhibit Ka.3. 6. The investigation ensued and the inquest of the deceased was held on 03.06.1986 and the same was started at 7.45 A.M. and completed at 09.45 A.M. by Sri R.R. Chaudhari P.W.7. The copy of inquest is on record as Ex.Ka.4. Opinion was expressed by the inquest witnesses for conduction of postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Chhatra Pal Singh, therefore, necessary papers were prepared in the process-picture of dead body Ex.Ka.5, challan dead body Ex.Ka.6, specimen seal Ex.Ka.7, letter to R.I. Ex.Ka.8, letter to C.M.O. Ex.Ka.9. 7. Postmortem examination on the cadaver of Chhatra Pal Singh was conducted on 03.06.1986 at 03.25 P.M. by Dr. Devendra Kumar Tiwari P.W.8, wherein the following ante-mortem injury was noted at the time of examination: "There is wound of entry 6cm x 5cm x fractured bone deep at right side of face below and lateral to outer angle of rt. eye. The subcutaneous tissues over an area of 2 or 3 inches round the wound of entrance are lacerated and the surrounding skin of face forehead is scorched and blackened and tattooed with unburnt grains of powder. The adjacent hairs are singed in an area of 2.5 to 3" below and above respectively. There is comminuted fractures of the bone below with envensive laceration of tissues." 8. In the opinion of doctor, cause of death was stated to be haemorrhage and shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The postmortem report is Exhibit Ka-10. 9. During course of investigation S.I. Ranveer Singh (P.W.9) recorded statement of various witnesses prepared site plan, Exhibit Ka-11. He found the blood on the spot, took in possession blood stained soil and some plain soil separately in two boxes which were duly sealed by him. The memo prepared by him is Exhibit Ka-12. He has also proved extract of statement given by Ram Bharosey, Malkhan Singh, Anil Kumar Singh, which are Exhibits Ka-15 to Ka-18. After completing the investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet, which is Exhibit Ka-14. 10. The memo prepared by him is Exhibit Ka-12. He has also proved extract of statement given by Ram Bharosey, Malkhan Singh, Anil Kumar Singh, which are Exhibits Ka-15 to Ka-18. After completing the investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet, which is Exhibit Ka-14. 10. Pursuant to the filing of the charge-sheet, committal proceedings took place and the case was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 258 of 1986 (State Vs. Mahesh Singh and another) and the case was transferred to the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur for conduction and disposal of trial. 11. Both the prosecution and accused were heard on point of charge and the trial court was prime-facie satisfied with the case against the accused-Mahesh Singh u/s 302 I.P.C. charge under Section 302 IPC was framed and read over and explained to the accused, who abjured charge and opted for trial. 12. Consequently, the prosecution was required to adduce its testimony to prove the guilt of the accused, where after the prosecution produced in all nine witnesses. A brief description of the witnesses is as herein under: Jagat Pal Singh P.W.1 is the informant. He has lodged the written report and claims to be an eye-witness of the incident. Ram Bharosey Singh P.W.2 has claimed to be an eye-witness of the incident. However, he has not supported in totality the case of the prosecution. Malkhan Singh P.W.3 claims himself to be an eye-witness of the incident. Siya Dulari P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased Chhatra Pal Singh and she has been produced as an eye-witness of the occurrence. 13. Apart from above, the other formal witnesses are as follows: Constable Sita Ram P.W.5 is the Head Moharir. He recorded relevant entries in the check F.I.R. and concerned G.D. Constable Shayamlal P.W.6 conveyed the dead body in safe custody to the mortuary and has proved the process. S.I. Sri R.R. Chaudhari P.W.7 has held inquest of the deceased-Chhatra Pal Singh and has proved the inquest report and the ancillary papers. Dr. Devendra Kumar P.W.8 has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 03.06.1986 and has proved the postmortem examination report and the cause of death. S.I. Ranveer Singh P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer. He has proved the various steps and has proved filing of charge-sheet against the accused. 14. Dr. Devendra Kumar P.W.8 has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 03.06.1986 and has proved the postmortem examination report and the cause of death. S.I. Ranveer Singh P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer. He has proved the various steps and has proved filing of charge-sheet against the accused. 14. Except as above, no other evidence was produced and statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he claimed false implication on account of fact that the appellant possessed land in the village and the informant side wanted to dispossess him and dispel him from the village. Firing was done at the time of 'tilak'' ceremony while rejoicing by participants which hit the appellant. However, no evidence was led by the defence. 15. Consequently, the case was posted for hearing of arguments and after considering the case on its merits and appraisal of facts and circumstances and evaluation of evidence on record, the learned trial Judge concluded by recording finding of conviction against the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment, which gave rise to this appeal. 16. The crux contention relates to fact that the appellant is innocent and there is no source of light for identifying the real culprit. The investigation is faulty. FIR is ante-timed. There is no independent corroboration of the incident from any source. There was no motive for the appellant to commit the crime. The testimony of prosecution witnesses is inherently contradictory and does not inspire confidence. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court erred while recording finding of conviction which finding is, on the face shaky, and untenable based on conjecture, and the same is liable to be set aside on all counts. 17. Per contra, learned A.G.A. retorted that the case of the prosecution is consistently proved. He has supported the findings of trial court and has submitted that testimony on record proves complicity of the accused in the crime and the source of light was in the shape of illuminated electric bulb when the video was being played on the spot in front of the house of Ram Bharosey Singh P.W.2. 18. He has supported the findings of trial court and has submitted that testimony on record proves complicity of the accused in the crime and the source of light was in the shape of illuminated electric bulb when the video was being played on the spot in front of the house of Ram Bharosey Singh P.W.2. 18. We have considered the rival submissions and also taken note of claim of the appellant and in the light of above, the moot point that arises for consideration in this appeal is confined to fact whether the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused or the accused-appellant is entitled to acquittal under Section 302 IPC? 19. While we proceed further with the case, we on careful perusal discover that the motive behind the crime in question has been stated to be existing property dispute regarding partition of some property for quite long time and as per the contents of the first information report on the date of occurrence in the night intervening 2/3.6.1986 some 'tilak'' ceremony of son of Ram Bharosay Singh (P.W.2) was going on in the village, wherein the informant and the deceased Chhatra Pal Singh were invited and they attended the ceremony. The informant along with the deceased and other villagers were watching video around 02.30 A.M. in the night, when Kallu and his son Mahesh Singh both arrived on the spot and began to hurl abuses and at the exhortation of Kallu Singh, Mahesh Singh fired on Chhatra Pal Singh from close range, which hit him on the right side of his face, due to which, the deceased fell down and died. Assailants made their escape towards eastern side. The incident was witnessed besides the informant by Ram Bhrosey Singh, Malkhan Singh, Smt. Siya Dulari and a number of villagers, who were watching the video. The incident was witnessed in the light of electricity bulb. 20. The information, as contained in Exhibit Ka-1, has been testified in the testimony of informant-Jagat Pal Singh P.W.1. He has stated that partition of property between the informant and the accused had already taken place, however, there was dispute over possession of a room (kothri), which was possessed by the informant side. Regarding the incident, he has proved that he was present on the spot and attended the 'tilak' ceremony of son of Ram Bharosey P.W.2. He has stated that partition of property between the informant and the accused had already taken place, however, there was dispute over possession of a room (kothri), which was possessed by the informant side. Regarding the incident, he has proved that he was present on the spot and attended the 'tilak' ceremony of son of Ram Bharosey P.W.2. He stated that after tilak was over everybody took the dinner, and a movie was being played on a video and a number of villagers along with the deceased were watching the same. It has also been stated by him that the incident took place around 02.30 a.m., when video was being played in front of door of Ram Bharosey P.W.2. At the same time, both the accused (Kallu Singh and his son Mahesh Singh) appeared on the spot. Kalloo Singh exhorted his son Mahesh Singh for firing on the deceased, whereupon, Mahesh Singh fired on Chhatra Pal Singh with a country-made gun from close range. The fire hit on the right side of face (temple) of the deceased, due to which, he fell there and expired. The assailants made their escape good towards northern side. Chhatra Pal Singh died on the spot. Blood oozed out and seeped in his clothes and also spilled on the ground. After the incident, the report was written by this witness (P.W.1). He went to police station-Narwal, where he lodged the report. He has testified his report as Exhibit Ka-1. He has stated that the incident was also witnessed by Malkhan Singh and a number of other villagers. 21. There are certain minor contradictions appearing in his testimony regarding some trivial details of the incident, which do not create any doubt on the veracity of this witness in so far as the incident is concerned. In this context, the testimony of Ram Bharosey P.W.2 is also very vital. He has deposed that 'tilak'' ceremony had taken place in the night and after the ceremony was over, the villagers including the deceased, informant etc. were watching a movie on video. Although, he has stated in his testimony that the incident took place on 2nd June, 1986, 'tilak' ceremony was over at 8.00 P.M. and dinner was over and film which was being shown on video started around 10-11 P.M. in the same night. were watching a movie on video. Although, he has stated in his testimony that the incident took place on 2nd June, 1986, 'tilak' ceremony was over at 8.00 P.M. and dinner was over and film which was being shown on video started around 10-11 P.M. in the same night. He has also testified that deceased Chhatra Pal Singh was also watching the video sitting under 'neem' tree. It was around 2.00 to 2.30 A.M., he was inside his house, some blasting sound was heard, whereupon he scampered out of his house and saw that Jagat Pal Singh was saying that Mahesh Singh has killed him (Chhatra Pal Singh). Chhatra Pal Singh was lying under 'neem' tree and he had expired. Blood was oozing out of his temporal side, which seeped his clothes and spilled on the ground. Stampede was created in the incident. According to him, there was no light on the spot at that point of time and he could not see the person who fired on him and ran away after killing the deceased. 22. However, in so far as point of light is concerned, testimony of the Investigating Officer (P.W.9) is indicative of fact that he visited on the spot in the morning of 03.06.1986 around 07.45 and he took inspected the spot and prepared the spot map, Exhibit Ka-11, wherein he has specifically shown the place of electric bulb, marked by word 'E'. He has also stated in his testimony that he found one electric bulb installed on the spot, though, it was not illuminated at that time. It can be well understood that bulb will not flash light at 7.45 A.M. in the month of June as electricity will be switched off. 23. So far as the point of availability of light on the spot is concerned then we may conveniently observe that the testimony of P.W.1 when read conjointly with testimony of P.W.9 (Investigating Officer) reasonably proves factum of availability of reasonable light on the spot, which factual aspect cannot be doubted. It has also come on record that film was being played on video through generator, therefore, availability of light on such occasion cannot be ruled out. It has also come on record that film was being played on video through generator, therefore, availability of light on such occasion cannot be ruled out. Further, testimony of prosecution witnesses is overwhelmingly pointing at the fact that the electricity bulb, which was illuminated on the spot had its source from the tubewell of Bhikam Singh and there was electricity supply to the tubewell. Therefore, site plan, Exhibit Ka-11 rightly depicts correct picture of electric bulb which gives thrust to the claim of P.W.1 regarding availability of light on the spot and the I.O. himself saw the electricity bulb installed on the spot and he has shown the same in the site plan. Therefore, testimony of P.W.2 regarding absence of source of light on the spot, will not reflect adversely on the authenticity of the version of P.W.1 regarding availability of light at the time of occurrence. 24. One thing is apparent that testimony of Ram Bharosey Singh P.W.2 establishes fact of presence of informant Jagatpal Singh on the spot at the time of occurrence when he came out of his house, he saw Jagatpal Singh P.W.1 who told him there that Mahesh Singh fired the shot on Chhatra Pal Singh and he (P.W.2) saw the deceased lying under the 'neem' tree. 25. Ram Bharosay P.W.2 has testified that he did not invite Malkhan Singh in his 'tilak' ceremony, therefore, it is obvious that Malkhan Singh had no occasion to attend the 'tilak' ceremony, which Malkhan Singh claims to have attended, therefore, his testimony on the point of incident is not worth believing that he (Malkhan Singh P.W.3) attended tilak ceremony and he too was watching video. 26. Similarly, testimony of P.W.4, mother of the deceased, will not be taken into consideration, for the reason that there is no mention in the FIR that 'tilak' ceremony was being attended by the informant's mother Siya Dulari. Although, she has given consistent reply to all the topographical questions regarding the spot, which shows that though she might not have witnessed the incident, but she must have arrived on the spot short-while after the incident. In view of unimpeachable testimony of Jagatpal Singh, the incident and involvement of the accused stands proved, clinching and consistent on the point that there is no doubt that she was telling the truth. 27. In view of unimpeachable testimony of Jagatpal Singh, the incident and involvement of the accused stands proved, clinching and consistent on the point that there is no doubt that she was telling the truth. 27. In the wake of above scrutiny it may be conveniently summed up that the trial Judge has taken into consideration all the vital aspects of the case and has after marshalling of facts and evaluating testimony of prosecution witnesses in right prospective has rightly recorded finding of conviction and sentenced the appellant for life imprisonment, which is just punishment and as that would meet the ends of justice. 28. Let a copy of this order be certified to the concerned trial court for its intimation and follow up action.