JUDGMENT : Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Ramveer has instituted the present appeal, bearing D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 11/2009 to assail the impugned judgment dated 05.11.2008 rendered by the court of Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur. The said court vide impugned judgment dated 05.11.2008 held the appellant Ramveer guilty of offences under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC. However, the trial court recorded the acquittal of the appellant Ramveer for the offences under Sections 302 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘SC/ST Act’). 2. The complainant Siyaram has preferred D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 100/2009, to urge that the accused Ramveer, named as accused in the FIR ought to have been substantively convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and his acquittal under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, is bad in the eyes of law. 3. We shall decide D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 11/2009 and D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 100/2009 together, as the same impugned judgment has been assailed in both i.e. the appeal and revision filed before us. 4. Shiyaram (P.W.2) on 30.07.2006 at 7:05 AM at Community Health Center Bari, had presented a written report (Exhibit-P/6) before Prem Bahadur Singh (P.W.16), who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Sarmathura. Prem Bahadur Singh (P.W.16) before the court deposed that on 30.07.2006 he was posted as SHO, Police Station Sarmathura and he on receipt of information that one Girraj Meena has been murdered and his dead body has been brought to the Community Health Center, Bari, reached there. At Community Health Center, Bari, the complainant Siyaram (P.W.2) presented written report (Exhibit-P/6). In cross-examination Prem Bahadur Singh (P.W.16) admitted that in the evening of 29.07.2006, he received a wireless massage regarding murder, falling within the area of police post Jhiri, but since he was occupied in the investigation of other case for apprehension of the accused therein, he could not reach at the spot. In the morning, he reached at Community Health Center, Bari. 5. We may notice here that Siyaram (P.W.2) in the present case submitted a typed written report. The said typed written report (Exhibit- P/6), when translated into English, reads as under:- To, SHO Police Station Sarmathura, Subject:- lodging of the report. Sir, it is submitted that the applicant is resident of Village Kachhpura, Police Station, Sarmathura. 5. We may notice here that Siyaram (P.W.2) in the present case submitted a typed written report. The said typed written report (Exhibit- P/6), when translated into English, reads as under:- To, SHO Police Station Sarmathura, Subject:- lodging of the report. Sir, it is submitted that the applicant is resident of Village Kachhpura, Police Station, Sarmathura. Applicant was present in his mining plot No. 8 in the revenue jurisdiction of Tarwa. In the evening of 29.07.2006 at about 06:00 PM, Girraj aged 25 years son of the applicant was present along with 30 to 40 persons. At that time Dacoit Samunder Singh son of Patiram Gurjar resident of Birja Thana, Sarmathura, Ramveer resident of Bairpura, Thana Basedi and Kamal Moroli, Thana Dang Basai and 3 to 4 other persons armed with guns came. Immediately on arrival, they said that they are members of Prakash and Hariya gang. They declared that mining activity be stopped. When the complainant refused to do so, then Kamal Dacoit fired a shot upon Girraj. The said shot hit him on the hand. Second shot was fired by Ramveer which directly hit in the chest. Due to shots fired Girraj son of the applicant died at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by the applicant, Lakhan, Jeetu, and other persons. Other persons who were standing there had also witnessed the occurrence. All Dacoits after firing the shots had left the spot. Therefore, sir, it is requested that after registration of the case assailants be arrested and legal action be taken against them and they be got punished. Date: 30.7.2006 Sd/- Siyaram s/o Kishanlal Meena by caste Meena, r/o Village Kachhpura, Police Station Sarmathura, Tehsil Bari." 6. From the perusal of the above written report (Exhibit-P/6), it is apparent that the occurrence had taken place on 29.07.2006 at 06:00 PM. The written report (Exhibit-P/6) was presented on 30.07.2006 at 7:05 AM. The case was registered at Police Station Sarmathura on 30.07.2006 at 08:15 AM. The special report reached Illaqa Magistrate on 31.07.2006. 7. Mr. Deepak Soni, leaned counsel appearing for the appellant Ramveer has laid much emphasis on the fact that the written report (Exhibit-P/6) was got typed and thus, same was submitted after result of consultations and deliberations. The case was registered at Police Station Sarmathura on 30.07.2006 at 08:15 AM. The special report reached Illaqa Magistrate on 31.07.2006. 7. Mr. Deepak Soni, leaned counsel appearing for the appellant Ramveer has laid much emphasis on the fact that the written report (Exhibit-P/6) was got typed and thus, same was submitted after result of consultations and deliberations. We find that in the FIR (Exhibit-P/11) even though accused have been named as Dacoit, the investigating agency has not submitted the charge sheet under any of the provisions pertaining to robbery and dacoity. The trial court had also not formulated the charge of dacoity. A perusal of the order framing charges by the trial court also reveals that the appellant Ramveer was charged for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. Therefore, even though the complainant had described the accused as Dacoit, no investigation was carried to this effect. Even the provisions of Dacoity Affected Area Act, have not been invoked. The only reason for the accused to go to the spot which has surfaced during the case of the prosecution is that the accused intended Siyaram to close his mining activity. In the written report (Exhibit-P/6) only three persons have been named, i.e. Samundar Singh, Kamal Singh and Ramveer. 8. We are informed that during the interrogation, the investigating agency, came to the conclusion that 3 to 4 unnamed persons named in the written report (Exhibit-P/6) leading to registration of FIR (Exhibit-P-11) bearing No. 224/2006 registered at Police Station Sarmathura, were Hariya @ Hari Singh, Lakhan, Uddal and Bhura. 9. In the present case, the investigating agency had not resorted to the provision of Section 299 Cr.P.C., but had submitted piecemeal charge-sheets against accused persons, as and when they were apprehended. First charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellant Ramveer. He was tried in Sessions Case No. 17/2007 and the impugned judgment, as already noted by us, was rendered on 05.11.2008. The accused Kamal Singh, who was named in the FIR (Exhibit- P/11) and allegedly fired a shot, during the investigation was declared proclaimed offender, we are informed by the learned counsel for the parties that during the pendency of the appeal, Kamal Singh has died. 10. The accused Kamal Singh, who was named in the FIR (Exhibit- P/11) and allegedly fired a shot, during the investigation was declared proclaimed offender, we are informed by the learned counsel for the parties that during the pendency of the appeal, Kamal Singh has died. 10. Samundar Singh who was another person named in the FIR was tried in Sessions Case No. 21/2009 and the Court of Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur, vide impugned judgment dated 23.04.2010 convicted him for offences under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC. However, he was acquitted of offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. The trial Judge vide separate order of even date had convicted Samundar Singh as under:- Under Section 148 IPC - to undergo three years R.I. Under Section 302/149 IPC - to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year additional R.I. 11. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the accused Samundar Singh has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 347/2010. 12. Lakhan Singh not named in the FIR was subsequently apprehended. He was tried by the court Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur, in Sessions Case No. 35/2008. The said court on 23.01.2009 recorded acquittal of Lakhan Singh. The judgment dated 23.01.2009 has been assailed by the State of Rajasthan by filing D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 124/2011. Siyaram the complainant has filed D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 690/2009 to assail the acquittal of Lakhan Singh for offences under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. 13. Hariya @ Hari Singh was also separately tried by the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur, in Sessions Case No. 32/2010 and vide a separate judgment dated 13.09.2012 Hariya @ Hari Singh was acquitted. The said judgment has been challenged before us by the complainant Siyaram by filing D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 908/2012. 14. Uddal, who had absconded also was apprehended later. He was also tried by the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases in Sessions Case No. 01/2015. The said judgment has been challenged before us by the complainant Siyaram by filing D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 908/2012. 14. Uddal, who had absconded also was apprehended later. He was also tried by the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases in Sessions Case No. 01/2015. The said court vide impugned judgment dated 04.10.2016 held Uddal guilty of offences under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC and vide a separate order of even date sentenced him as under: Under Section 302/149 IPC- to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional S.I. Under Section 148 IPC- to undergo three years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo, additional three months S.I. 15. Since all the accused have been tried separately, we shall decide appeal against conviction filed by the respective accused and appeal against acquittal filed by the complainant and leave to appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, separately but simultaneously. 16. In the written report leading to registration of FIR (Exhibit-P/11), it has been specifically stated that two shots were fired, one by Kamal and another by Ramveer, resulting into death of Girraj son of the complainant Siyaram (P.W.2). Girraj as a result of firearm injuries, died at the spot. His dead body was brought to the Community Health Center, Bari. 17. Dr. Rajesh Mittal (P.W.15) on 30.07.2006 at 08:00 AM had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Girraj. In the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/17) Dr. Rajesh Mittal had noted following injuries:- (1) Entrance wound 6x6 cm, through and through, bone fragmented and muscles fragmented at right arm at level or just elbow. (2) Entrance wound 6x6 cm at right side, the level or just below at chest post -axillary line which goes medially towards sic. (i) Right humerous bone fragmented. (ii) 7th and 8th Rib right side fragmented. 18. A perusal of both the injuries reveals that there are two entrance wounds. Thus it is proved from the medical evidence that two shots were fired in the occurrence. In the post Mortem Report, it is noted that five pieces of fragmented bullet were found inside the body. We also find that the right humorous bone and 7th and 8th rib of right side due to impact of shots fired, were fragmented. Thus it is proved from the medical evidence that two shots were fired in the occurrence. In the post Mortem Report, it is noted that five pieces of fragmented bullet were found inside the body. We also find that the right humorous bone and 7th and 8th rib of right side due to impact of shots fired, were fragmented. As per opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was bleeding and shock due to injuries caused to vital organ by firearm. 19. In the present case to secure conviction of the appellant, prosecution has relied upon evidence of four eye witnesses namely Siyaram (P.W.2), Lakhan Singh (P.W.5), Jitendra (P.W.6) and Radhesyam (P.W.10). 20. Siyaram (P.W.2) in the court deposed that on the date of occurrence at 06:00 PM, he was present at mining plot No. 8, which is situated in Tarwa. His son Girraj was also present there. Samundar Singh, Ramveer and Kamal and three and four other persons came there. They all were having guns. They encircled and gave abuse in the name of mother and sister. They said that they belong to Prakash and Hariya Gang, therefore, mines be closed immediately. Thereafter Ramveer had fired a shot at Girraj. The said shot hit in the chest of Girraj. The second shot was fired by Kamal. The said shot hit in the right hand. This witness stated that besides him, the occurrence was witnessed by Lakhan Singh (P.W.5), Jitendra (P.W.6) and Radheshyam (P.W.10). 21. In cross-examination this witness admitted that in the area other mines are also working. He stated that size of other plot is 1-1 hectare or 2-2 hectare and others owners of mining plot had deployed four to five labourers. This witness further submitted that he had written report in his hand writing but since his hand writings was not legible, he got the same typed from computer. This witness further stated that his mine is at a distance of 70 to 80 yards from the road and road is metallic. In cross-examination this witness stated that he knew all the accused and they are Gundas. ^^eSa lHkh eqyfteku dks igys ls tkurk Fkk D;ksafd ;g xq.Mk VkbZi ds vkneh gSA^^ 22. Siyaram (P.W.2) further stated that he had lodged the report on the next day. This witness further stated that he knew Hariya earlier and his terror is prevailing in the area. ^^eSa lHkh eqyfteku dks igys ls tkurk Fkk D;ksafd ;g xq.Mk VkbZi ds vkneh gSA^^ 22. Siyaram (P.W.2) further stated that he had lodged the report on the next day. This witness further stated that he knew Hariya earlier and his terror is prevailing in the area. This witness stated that he is not aware as to which gun was carried by Kamal or Ramveer. 23. Lakhan Singh (P.W.5) stated that he had gone to the mining plot of the complainant Siyaram. This witness further stated that Siyaram is his brother. This witness in the examination-in-chief stated that they had informed police that Girraj had died at the spot. This witness also stated that Kamal had fired a shot which hit on the hand of Girraj and Ramveer had fired a shot which hit on the ribs of the deceased Giriraj. 24. To similar effect is statement of Jitendra (P.W.6). 25. Radhesyam (P.W.10) has not supported the case of the prosecution. 26. Badri Prasad (P.W.4) has stated that after hearing noise of firing of shot, he reached at the spot and he saw that Hari Singh @ Hariya, Uddal, Bhagwandas and Lakhan etc were running away. They all were armed with guns. 27. We have heard Mr. Deepak Soni, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Ramveer, Mr. N.S. Dhakad, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Ganesh Meena, counsel appearing for the complainant Siyaram Meena. 28. Mr. Deepak Soni, the learned counsel for the appellant has laid much emphasis on the fact that no gun has been recovered from the appellant Ramveer. The learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed before us to say that in fact, shot fired by the co-accused Kamal had hit the deceased Girraj and therefore, the appellant Ramveer cannot be held responsible. The learned counsel further contended that the written report is typed copy, which was generated from computer. In the present case, the written report was submitted after twelve hours and special report reached Illaqa Magistrate, after thirty-six hours. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to consultations and deliberations, appellant Ramveer has been falsely implicated. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant Ramveer was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He has been acquitted of offence under Section 302 IPC and therefore, his conviction for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant Ramveer was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He has been acquitted of offence under Section 302 IPC and therefore, his conviction for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is to be assumed that the charge under Section 302 IPC was against the co-accused Kamal, who has died during the pendency of appeal and conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC cannot be sustained. 29. Siyaram Meena (P.W.2) is the father of the deceased Girraj. He has been duly corroborated by the testimony of Lakhan Singh (P.W.5) and Jitendra (P.W.6). All the three witnesses have stated that Kamal had fired the first shot on the arm of the deceased and therefore, the present appellant Ramveer had fired the shot on the chest of the deceased. 30. We have perused the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/17). There are two entrance wounds. One on the arm and another on the chest. Thus, it stands proved that in the occurrence, two shots were fired. 31. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that doctor has nowhere stated in the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/17) that the injuries were ante mortem in nature. We find that in the court deposition, Dr. Rajesh Mittal (P.W.15) has specifically stated that injuries on the person of deceased were ante mortem in nature. We otherwise are amused by the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The shot fired had fractured the ribs and the bone of Humerous. Therefore, firing of the shot by the appellant had resulted into the death of Giriraj. Therefore, the injuries are ante mortem. It is not that after the person had died, then the shots were fired. Sometimes, in an over zeal, the counsel may submit an argument which is not justifiable. Therefore, we ignore this argument. 32. The arguments raised that the appellant Ramveer has been acquitted for the offence under Section 302 and his conviction cannot be sustained for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC is no longer res integra. The controversy was settled way back in Willie (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1956 AIR 116. Therefore, we ignore this argument. 32. The arguments raised that the appellant Ramveer has been acquitted for the offence under Section 302 and his conviction cannot be sustained for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC is no longer res integra. The controversy was settled way back in Willie (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1956 AIR 116. In the present case, right from the beginning in the written report, during investigation and in the evidence in the court, it has surfaced that the appellant had fired a shot in the chest of the deceased leading to fragmentation of ribs. The shot fired by the appellant had caused the death. Even if, he is acquitted for the offence under Section 302 IPC, his conviction for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC cannot be set aside as it cannot be said that prejudice has been caused to the appellant. The prosecution right from the beginning had set out the case that appellant had fired the shot and same resulted into injuries on the chest of the deceased and same proved fatal. These facts were known to the appellant. He knew that he is one, who had fired fatal shot. Therefore, this argument is rejected. 33. We are conscious that in the present case, the complainant had submitted a typed written report. We also cannot become oblivious of the fact that there is delay in reaching of the special report. We also cannot ignore that during investigation, and interrogation, eyewitness has named 3 or 4 persons who were named in the written report. It is true that by widening the net, the complainant has resorted to over implication. But falsus uno falsus omnibus maxim is not available in the Indian courts. Therefore, so far deposition of the witnesses naming the appellant as the one who had fired the shot, in the chest of the deceased is concerned, same inspires confidence. 34. Consequently, we uphold the conviction of the appellant Ramveer for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC, recorded by the trial court and the appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby, dismissed. We also uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 148 IPC. Sentences awarded on both the counts as ordered by the trial court, shall run concurrently. 35. We also uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 148 IPC. Sentences awarded on both the counts as ordered by the trial court, shall run concurrently. 35. So far revision petition filed by the complainant Siyaram Meena is concerned, we are of the view that the appellant ought to have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC substantively, but since we have relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Willie (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the issue remains academic only. 36. So far acquittal of the appellant for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is concerned, it is not the case of the prosecution that murder was committed for the reason that victim was a member of Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of evidence to that effect, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act has no application. 37. Reliance can be placed upon Dinesh @ budha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2006 (SC) 1261, wherein Supreme Court observed that "Since qua non for application of Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is that an offence must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of schedule caste and scheduled tribes. Similarly, reliance can also be placed on the cases, of Pappu Khan v. State of Raj., D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 722/1998, decided on 2.9.1999, Sohan Singh & Anr. v. State of Raj., 2002(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1541, Masumsha, Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 SCC (Cri) 722 and Subhan Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 (1) WLN 454 . 38. Therefore, no interference is warranted so far acquittal of appellant for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act is concerned. Consequently, for the reasons stated above, D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.100/2009 is also dismissed.