JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 11/12.07.2013 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in S.T. No.20/2009, whereby the appellant/accused Bhagwan Singh, who was charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and also u/s 25 of the Arms Act, was convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. He was further convicted u/s 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.20,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months’ additional rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. However, the appellant was acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act. 3. Case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the FIR was lodged by PW3 Dharam Singh on 21.4.2007 at P.S. Kotwali Bageshwar. According to the contents of FIR, on 21.4.2007, the marriage of Rakesh S/o Bhagwan Singh was solemnized at Village Dafaut. Marriage procession had come back at 5:30 PM. The bridegroom’s father Bhagwan Singh fired his gun. The pellets struck Anita, Khushal Singh, Ummed Singh, Smt. Vimla W/o Devendra Singh and Smt. Vimla W/o Bhupal Singh. They were taken to hospital. Smt. Anita and Khushal Singh died. Rest of the victims were referred to Base Hospital, Almora. The F.I.R. was registered. Initially, the appellant was charged u/s 304 (Part II) IPC but later on, the Charge was converted to Sections 302 and 307 IPC along with Section 25 of the Arms Act. 4. The matter was investigated and Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 5. Prosecution has examined as many as sixteen witnesses in support of its case. 6. Accused was also examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of prosecution. According to him, the children were playing with a ball. The ball, incidentally, struck against the gun. The gun fell on the ground causing accidental fire. 7. Appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court, as noticed hereinabove. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned Advocates, appearing on behalf of the appellant, have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 9. Learned Sr. The gun fell on the ground causing accidental fire. 7. Appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court, as noticed hereinabove. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned Advocates, appearing on behalf of the appellant, have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 9. Learned Sr. Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, has supported the judgment dated 11/12.7.2013. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record carefully. 11. PW1 Kamla Karmyal deposed that on 21.4.2007, she was the Pradhan of Villages Mithukot and Pokhari. The marriage procession of son of accused had come back. She heard the sound of fire arm. However, she did not see who has fired. She was declared hostile. In her cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor, she admitted that Ummed Singh, Vimla Devi, Sonu and Anita Devi had received the pellet injuries. Later on, Sonu and Anita Devi had died. 12. PW2 Chanchal Singh is the eyewitness. He deposed that on 21.4.2007, the marriage procession of son of accused had come back. Accused Bhagwan Singh was standing on the roof. He was carrying a double barrel gun. He aimed at his (PW2’s) wife and opened the fire. The bullet hit on the chest of his wife. His wife collapsed. She was taken to Bageshwar hospital. She was declared dead at about 7 PM. Dharam Singh lodged the report. When the appellant shot the fire, apart from his wife, Khushal Singh @ Sonu also received pellet injuries. He also died in Bareilly. Ummed Singh, Vimla Devi W/o Devendra Singh and Vimla Devi W/o Bhupal Singh also received the pellet injuries. The appellant fired his gun. The gun was owned by Rakesh, S/o accused Bhagwan Singh. He has identified the gun in the Court. 13. PW3 Dharam Singh has testified that the marriage procession had come back on 21.4.2007. At 4:20 PM, he heard the sound of fire arm. The fire was shot from the roof. It led to a commotion. The bullet hit Smt. Anita and son of Tejpal Singh. 3-4 other persons also received the pellet injuries. Smt. Anita and son of Tejpal Singh were brought to Bageshwar hospital. Other injured persons were also taken to the hospital. Smt. Anita Devi was declared dead. Police prepared the inquest report. The accused was arrested. It led to a commotion. The bullet hit Smt. Anita and son of Tejpal Singh. 3-4 other persons also received the pellet injuries. Smt. Anita and son of Tejpal Singh were brought to Bageshwar hospital. Other injured persons were also taken to the hospital. Smt. Anita Devi was declared dead. Police prepared the inquest report. The accused was arrested. He did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen the accused firing. However, when he was re-called, he has denied the suggestion that the children were playing and the ball hit the gun and it fell down due to which the gun was fired. 14. PW4 Tejpal Singh is another eyewitness. He deposed that the marriage procession of Rakesh Singh had come back. Bhagwan Singh opened the fire. The pellets hit Anita Devi and his son Khushal Singh. 3-4 other persons also received the injuries by pellets. Smt. Anita was declared dead. He took his son Khushal Singh @ Sonu to Almora, from where, he was referred to Haldwani and subsequently to Bareilly. His son died during treatment. He has also denied the suggestion that the children were playing and the ball hit the gun which led to fire. 15. PW5 Vimla Devi W/o Devendra Singh is also the eyewitness. She has deposed that the accused was standing on the roof. He was holding the gun of his son. He opened the fire. She also received the injury by pellet. After 10-15 minutes, she became unconscious. Anita Devi and Sonu (son of Tejpal) also received the bullet injuries. Both of them died. 16. PW6 Ummed Singh has deposed that Bhagwan Singh was holding a gun. He received the pellet injuries. He along with Vimla Devi W/o Devendra Singh, Vimla Devi W/o Bhupal Singh, Sonu and Anita Devi suffered the injuries. They were taken to hospital. He has denied the suggestion that it was a case of accidental fire. 17. PW7 Vimla Devi W/o Bhupal Singh has deposed that accused Bhagwan Singh opened the fire whereby she along with Sonu, Anita, Vimla Devi W/o Devendra Singh and Ummed Singh received the bullet injuries. Sonu and Anita Devi died. 18. PW8 Dr. Jitendra Bhatt has medically examined the injured Khushal Singh, Vimla Devi W/o Devendra Singh, Ummed Singh and Vimla Devi W/o Bhupal Singh in the hospital. Sonu and Anita Devi died. 18. PW8 Dr. Jitendra Bhatt has medically examined the injured Khushal Singh, Vimla Devi W/o Devendra Singh, Ummed Singh and Vimla Devi W/o Bhupal Singh in the hospital. He referred the injured persons to the higher center. 19. PW9 Diwan Singh Bisht has prepared the inquest report of deceased Smt. Anita. 20. PW10 Dr. Akhilesh Kumar has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Smt. Anita. According to him, the cause of death of deceased was Cardio-respiratory failure due to hemorrhage and shock due to penetrating firearm injuries to Heart and its Great Vessels. 21. PW11 Dr. Mukesh Joshi was the Medical Officer at Almora. He has testified that he medically examined Vimla Devi W/o Bhupal Singh and Vimla Devi W/o Devendra Singh. 22. PW12 Head Constable Puran Chand has reduced the F.I.R. into writing. 23. PW13 Dr. S.K. Sharma is the Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Dehradun. He has examined the gun used in the crime. According to the report given by him, the empty cartridge, which had been sent for F.S.L. examination, was fired from the same gun which was used in the crime. 24. PW14 Dr. Srikrishan has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Khushal Singh. According to him, the cause of death of deceased was Coma as a result of ante-mortem injuries (gunshot injuries). 25. PW15 S.I. Deshpal Singh Tomar and PW16 Ramesh Ram Arya are the formal witnesses. 26. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the appellant have vehemently argued that the appellant had no intention to cause the death. According to them, the appellant was holding the gun. The children were playing with the ball. The ball struck against the gun and it led to accidental fire. 27. There is no merit in the submission put forth by learned Advocates appearing for the appellant. PW2 Chanchal Singh has categorically deposed that the appellant has aimed at his wife Smt. Anita and fired. The bullet hit on her chest. She was taken to the hospital and declared dead. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that the ball has struck against the gun which led to accidental fire. PW3 Dharam Singh has also admitted that the injuries were caused by the accused with the firearm. The injured were taken to the hospital. The bullet hit on her chest. She was taken to the hospital and declared dead. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that the ball has struck against the gun which led to accidental fire. PW3 Dharam Singh has also admitted that the injuries were caused by the accused with the firearm. The injured were taken to the hospital. He has also denied that it was a case of accidental fire. PW4 Tejpal Singh is another eyewitness. According to him, the appellant fired. The pellets had hit Anita and his son Khushal @ Sonu. He has also denied the suggestion that it was an accidental fire. PW5 Vimla Devi W/o Devendra Singh has also corroborated the statements of eyewitnesses PW2 Chandchal Singh and PW4 Tejpal Singh. According to her also, the appellant has fired and she suffered the pellet injuries and was taken to the hospital. PW6 Ummed Singh is another eyewitness. According to him also, the appellant was seen holding a gun. He also received the injuries. He was taken to the hospital for treatment. He has also denied that it was a case of accidental fire. PW7 Vimla Devi W/o Bhupal Singh is also the eyewitness. According to her, the appellant fired his gun and she along with others had received the pellet injuries. She was also taken to the hospital. She has admitted in the cross-examination that the appellant fired aiming Anita Devi and Khushal Singh. They both died during to firearm injuries, as per the doctors, who conducted the post-mortem examination. The other injured were also examined by the doctors and they have opined that the injuries were caused by the firearm. PW13 S.I. S.K. Sharma has proved the Examination Report (Ex.A-18) submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory. According to the said report also, the bullet was fired from the same gun which was used by the appellant in commission of crime. 28. Appellant was standing on the roof. He aimed at Anita Devi. The bullet struck Anita Devi on her chest. Khushal Singh @ Sonu also received firearm injuries. Anita Devi and Khushal Singh @ Sonu both died. Other persons also suffered the pellet injuries by firearm. Appellant was seen shooting by PW2 Chanchal Singh, PW4 Tejpal Singh, PW5 Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Devendra Singh, PW6 Ummed Singh and PW7 Vimla Devi W/o Bhupal Singh. It cannot be termed as the case of negligence. Anita Devi and Khushal Singh @ Sonu both died. Other persons also suffered the pellet injuries by firearm. Appellant was seen shooting by PW2 Chanchal Singh, PW4 Tejpal Singh, PW5 Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Devendra Singh, PW6 Ummed Singh and PW7 Vimla Devi W/o Bhupal Singh. It cannot be termed as the case of negligence. The accused had knowledge throughout that if the bullet is fired aiming at a particular person, it would result in his/her death. The plea taken by the appellant that it was a case of accidental fire, has rightly been discarded by the Trial Court. There is no occasion for us to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. 29. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 30. Appellant is already in jail. He shall serve out the sentence, so imposed against him by the Trial Court. 31. However, before parting with the judgment, it would be apt to take judicial notice of the frequent deaths and injuries caused by the persons using fire arms in marriage/religious processions/social gatherings/public/political rallies. This tendency is required to be curbed. 32. Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1959) provides that no person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any fire-arms or ammunition unless he holds in that behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Section 9 of the Act of 1959 provides prohibition of acquisition or possession by, or of sale or transfer to young persons and certain other persons of fire-arms, etc. Section 13 provides for grant of licences. Section 14 provides for refusal of licences. Section 15 provides for duration and renewal of licence. Section 16 provides for fees etc., for licence. 33. The Central Govt. has also framed rules called the Arms Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 3 provides for classification of arms and ammunition. Rule 14 provides for licence for protection of crops and cattle. Rule 15 provides for licence for target practice. Rules 16 provides for age limit for training and target practice. Rule 23 provides for licensing authorities are required to furnish information to the District Magistrate. Rule 51 provides for the procedure of submitting the application for licence. Rule 52 provides for form of licence. Rule 15 provides for licence for target practice. Rules 16 provides for age limit for training and target practice. Rule 23 provides for licensing authorities are required to furnish information to the District Magistrate. Rule 51 provides for the procedure of submitting the application for licence. Rule 52 provides for form of licence. Rule 54 provides for renewal of licence. Form III deals with licence for the acquisition, possession and carrying of arms or ammunition for sport/protection/display. Item No.5 of the form of renewal of the licence reads as under:- “5. The licensee or any retainer action under this licence shall not carry any arms covered thereby otherwise than in good faith for the purpose of sport/protection/display and, save where he is specially authorized in this behalf by the District Magistrate concerned, he shall not take any such arms to a fair, religious procession or other public assemblage [or within the campus or precincts of any educational institution.]” 34. It is thus, evident that the fire-arms can be permitted to be carried for the purpose of sport/self protection/protection of crops and cattle/display. The fire-arms are not permitted to be carried in a fair, religious procession or other public assemblage or within the campus or precincts of any educational institution. 35. The licence for fire-arms is issued only for limited purposes. No person has a fundamental right to hold fire-arms. The State has absolute right to regulate acquisition and use of arms by laying down the norms. 36. Accordingly, the following mandatory directions are issued:- (A). No person, throughout the State of Uttarakhand, shall carry any fire-arm to a fair, religious procession/marriage procession or other public assemblage or within the campus or precincts of any educational institution. (B). The Licensing Authorities are also directed to ensure that no licence is issued to any person, who has not completed the age of 21 years. (C). No licence shall be issued to a person who has been sentenced on conviction of any offence involving violence or moral turpitude to imprisonment for [any term] at any time during a period of five years. (D). No licence shall be issued to a person who has been ordered to execute under Chapter VIII of the [code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974)], a bond for keeping the peace or for good behaviour, during the term of the bond. (E). (D). No licence shall be issued to a person who has been ordered to execute under Chapter VIII of the [code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974)], a bond for keeping the peace or for good behaviour, during the term of the bond. (E). The Senior Superintendents of Police of each district are directed to issue necessary directions to all the SHOs’ falling in their jurisdiction to comply with the directions issued hereinabove. (F). The Senior Superintendents of Police of each district shall be personally responsible to ensure due compliance of these directions.