Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4 (MAN)

Vinodkumar Singh v. State of Manipur

2018-02-19

ABHILASHA KUMARI, N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT : Abhilasha Kumari, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused, Vinodkumar Singh, challenging the judgment and order dated 4.8.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Senapati, Manipur, in Sessions Trial Case No. 1 of 2014. The appellant has been convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and 27(1) Arms Act. The appellant has also challenged the order dated 18.8.2016 passed by the Trial Court whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years for the offence under Section 302, IPC, deducting the period of five months which he had already spent in judicial custody. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 27(1) Arms Act, which period would run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11-11-2000 at 8.00 p.m., H.C. No. 800686269, Bhagawan Singh, aged about 39 years, s/o. Gopal Singh of Roksha Nagar Village, Bhojpur-District, who was serving in Bihar of B-Coy, 25 Bn.CRPF, Mao Post, was shot dead by the appellant/accused with his service 9 mm.Carbine B/Butt No. 73, Body No. 10081759, inside the Line Barrack of the Unit. On 11.11.2000 at 9.00 p.m., Shri M.P. Tyagi, O.C., B-Coy, 25 Bn.CRPF, Mao Post, lodged a written report with the O/C, Mao Police Station to the effect, that on the same day at about 8.00 p.m. the accused had shot dead the deceased Bhagawan Singh. FIR No. 16(11)2000 was lodged with Mao Police Station in this regard u/Ss. 302 and 27 Arms Act. Investigation into the crime commenced and the case was committed to the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, Senapati, found sufficient prima facie evidence against the accused appellant and framed the charge under Sections 302, IPC and 27, Arms Act. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial commenced. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and led documentary evidence. The defence did not examine any defence witness. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge arrived at the conclusion that the charges under Sections 302, IPC and 27(1) Arms Act have been proved against the appellant and proceeded to convict and sentence him vide the impugned judgment and order. 4. Mr. The defence did not examine any defence witness. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge arrived at the conclusion that the charges under Sections 302, IPC and 27(1) Arms Act have been proved against the appellant and proceeded to convict and sentence him vide the impugned judgment and order. 4. Mr. K. Modhusudon, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence have been passed without properly appreciating the evidence on record. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate that there are major contradictions in the examination in-chief and cross-examination of the sole eye witness, PW-3, which cast doubt upon the manner in which the incident is supposed to have occurred. This gives rise to grave doubt about the case of the prosecution. That there are contradictions in the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses, as well, that ought not to have been acted upon. There is a discrepancy in the evidence of the doctor, PW-1 and PW-2, which may give rise to the possibility that the deceased was beaten by other persons before the incident. That in view of the inter se contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which have not been noticed or dealt with by the Sessions Court, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Under the circumstances, benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the appellant. 5. That the judgment and order under challenge, having been passed without proper application of mind or appreciation of evidence, deserves to be quashed and set aside. This Court may, therefore, grant the prayer made by the appellant. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Padam Singh v. State of U.P. (2000) 1 SCC 621 : ( AIR 2000 SC 361 ) on the point of contradiction in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. The relevant paragraph relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is reproduced herein below. "5. The relevant paragraph relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is reproduced herein below. "5. As has been started earlier, it has been noticed by us that the judgments of Hon'ble Justice Kundan Singh as well as Hon'ble Justice Malviya, suffered from the infirmity that the learned Judges have not appreciated the veracity of the four eye-witnesses and have not come to their conclusion on appreciation of the evidence on record. This approach of the learned Judges, while coming to the ultimate conclusion that the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt has forced us to examine the evidence of the four eye-witnesses and to find out whether there is any substance in the contention of Mr. Bachawat that the prosecution story, as unfolded through these witnesses is not true. It is in this context that even though the deceased Hari Singh belonging to the prosecution party died and three of the accused persons viz. Lekh Raj, Munshi and another unknown person, were found dead, but the prosecution evidence is totally silent as to how these three people died. That Lekh Raj, Munshi and the unknown person died in course of the occurrence is established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution evidence, excepting, indicating that Raghuraj was also firing, there is not an iota of material, indicating, how the three people belonging to the accused party died. It is too well settled that when the prosecution does not explain the injury sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of occurrence, the Court can draw the inference that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and has thus, not presented the true version. It is also well settled, where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses, then, non-explanation of the injury on the accused by the prosecution assumes greater importance. Adjudged from the aforesaid stand point and in my absence of any explanation as to how three of the people belonging to the accused party died, the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 become vulnerable and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. That prosecution witnesses and accused persons are inimical to each other is apparent from the evidence of the four eye-witnesses. That prosecution witnesses and accused persons are inimical to each other is apparent from the evidence of the four eye-witnesses. It has also been elicited from the cross-examination of the eye-witnesses that while the accused persons were running away and the prosecution witnesses were chasing, there had been no assault by the prosecution party nor had there been any firing from them. If that be so and according to the medical evidence, the unknown male persons died on receiving multiple gun-shot ante-mortem injuries and he must have died an instantaneous death, then obviously, the fact that the dead body was found at a distance of four furlongs would establish that the prosecution case, as unfolded through me evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is not true and the true version is not coming forward. On this ground alone, the accused is entitled to the benefit of being acquitted." 6. The appeal has been strongly opposed by Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Senior GA, assisted by Mr. Shyam Sharma, appearing on behalf of the State Government. The learned Senior GA., has submitted that if the evidence is scrutinized, it will be seen that the so-called contradictions being pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant are not major ones but are minor in nature. The prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Sessions Judge has, after proper appreciation of evidence, rightly arrived at the conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellant/accused. It is submitted that the discrepancy in the number of injuries found on the body of the deceased, as deposed by PW-1, the doctor and PW-2, are due to the fact that the entry and exit wounds made by the bullets have been described separately. In fact, there are no discrepancies at all and even if it is considered to be a discrepancy it is only a minor one which is not sufficient to give the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Learned G.A., has further submitted that the so-called contradictions in the evidence of PW-3 and the other PWs cannot said to be of any significance. He submits that it is a settled position of law that undue importance ought not be attached to minor discrepancies if the case of the prosecution is strong and unshaken in other respects. Learned G.A., has further submitted that the so-called contradictions in the evidence of PW-3 and the other PWs cannot said to be of any significance. He submits that it is a settled position of law that undue importance ought not be attached to minor discrepancies if the case of the prosecution is strong and unshaken in other respects. That there is ample evidence on record to establish the presence of the appellant at the scene of crime and the eye-witness has remained unshaken in his evidence that he saw the appellant shoot the deceased. The evidence of the eye-witness has been corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses. Hence, even if the Court finds minor contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution, the same may be overlooked. That the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge is just and proper and has been passed after proper appreciation of the evidence on record. There is no illegality or infirmity in the said order, therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Government Advocate has relied upon the following judgments (2001) 8 SCC 86 : ( AIR 2001 SC 3678 ) Sukhdev Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar. The relevant extracts of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: "3. It is indeed necessary however to note that there would hardly be a witness whose evidence does not contain some amount of exaggeration or embellishment-sometimes there would be a deliberate attempt to offer the same and sometimes the witnesses in their over anxiety to do better from the witness box details out an exaggerated account. In Appabhai and Anr. v. State of Gujarat (1988 (Suppl) SCC 241): ( AIR 1988 SC 696 ), this Court in paragraph 13 of the Report observed: "The court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such facts, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses now a days go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy." Reliance has also been placed upon the case of Paulmeli & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2014) 13 SCC 90 : (AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 1249, paras 21 & 22). The relevant extracts of the judgment are as follows: "26. A similar view has been reiterated in Appabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, 1998 (Supp) SCC 241 : ( AIR 1988 SC 696 ), wherein this Court has cautioned the courts below not to give undue importance to minor discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness for the reason that witnesses now a days go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. However, the courts should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy. 27. In Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643 : ( AIR 2003 SC 3617 ), this Court had taken note of its various earlier judgments and held that even if major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, it is the duty of the court to separate grain from chaff. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) has no application in India and the witness cannot be branded as a liar. In case this maxim is applied in all the cases it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, truth is the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of credence, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient or unworthy of reliance, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well." On the aspect that conviction in a murder case can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, the learned senior Government Advocate has relied upon Anil Phukan v. State of Assam: (1993) 3 SCC 282 : ( AIR 1993 SC 1462 ). The next judgment which has been pressed into service by the learned senior Government Advocate to establish that mere variance of the prosecution story with the medical evidence should not lead to the conclusion of rejection of the case of prosecution is Mohan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 883 . The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as follows: "11. The question is how to test the veracity of the prosecution story especially when it is with some variance with the medical evidence. Mere variance of the prosecution story with the medical evidence, in all cases, should not lead to the conclusion, inevitably to reject the prosecution story. Efforts should be made to find the truth, this is the very object for which courts are created. To search it out, the courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is onerous duty of the court, within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on one hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should get scot free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused. For this, one has to comprehend the totality of the facts and the circumstances as spelled out through the evidence, depending on the facts of each case by testing the credibility of eye witnesses including the medical evidence, of course after excluding that parts of the evidence which are vague and uncertain. There is no mathematical formula through which the truthfulness of a prosecution or a defence case could be concretised. It would depend on the evidence of each case including the manner of deposition and his demeans, clarity, corroboration of witnesses and overall, the conscience of a Judge evoked by the evidence on record. So courts have to proceed further and make genuine efforts within judicial sphere to search out the truth and not stop at the threshold of creation of doubt to confer benefit of doubt. Under this sphere we proceed now to test the submission of the learned counsel for the accused with reference to the blackening found by the doctor under the injuries in the postmortem report. 12. We find as aforesaid there is another part of the deposition of the same Doctor with reference to the same injuries when he records that the shape of the wounds was oval indicating the injuries being caused from a higher pedestal. In Taylors Principle and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, 12th Ed., at page 297, it says: "The position of the wound of entrance usually marks a part of the body which was at the moment of discharge facing the muzzle of the weapon, and in a straight line with the barrel; it therefore indicates with precision whether the victim was facing the muzzle or with his back or side to it. Where the weapon is set at a slant to the body the bullet may strike the skin and enter through a distinctly oval hole, the approach side of which is a graze widening out into the actual entry, or it may tear across the surface of the skin leaving only a groove or split." 7. In light of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, we may now examine and the analyse the evidence on record independently, by referring to the salient features thereof. PW-1, K. Dani, was serving in Mao Police Station on 11.11.2000 when he received the written report regarding the incident of murder inside the Line Barrack of B. Coy 25th Bn.CRPF Mao Post. On the basis of the said report he registered an FIR under Sections 302, IPC and 27, Arms Act. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he conducted the inquest over the body of the deceased and describes the position of the body which was found inside the Line Barrack and had been identified by Shri Tiyagi, Dy. Commandant of the said Post. While removing the clothes worn by the deceased, five bullet injuries were found, as follows: "1. One bullet entrance hole on the back side chest; 2. One bullet entrance wound on the right shoulder; 3. One bullet exit hole on the left chest; 4. Bleeding injury marks on the throat; 5. Bleeding injury marks on the left palm and upper side of the palm and no other external injury mark is found" In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he cannot say from which side the bullet entered the shoulder and caused a bleeding injury on the throat and upper side of the palm of the dead body. PW-2 is doctor, Thounaojam Meera Devi, who conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased. She has described three external injuries in her deposition: "1. Rigor mortis was present in the lower limbs i.e., passing off; post-mortem staining was present on the back and fixed. Abdomen was slightly distended with greenish discolour. PW-2 is doctor, Thounaojam Meera Devi, who conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased. She has described three external injuries in her deposition: "1. Rigor mortis was present in the lower limbs i.e., passing off; post-mortem staining was present on the back and fixed. Abdomen was slightly distended with greenish discolour. Dried stains of blood was present on the face, chest and left hand; External Injuries: Entrance wound of the bullet on the right side of the neck, 3.5 cm from midline and 7 cm above the right sternoclavicular joint; 0.6 cm x 0.8 cm with red abraded colour around the margin more on its medial aspect. The exit wound on the top of the right shoulder, 11 cm medial to the tip of the shoulder; 2 cm x 1 cm with red irregular margin. The track of the bullet passed laterally perforating only the muscle and skin. 2. Entrance wound of the bullet on the left side of the chest, 7 cm. from midline at the level of the 2nd intercostal space; 0.8 cm x 0.7 cm with red abraded collar around the margin, more on its superlateral aspect. Exit wound on the back of the chest just left to the midline at the level of the 6th thoracic vertebra; 0.7 cm x 0.6 cm with red irregular margin. The track of the bullet passed downward and medially perforating skin, muscle, 2nd intercostal space muscle, pleura, left lung, heart and pericardium, making its exit fracturing the body of the 6th thoracic vertebra and muscle and skin. 3. Entrance wound of the bullet on the back of the left hand at the cleft between the knuckles of the index and middle fingers; 0.5 cm 0.6 cm with red abraded collar around the margin with a surrounding area of tattooing, 7 cm in diameter. Exit wound on the left (sic) of the hand 2.5 cm x 1 cm with irregular margin. The track of the bullet passed through skin, muscle and fractured on the left 2nd metacarpal bone. INTERNAL APPEARANCE: The left lung was perforated in the upper lobe and left ventricle of the heart was perforated and about 2 litres of blood was present in the left chest cavity. The brain and other abdominal organs were intact and about 300 cc semi digested food particles was present. INTERNAL APPEARANCE: The left lung was perforated in the upper lobe and left ventricle of the heart was perforated and about 2 litres of blood was present in the left chest cavity. The brain and other abdominal organs were intact and about 300 cc semi digested food particles was present. Based on the above findings, I opine that the death was due to perforation of the heart and lung; produced by the fire arm. It was homicidal in nature. The time since death was about 1 to 1 1/2 days i.e. 24 to 36 hrs. The injuries were ante mortem and fresh at the time of examination." 8. PW-11, S. Sepuni Mao is the Investigating Officer, who has described five injuries on the body of the deceased, which are as follows: "1. One bullet entrance hole on the back side of the chest. 2. One bullet entrance hole on the right shoulder. 3. One bullet exit hole on the left chest. 4. Bleeding injury mark in the throat and 5. Bleeding injury mark on the left palm and upper side of the palm." PW-5, the complainant, who was working as Dy. Commandant, CRPF has described two injuries on the body of the deceased as follows: "1. One bullet injury on the chest. The injury seems to be entrance bullet from the front side chest passing through the back side; 2. One bullet injury on the right shoulder passing through the back side." Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid emphasis on the aspect that while PW-11 has stated that there were five injuries, the PW-2, the doctor, who conducted post-mortem, has stated that there were only three external injuries on the body while PW-5 has stated that there were two injuries. According to learned counsel for the appellant, this constitutes a major discrepancy which would have the result of casting a doubt upon the case of the prosecution. After the evidence of PWs-1 and 11 is scrutinized it is evident that both the prosecution witnesses have described both the entrance and exit wounds separately, whereas PW-2, the doctor who conducted postmortem, has described only the entrance wounds, three in number. There appears to be an overlapping in the evidence of PWs-1 and 11 regarding the number of injuries found on the body of the deceased. There appears to be an overlapping in the evidence of PWs-1 and 11 regarding the number of injuries found on the body of the deceased. The doctor, being the medical expert, her testimony in this regard would gain more importance and relevance and the number of wounds described by the doctor would be conclusive. The manner in which the injuries have been described by different witnesses may vary but the fact that there were at least three gun-shot injuries on the body of the deceased that caused his death, cannot be doubted. In fact, after a careful scrutiny of the evidence in this regard, we find no contradictions worth name in the medical evidence and the number of injuries found on the body of the deceased. There is no doubt that the deceased died due to gun-shot wounds. There were no marks of beating, by using any other weapon, on the body of the deceased. PW-2, the doctor, has opined that the death took place due to perforation of the left lung as a result of gun-shot injuries. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased might have been beaten by some other persons instead of being shot by the accused, therefore, cannot be accepted as there is not a shred of evidence in support of this theory. 9. We may now examine the evidence of PW-3, the eye witness, H.C. Sadanand Sangahi. This witness was posted at 25th Bn.CRPF, B-Coy at Mao, at the same time that the appellant was posted there as a Constable/Driver. The deceased was also posted at the same place. PW-3 states that on 11.11.2000 he was at sentry duty at Post No. 5. At about 8.00 p.m. he heard the appellant speaking all kinds of bad words while sitting on his bed, about 3-4 steps away from the post manned by this witness. The deceased told the accused to take rest and went outside the room. The deceased again entered the room and told the accused to take rest. At this the appellant charged at the deceased asking him why he was telling him to take rest and suddenly fired at the deceased from his Carbine. PW - 3 came down from his sentry post and saw the accused. In the meanwhile, the appellant fired another round at the deceased, who fell down on the ground. At this the appellant charged at the deceased asking him why he was telling him to take rest and suddenly fired at the deceased from his Carbine. PW - 3 came down from his sentry post and saw the accused. In the meanwhile, the appellant fired another round at the deceased, who fell down on the ground. This witness told the appellant, who was holding his Carbine at the time, to keep the Carbine and stay in his room. He then started shouting, saying CHM Bhagawan was shot by the accused. In his cross-examination, PW-3 states that he was at his Post till 8 p.m. and he could see the place of occurrence by turning back from his post. The time between first gun-shot and second gunshot may be about one minute. He further states that after hearing the first gunshot he took his position in his Post facing towards the east. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphatically submitted that the descriptions of the incident given by PW-3 in his examination-in-chief and cross examination are contradictory to each other. According to learned counsel for the appellant, PW-3 is not a reliable witness who might not have seen the incident taking place. He submits that the prosecution has based its entire case on the testimony of this witness, which is contradictory, therefore, the conviction of the appellant could not have been based upon such unreliable evidence. On this ground, learned counsel for the appellant has urged the Court to set aside the conviction by granting the benefit of doubt to the appellant. 11. If we carefully scrutinize the evidence of PW-3, it leaves no manner of doubt regarding the presence of the appellant at the spot. PW-3 was on sentry duty and his sentry post was only about 3-4 steps away from the direction where the appellant and the deceased were sitting. PW-3 heard the appellant using bad words against the deceased without any provocation. The deceased told the appellant to take rest and left the room. When he returned again the appellant again started abusing the deceased. When the deceased told the appellant to take rest, the appellant suddenly fired at the deceased. The first gun-shot alarmed PW-3 and he came down from the sentry post. He saw both the deceased and the accused. At that time the appellant fired the second round of gun-shot at the deceased. When the deceased told the appellant to take rest, the appellant suddenly fired at the deceased. The first gun-shot alarmed PW-3 and he came down from the sentry post. He saw both the deceased and the accused. At that time the appellant fired the second round of gun-shot at the deceased. PW-3 states that the time between the first and the second shot was about one minute. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that there is a contradiction in the cross-examination of PW-3, who states that after the first gun-shot he took his position in the said Post facing towards the east. In our view, this aspect cannot be said to be contradiction at all. PW-3 has remained unshaken in his testimony that he had seen the deceased being shot by the appellant. He heard the first gun-shot and came down from his Post and the second shot was fired in his presence. No question has been put to the witness by the defence counsel regarding his presence at the spot when the second shot was fired. Under the circumstances, in view of the overall testimony of this witness and his natural presence on the spot, we do not find the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant worthy of credence. Even if one considers it to be a contradiction, it is only a minor one, in stating the direction. There is no reason, whatsoever, not to rely upon the testimony of PW-3, who is an eye-witness of the incident and has given a clear and reliable description of the events that unfolded on that fateful day. There is no dispute regarding the aspect that the weapon of offence, namely, the 9 mm Carbine bearing Butt No. 073, Body No. 16081759, was issued to the appellant. This has been stated by the complainant in the FIR. It is on record that two Magazines with 58 live rounds (9 MM Carbine) were seized from the spot. After the incident, people nearby called O.C., Dy.S.P. of the 25th Bn.CRPF and overpowered the accused. After that the Police came and inspected the place of occurrence and seized the 9 MM Carbine, two empty case, two magazine with 58 live rounds (9 MM Carbine). After the incident, people nearby called O.C., Dy.S.P. of the 25th Bn.CRPF and overpowered the accused. After that the Police came and inspected the place of occurrence and seized the 9 MM Carbine, two empty case, two magazine with 58 live rounds (9 MM Carbine). The judgment in the case of Padam Singh ( AIR 2000 SC 361 ) (supra) that has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant would not help his case as, in that case, the factual matrix was entirely different and the injury sustained by the accused during the course of the occurrence, had not been explained. Moreover, in that case, there were interested or inimical witnesses. This and other factors had been considered by the Apex Court in arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution had not been able to establish its case. This judgment, though cannot be disputed on the facts and in circumstances of the case before the Supreme Court, would not apply to the case in hand, where there are no inimical witness and no injury on the body of the appellant. Moreover, in the present case, the testimony of the eye witness has been corroborated by the testimony of the other prosecution witness. PW-7, Upendra Tiwari, has deposed that while he was serving in the CRPF at the relevant point of time, he was sitting on the cot in his room and heard two sounds of gun firing from the side of the recreation room. He then heard the sound of screaming coming from sentry Post No. 5 that was manned by PW-3. The screaming was to the effect that Vinodkumar Constable had shot dead CHM Bhagawan Das by using his service 9 MM Carbine. This witness then ran out of the room where he was sitting and reported the incident to O.C., MP Tiyagi. The testimony of this witness has not been shaken in cross examination. PW-8, Santa Ram has deposed that on 11.11.2000 at about 6.30 p.m. while he was in his room he heard the appellant calling one Shri Ram again and again. One Jitendra, cook of the Battalion, told the appellant that Shri Ram was not there and went upstairs to bring water. After some time the appellant came to the room of this witness and asked who was the person who had replied to his question. One Jitendra, cook of the Battalion, told the appellant that Shri Ram was not there and went upstairs to bring water. After some time the appellant came to the room of this witness and asked who was the person who had replied to his question. This witness told him that it was Jitendra, who had gone to bring water. Thereafter, the appellant started speaking all kinds of bad words. This witness requested the appellant to go to his room but the appellant attacked him by catching hold of his neck. This witness shouted "bachao... bachao". On hearing his voice CHM Bhagawan Singh (deceased) with other personnel came to the room. The deceased tried to pull the appellant who was holding the neck of this witness and told him not to quarrel with him. The deceased then told everyone to go to their respective places so that they could take some rest. After forty-five minutes, the deceased came again from upstairs and told the appellant that everybody had gone to their respective places to sleep and he should also go. The appellant told the deceased that he was saying this intentionally to him alone but not to any other personnel. After some time this witness heard two sounds of gun firing from the recreation hall. When he heard the sound of firing at the recreation hall from his room he then went upstairs. Some other personnel also had come upstairs. The O.C., MP. Tyagi came down towards the recreation hall. He then saw one Sadananda, Sentry (PW-3) telling the appellant to put his hands up. At the relevant point of time the appellant was holding his service Carbine in his hands. He also saw the deceased lying flat with a bullet-injury on his body on the left side of his chest. From the above it is clear that the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses corroborates the testimony of the eye-witness, PW-3, regarding the manner in which the incident unfolded and the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the crime. The learned Sessions Judge has analysed and appreciated the evidence on record with proper application of mind and in detail. We are in full agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the appellant, beyond any reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has analysed and appreciated the evidence on record with proper application of mind and in detail. We are in full agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the appellant, beyond any reasonable doubt. Consequently, we find that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity, so as to invite our interference. We find no merit in the appeal, which stands dismissed.