Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1844 (ALL)

Raja Singh v. State Of U. P.

2019-07-31

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, RAMESH SINHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, J. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 31.5.1979 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur in S.T. No.206 of 1977 convicting the appellant Raghubhushan Singh u/s 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment whereof to undergo six months R.I and further convicting the appellant Raja Singh u/s 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000 and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo 6 months R.I. 2. The appellant Raja Singh has died during the pendency of the present appeal and the appeal on his behalf has been ordered to be abated by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.1.2019. Hence, the present appeal now survives with respect to appellant Raghubhushan Singh for consideration by this Court and we proceed to hear the appeal on behalf of the said appellant. 3. The prosecution case as set-up in the FIR by the informant Chandra Pal stating that there was old enmity going on between him and Raja Singh Thakur of his village. On 25.2.1977, there was a marriage ceremony of niece of one Chotey Lal Baniya of his village where he along with his father were invited. He along with his father Raghunath had gone in the said marriage and Dwarchar was going on. At about 10 p.m. in the night Raja Singh along with his sons Raghubhushan Singh, Shiv Bhushan Singh, Shashi Bhushan Singh and younger son of Raja Singh along with Krishna Gopal Brahman and Sabal Singh came with a common object. He along with his father Raghunath had gone in the said marriage and Dwarchar was going on. At about 10 p.m. in the night Raja Singh along with his sons Raghubhushan Singh, Shiv Bhushan Singh, Shashi Bhushan Singh and younger son of Raja Singh along with Krishna Gopal Brahman and Sabal Singh came with a common object. Raghubhushan @ Bade was armed with gun and as soon as they came there, Raja Singh exhorted and stated that luckily Chandrapal and Raghunath have met and uttered "Maar Do Saalon Ko Hamesha Ka Kanta Door Ho Jaaye" on which Shiv Bhushan Singh, Shashi Bhushan Singh and younger son of Raja Singh caught hold of the informant Chandrapal and Krishna Gopal and Sabal Singh caught hold of his father Raghunath Singh and Raghubhushan Singh @ Bade fired by his double barrel gun which hit in Abdomen of the father of the informant who had fallen down and at that moment Raja Ram, S/o Ram Dayal, Subhash, S/o Ram Gopal Pandey, Babu Lal, S/o Badalu R/o Sakinan Tilsahari Buzurg and Babadeen, S/o Pattar Ram Ratan, S/o Surajdeen, village Subhauli who were present in the marriage and had witnessed the said incident, had challenged the accused who had fled away. He had carried his father with the assistance of the witnesses and proceeded to the hospital and at the outskirts of the village his father had died. He had brought the dead-body of his father at the doors of his house and kept the same in the night and did not go to lodge an FIR of the incident because it was night. He requested for lodging report for taking necessary action. 4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant Chandrapal, an FIR was registered at Police Station Maharajpur as Case Crime No.49 of 1977 under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 IPC P.S. Maharajpur, district Kanpur which is Ext.Ka-4 which is at a distance of 3 miles from the place of occurrence at 6.20 a.m., the next morning. The Chik FIR Ext.Ka-11 was prepared in the presence of Banshdhari Singh, Sub-Inspector of the concerned police station. The case was registered at general diary no.7 as Ext.Ka-12 on the same day. The Chik FIR Ext.Ka-11 was prepared in the presence of Banshdhari Singh, Sub-Inspector of the concerned police station. The case was registered at general diary no.7 as Ext.Ka-12 on the same day. The investigation of the case was taken over by the Station Officer S.I. Banshdhari Singh, P.W.10 who recorded the statement of Chandrapal, informant and thereafter proceeded to the place of occurrence. He was accompanied by Girja Singh Yadav, S.I. (P.W.11) and some constables. The said Girja Singh Yadav, S.I. prepared the inquest report on the instructions of P.W.10 on the dead-body of the deceased as Ext.Ka-5 and he also prepared Challan Nash as Ext.Ka-13, letter to R.I Ext.Ka-14, letter to C.M.O Ext.Ka-15. He also prepared Photo Nash as Ext.Ka-16, sample of seal as Ext.Ka-17. After sealing the dead-body, he handed over the same to constable Chhote Lal and constable Ram Raj Singh for being carried to mortuary. The dead body was taken to the headquarter at 4.10 p.m. the same day and from there to mortuary. The I.O Banshdhari Singh, P.W.10 prepared the site-plan of the place of occurrence. It took into possession the blood-stained cloth (gamcha) which was tied to the wound of Raghunath and sealed it and prepared memo Ext.Ka-8. He prepared the site-plan of the place of occurrence as Ext.Ka-6 and also recorded the statement of the witnesses present at the place of occurrence. He took into possession Petromax lanterns produced by Chhote Lal and examined them and also returned them to Chhote Lal and prepared memo Ext.Ka-1. 5. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet Ext.Ka-10 against the accused. The charges were framed by the trial court against the accused persons who denied the charges and claimed their trial. 6. The prosecution in support of it's case has examined Babu Lal P.W.1, Babadin P.W.2, Ram Ratan P.W.3, Subhash Chand Pandey P.W.4, Raja Ram P.W.5, Chhote Lal P.W.6, Dr. R.C. Yadav P.W.7, Dr. H.O.P. Jha P.W.8, Chandra Pal P.W.9, Banshdhari Singh S.I. P.W.10 and Girja Singh Yadav, S.I. P.W.11. 7. 6. The prosecution in support of it's case has examined Babu Lal P.W.1, Babadin P.W.2, Ram Ratan P.W.3, Subhash Chand Pandey P.W.4, Raja Ram P.W.5, Chhote Lal P.W.6, Dr. R.C. Yadav P.W.7, Dr. H.O.P. Jha P.W.8, Chandra Pal P.W.9, Banshdhari Singh S.I. P.W.10 and Girja Singh Yadav, S.I. P.W.11. 7. The accused in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C have denied the charges levelled against them and have stated that there was a dispute with Babu Lal with respect to a tree on account of which there was some animosity between the parties and the accused side has also supported the rival candidate Sushila Rohatgi against Chandrapal, both Babu Lal and Chandrapal were deposing against them on account of the said animosity. 8. P.W.1 Babu Lal had deposed before the trial court that he participated in the marriage of the niece of Chotey Lal Baniya. Raghunath was murdered at the doors of the house of Chotey Lal Baniya at 8.5 p.m. where the Barat of his niece had come. Raghunath was also invited in the said marriage along with his son Chandrapal and he was also present at the time of 'Dwarchar'. At that time Subhash Chand Pandey was also present along with Raja Ram, Ram Ratan who had gone in the night and he remained there till Raghunath was carried by his son on a bullock-cart and he was taking the bullock-cart to the police station but at the outskirts of the village, Raghunath had died due to fire shot which was fired in his presence. Raghunath was shot in the corridors of Chotey Lal Baniya which was at the Southern side adjacent to courtyard (angan) of Chotey Lal Baniya. In the courtyard, there was patromax light. Rajaram, Subhash Pandey, Babadeen and Ram Ratan were present when Raghunath sustained gun-shot injuries. He was at the distance of 2-3 paces North when Raghunath sustained gun-shot injuries. The person who shot at Raghunath was on the Eastern side. Prior to receiving of gun-shot injuries by Raghunath, there was scuffle between the parties. The person who has shot-dead the deceased, he was accompanied by six persons and they were also indulging in marpeet with Chandrapal and were also scuffling with Raghunath. The shot was fired by Raghubhushan. The person who shot at Raghunath was on the Eastern side. Prior to receiving of gun-shot injuries by Raghunath, there was scuffle between the parties. The person who has shot-dead the deceased, he was accompanied by six persons and they were also indulging in marpeet with Chandrapal and were also scuffling with Raghunath. The shot was fired by Raghubhushan. The person who had fired shot at the deceased and his companions were not in the Barat but they had come separately and all of them have come together. They had come ten minutes prior when the deceased received gun-shot injuries. Raghubhushan had come with gun and along with him Raja Singh, Shashi Bhushan Singh, Shiv Bhushan Singh, Santosh Singh, Sabal Singh, Ram Gopal had come and all of them belongs to his village and they were known to him from before. Raja Singh was carrying a wooden stick (Baint) and Raghunath was having a lathi. Chandrapal was empty handed. Raghunath could not use his lathi as he did not had a chance to use the same. When all the seven accused persons had come, then he was present. There was scuffle going on. The accused Shiv Bhushan, Shashi Bhushan, Santosh were having scuffle with Chandrapal and deceased Raghunath was caught-hold by accused Sabal and Ram Gopal and Raja Singh exhorted and uttered "Mauka Mil Gaya Hai Maar Do Saalon Ko" on which Raghunath Singh was shot dead and after receiving injuries, the accused fled away. When the shot was fired then all the witnesses raised alarm and stated what has happened, has happened and nothing further should be done. The shot was fired on the right side on the abdomen of the deceased. He stated that immediately cloth (angocha) was tied on the wound. The blood had not fallen there. He further stated that he does not remember the parentage of Ram Gopal and he named the said accused to be Krishna Gopal and stated that he has wrongly stated his name to be Ram Gopal. When the police had arrived, the dead-body of the deceased was at the doors of his house and the police had come in the next morning after the sunrise and both the Sub-Inspector along with 2-3 constables and the C.O had arrived together. When the police had arrived, the dead-body of the deceased was at the doors of his house and the police had come in the next morning after the sunrise and both the Sub-Inspector along with 2-3 constables and the C.O had arrived together. The inquest report was prepared at the doors of the deceased and he was also one of the Panches and he proved the Panchnama dated 26.2.1977 identifying his signatures on the same. He did not visit the place of occurrence along with Investigating Officer. The deceased was wearing Baniyan which was stitched and also dhoti/lungi and was not wearing any kurta or shirt. 9. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he knows Vikram Singh of his village but is not aware of the fact that Vikram Singh is a relative of accused-appellant Raja Singh as he happens to be 'Sardhu' of Raja Singh. There is a civil litigation going on against the said witness with respect to agricultural field. He further showed his unawareness that Vikram Singh had lodged any report against him in the year 1963 for any criminal intimidation or the cutting of the crops of the agricultural field. In the cross-examination of the said witness many instances have been shown regarding the inimical relationship of the said witness with the accused persons showing that he is falsely deposing against the accused persons. Though he has denied that due to inimical relationship he is deposing against the accused. It has further been stated that the incident has taken place in the village Tilsahri Khurd and the place where the incident has taken place, his house is 1 and 1/2 furlong. He further stated that he could not tell whose sons marriage was being solemnized and from where Barat had come. He knows Chotey Lal Baniya and his family members who has four brothers and one has died. His three brothers are Shiv Narain, Panna Lal and Chotey Lal. He does not know name of the sons of Chotey Lal Panna or Shiv Narain. He has only formal acquaintance with Chotey Lal and there is no close relationship with him. Chotey Lal has not given any invitation to him and he had gone to the marriage just to see and the crackers which were being burnt in the marriage and because of this reason, he has gone there. He has only formal acquaintance with Chotey Lal and there is no close relationship with him. Chotey Lal has not given any invitation to him and he had gone to the marriage just to see and the crackers which were being burnt in the marriage and because of this reason, he has gone there. He further stated that about 2000 persons had arrived at the doors of Chotey Lal Baniya of village Tilsahri Buzurg and Tilsahri Khurd and he could not tell how many Barati had come in the said marriage and he was standing 15-20 paces towards the South of the door of Chotey Lal Baniya. The deceased Raghunath had received gun-shot injury at the Southern side of the house of Chotey Lal Baniya where he was present and the said way goes towards the village Tilsahri Buzurg. The patrolling police party was not at the doors of the house of Chotey Lal Baniya and when he reached there, he did not saw any police personnel. The dead-body of the deceased Raghunath was lying at the doors of his house throughout the night on the Chabutra under the Chappar and after keeping the dead-body there, he went back to his house. No police person had arrived till the time he had kept the dead-body and left the place. The police had arrived on the next day in the morning and like other villagers, he had also reached at the doors of deceased Raghunath and had not gone at the place of occurrence and when he reached there, he saw the police persons present and there was no Jeep standing there. He remained there for about an hour and thereafter went back to his house. He did not know that what time the dead-body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. He again stated that the dead-body was sent on bullock-cart. When he was present at the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer did not interrogate him and thereafter till date he did not interrogate him or made any query from him. He did not go outside the village on the same day and remained at his house o the agricultural field. When he had gone to see the Police then the son of Raghunath namely Chandrapal had met him. 10. He did not go outside the village on the same day and remained at his house o the agricultural field. When he had gone to see the Police then the son of Raghunath namely Chandrapal had met him. 10. In his further cross-examination he has stated that Raghunath was having licensee gun but he was not carrying the same at the time of the incident. When he reached the Barat was not welcomed in his presence and he had left the place before the Barat was welcomed. He had not disclosed the fact before today to any one that he had taken the dead-body of the deceased on a bullock-cart to the police station. He had further not disclosed before today to any one that Subhash Pandey, Babadeen and Ram Ratan were near to him at the time of shooting and Raja Ram, Raghunath were facing towards East and he was facing towards South and the witness was facing towards South. Today for the first time he stated the fact that at the time of shooting at Raghunath he was 2-3 paces towards North. Today for the first time he has stated that the person who has shot at the deceased Raghunath was on the Eastern side. He further deposed that he had not stated to anyone prior today that the persons were indulging in maarpit and were scuffling with him and the fact that Raja Singh was carrying wooden stick (Baint) with him, the said fact he has stated today for the first time. He has also stated the fact for the first time that Raghunath was carrying lathi. He has also stated the fact for the first time that when the deceased sustained gun-shot injury then everyone screamed and tried that whatever has happened, has happened and further nothing should be done. He denied the suggestion that all the above fact which he has narrated has been stated by him in the Court on account of tutoring. Raghubhushan Singh was at a distance of 1.5 yard at the time of firing and Chandrapal was on the North side of deceased Raghunath and Raghubhushan was on the North-Western side at about 2-2.5 yards distance. The scuffle and maarpit took place for about half an hour and the persons who were present there were trying to pacify the parties and during that period, shot was fired. The scuffle and maarpit took place for about half an hour and the persons who were present there were trying to pacify the parties and during that period, shot was fired. The persons who have murdered the deceased had left towards East and no one had assaulted them. The accused Sabal Singh and Krishna Gopal had left the witness prior to few minutes when the deceased Raghunath was shot. When Raja Singh had exhorted by uttering "Maar Do Saalon Ko" at that time Sabal Singh and Krishna Gopal had caught-hold of the deceased Raghunath and accused Raja Singh was at a distance of 2-2.5 yards to the North side and the persons who have gathered there, the accused were surrounded by them and scuffle was going on and the people were trying to separate the accused party and the deceased and the informant and other side. He further deposed that he cannot give reason as to how the Investigating Officer recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in the case diary and further could not tell that how in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., it has been written by the Investigating Officer that Krishna Gopal and Sabal Singh had caught-hold of Raghunath and Raghubhushan Singh fired at Raghunath by his licensee gun. He deposed that he did not frequently visit at the police station and with respect to the present case he did not ever visit to the police station. He denied that he had gone to the Police Station for lodging the FIR with Chandrapal. He did not accompany the Station Officer from the Police Station. He further could not tell the reason as to how the Investigating Officer has written in his statement that he had gone along with Chandrapal for giving an information about the incident to the Police Station and thereafter he came with the police. He further deposed that at the time while coming of the Barat/Dwarchar, the persons who have licensee weapon, they celebrate by firing in air. He did not see any person carrying gun but subsequently he stated that he saw many persons with the gun and they had fired in the air. He denied that he has not seen the incident and further denied that because of enmity and party-bandi he is falsely deposing against the accused. 11. He did not see any person carrying gun but subsequently he stated that he saw many persons with the gun and they had fired in the air. He denied that he has not seen the incident and further denied that because of enmity and party-bandi he is falsely deposing against the accused. 11. P.W-2 Babadin in his deposition before the trial court has stated that though Raghunath had been murdered but he came to know about it after about 10-12 days and does not know where Raghunath had been murdered. He denied that he participated in the Barat of at the house of Chotey Lal and he turned hostile. 12. P.W-3 Ram Ratan in his deposition before the trial court has also stated that he had heard that Raghunath has been murdered near the house of Chotey Lal but denied his presence at the place of occurrence. 13. P.W-4 Subhash Chand Pandey has also tried to conceal the fact about the murder but on persistent questioning, he stated that he was hearing for the last about one and half year that Raghunath has been murdered. He denied that he has participated in the marriage and he came to know about the murder in the morning. 14. P.W.5 Raja Ram has also deposed that he has only heard about the murder of Raghunath and denied his participation in the marriage party. He admitted that his son Braj Kishore is an accused in a murder case but he was not aware of the fact that against his son, the Thakurs of Gangaganj are witnesses and further he was ignorant about the fact that the Thakurs of Gangaganj are having some relationship with the accused Raja Singh. 15. P.W.6 Chhote Lal whose niece's marriage was being solemnized on the day of the incident has stated that it was at about 9 p.m. and his guest were gathered at his door and preparation of reception of Barat was being made. He did not see Raghunath and Chandrapal as he was busy in 'Dwarchar' on the way towards West of his house. He came to know in the morning next day that Raghunath has been shot dead. He further admitted that Patromax were burning at his door. He did not see Raghunath and Chandrapal as he was busy in 'Dwarchar' on the way towards West of his house. He came to know in the morning next day that Raghunath has been shot dead. He further admitted that Patromax were burning at his door. He produced the said patromax in the court which are Ext.1 to V. He stated that he had not invited Raghunath and Chandrapal as he has no relation with them. He further deposed that 8-9 persons were having guns in their hand and participated in the Barat. The shot were fired at the time of reception of 'Dwarchar'. He further stated that five police constables had come in the evening and stayed throughout night as he had made an application for police guard because of some dacoity had take place in nearby area of the village. 16. P.W.7 Dr. R.C. Yadav has deposed before the trial court that he was posted as Medical Officer in K.P.M. Hospital, Kanpur on 27.2.1977. On that day at about 1.30 p.m. in the afternoon, he had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Raghunath whose dead-body was brought by the constable Chotey Lal and Ram Raj Singh who had identified and found following ante-mortem injuries on his person:- One gun shot wound of cavity 3 cm. x 2 cm. on abdominal cavity deep at the right side of abdomen 7 cm. above and lateral from umbilicus through which part of loop intestine coming out. Blackening and scorching is present. Margins are inverted. According to him, it was gun shot wound. He had found 1500 cc blood in the cavity and 200 grams semi digested food in the stomach and liver lacerated at many places. He had stated that he recovered two pieces wadding and 37 metallic pallets embaded I the liver. According to him the death had taken place near about 10 p.m. on 25.2.1977 due to gun shot wound producing shock and haemorrhage being cause of death. He corroborated by his report Ext.Ka-2. He has proved post-mortem as Ext.Ka-2. The cause of death in the opinion of doctor was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of gun-shot injury. 17. P.W.8 Dr. H.O.P Jha has also deposed before the trial court that he was posted as E.M.T Surgeon at H.M. Hospital, Kanpur on 26.2.1977. He corroborated by his report Ext.Ka-2. He has proved post-mortem as Ext.Ka-2. The cause of death in the opinion of doctor was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of gun-shot injury. 17. P.W.8 Dr. H.O.P Jha has also deposed before the trial court that he was posted as E.M.T Surgeon at H.M. Hospital, Kanpur on 26.2.1977. On the said day at 4.15 p.m. in the evening he was on emergency duty and he has performed medical examination of the injuries of the injured Chandrapal Singh, S/o Raghunath Singh and found following injuries on his person and proved the injuries as Ext.Ka-3:- 1. Abrasion linear 1/4 cm. over gum margin of upper right central incisor tooth. 2. Abrasion linear over chick outer of gum left side 1 cm. 3. Abrasion two linear over neck left side upper and outer part 1/2 cm. deep with gap of 2.5 cm. 4. Abrasion two linear over neck left side lower front part 1/2 cm. deep with gap of 3 cm. 5. Laceration on neck on front part 8 cm. x 1.5 cm. below prominence of larynx vertical. 6. Abrasion linear on left ear middle 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. 7. Abrasion on left thigh on upper and outer part 1.5 cm. x 1/4 cm. Injuries simple caused by blunt object. All injuries were fresh and duration was about one day. 18. In his opinion the injuries could be self inflicted. 19. P.W.9 Chandrapal who is the informant of the case has deposed before the trial court that the deceased Raghunath was his father and there was often quarrel between him and accused Raja Singh with respect to water drainage as their agricultural field were adjacent to each other. Raghubhushan, Shashi Bhushan and Shiv Bhushan, Braj Bhushan @ Santosh are the sons of Raja Singh. Sabal Singh and Krishna Gopal are known to Raja Singh. On the day of the incident, at 9-10 p.m. in the night, there was marriage at the house of Chotey Lal Baniya. He and his father were the frequent visitors at his house and both of them had gone there on the day of the incident. There was sufficient source of light and Barat was coming from the Western side towards the house of Chotey Lal Baniya. He and his father were the frequent visitors at his house and both of them had gone there on the day of the incident. There was sufficient source of light and Barat was coming from the Western side towards the house of Chotey Lal Baniya. He was standing on the Southern side of the house of Chotey Lal Baniya and his father was just near him and were watching the Barat coming and Barat was at a distance of 10-15 paces and Dwarchar was going on. From the Eastern side all the accused came and Raja Singh was carrying a wooden stick whereas Raghubhushan was armed with double barrel gun and rest of the accused were empty handed. As soon as Raja Singh seen them, he exhorted and stated that he (Chandrapal) and Raghunath have been found incidently and said that they should be killed on which Shashi Bhushan, Shiv Bhushan and Braj Bhushan @ Santosh had caught-hold him and started assaulting him with fists whereas Sabal Singh and Krishna Gopal had caught-hold of his father and entered into scuffling with him. Raja Singh again exhorted on which Raghubhushan Singh the accused-appellant had fired shot at his father which hit him in his abdomen and his father had fallen there. The shot was fired at a distance of 2-1/2 paces and the persons who had caught-hold the deceased have left him and then the fire was shot at the deceased. The said incident was witnessed by Raja Ram, Subhash, Babu Lal, Ram Ratan, Babadin and many other persons. The persons who have witnessed the incident had challenged the accused and stated not to quarrel and uttered "Yah Kya Kar Rahe Ho Jo Kiya Ho Gaya Aur Kuch Nahi Karna". Thereafter the accused had fled away. Thereafter he lifted his father from there and put him on the bullock-cart and proceeded to the police station and when he reached the outskirts of the village, his father died and thereafter he returned and kept his dead-body at the doors of his house on Chabutra and before lifting his father from the place of occurrence, he had taken one Gamcha (cloth) and tied on his wound. On the next day at about 6.30 a.m., he reached the police station for lodging the report and he did not go to the police station in the night because of fear. On the next day at about 6.30 a.m., he reached the police station for lodging the report and he did not go to the police station in the night because of fear. He wrote the report at the police station himself and thereafter submitted the same on the basis of which the FIR was registered against the accused persons. Thereafter the Station Officer has recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. at the police station and then Station Officer along with Circle Officer and police constables went to his house along with him and he has proved the written report as Ext.Ka-4 which he has written in his own handwriting and signatures. He has also received injuries in the incident and his medical examination report was conducted on the next day in the afternoon at Ursala Hospital. He has further stated that Gamcha (cloth) was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer and was sealed and a memo was also prepared. The inquest on the dead-body of the deceased was also conducted. The place where his father had fallen, it was cleaned and water was found. No empty cartridge, pellet etc. were recovered from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer. 20. In his cross-examination this witness has deposed that the invitation was in the name of his father on which his name was also there. He has two brothers and the name of his brother Ram Pal was not mentioned in the card. The said card was shown to the Investigating Officer and the same was not taken in his custody but he again stated that he did not remember. He stated that he had written the FIR in short and has not mentioned about the fact of tighting the Gamcha (cloth) on the wound and has not stated about the said fact to anyone prior today. He denied that the said fact has been stated by him on account of tutoring. His father was wearing lungi and baniyan which was of cotton. Gamcha was not blood-stained fully. He did not remember the colour of the Gamcha. The said Gamcha was not produced in the Court. The dead-body of the deceased was lifted from the place of occurrence and put on the bullock-cart by Babu Lal, Raja Ram and him. His father was wearing lungi and baniyan which was of cotton. Gamcha was not blood-stained fully. He did not remember the colour of the Gamcha. The said Gamcha was not produced in the Court. The dead-body of the deceased was lifted from the place of occurrence and put on the bullock-cart by Babu Lal, Raja Ram and him. He did not remember whether the persons who had lifted the dead-body, the blood was found on their cloth or not. He did not remember that who had gone with him to police station but definitely someone had accompanied him. Babu Lal had not gone to the police station. Badlu Pasi had gone or not he does not remember. The son of Badlu Babu Lal is the witness. He had gone to police station at about 5.15 hours to lodge an FIR early in the morning. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is five miles. He went on bicycle. The time took about half an hour or twenty minutes in writing the report and he did not remember for how long he remained at the police station. He denied that the present FIR was lodged in due consultation and deliberation with the police. The Circle Officer has seen his injuries which were abrasion and contusion. He has suffered some injuries on the neck and hip and behind the ear. He did not remember that on which hip he had suffered injuries and when he was cross-examined and asked as to why he had not written in his report about the fact that he was also assaulted then he stated that he did not remember as he was under fear and has not lodged any report earlier and whatever he remember, he had written the same and he had also informed the police that he was also assaulted and slapped and assaulted with fists and if the Investigating Officer has not written the said fact, then he could not tell reason about the same. He was assaulted for about 20-25 minutes and there were large number of people present in thousands at the place of occurrence. He was working in the Army for about four years and was working prior to the incident and he was doing the work of nursing. The persons who had caught-hold his father had also assaulted him. He was assaulted for about 20-25 minutes and there were large number of people present in thousands at the place of occurrence. He was working in the Army for about four years and was working prior to the incident and he was doing the work of nursing. The persons who had caught-hold his father had also assaulted him. At the time of assault his father, his father had not fallen. He was ignorant of the fact as to what is meant by Agwani or Dwarchar (reception of Barat). When the Barat comes then the people welcome it by moving ahead from the house at about 15-20 paces and welcome them and by Dwarchar, he means that some rituals are performed at the doors. At the time when his father was caught-hold, the rituals were not started. He further stated that in his FIR he has not mentioned about the light of patromax and thereafter stated that it might have been written. As soon as the shot was fired, people started screaming, hue and cry was made and there was chaos in the marriage party and people started running here and there. His father had fallen on the ground and the persons who have caught-hold the witness have left him and no one made attempt to catch the accused persons and they were only raising alarm. His father was not profusely bleeding and he did not remember that blood was fallen on the ground or not and he had immediately took his father in his lap and did not remember from whom he has taken the Angocha (cloth). He was wearing pant, shirt and coat. He did not see any police guard at the house of Chotey Lal. The witness along with his father was there before 8-10 minutes. Earlier the dacoity took place at the house of Chotey Lal. His father had a gun license and he did not carry the same. In both the villages, people have licensee weapon. Both the villages are big and it's population is in thousands. He did not see any other person carrying gun. He got his father's dead-body kept on the Plinth (Chabutra) of his house and covered with the bed-sheet. No policeman had arrived at his house before he left for police station. None of the witness remained at his doors throughout the night. He did not see any other person carrying gun. He got his father's dead-body kept on the Plinth (Chabutra) of his house and covered with the bed-sheet. No policeman had arrived at his house before he left for police station. None of the witness remained at his doors throughout the night. After submitting his report to the police station, he was taken by the police to the office of Circle Officer who was in his room and he returned to his village on bicycle and the police persons have also come by bicycle and not on Jeep. They reached the village at about 9 a.m. The Investigating Officer had firstly gone to the place where the dead-body was kept and the Panchayatnama of the dead-body of the deceased was conducted. Babu Lal Pasi had come at his house at the time of Panchnama after the Circle Officer had arrived and he remained present there with the witnesses named in the FIR. The witness has not signed the Panchnama. The dead-body of the deceased was sent from the village by the police at about 11 a.m. The Investigating Officer and the Circle Officer had visited the place of occurrence and no blood was found as place of occurrence was clear and water was found there. The Investigating Officer interrogated the witnesses. From the place of occurrence he along with Circle Officer went to the police station at about 12 noon. He did not remember how long he remained at the police station but he was sent for medical examination after preparing police papers and from the police station, he came to the hospital along with two constables. He denied the fact that narration of the incident has been wrongly stated by him and further denied that no one had caught-hold him nor assaulted him. He denied the suggestion that because of the election rivalry he is falsely deposing against the accused persons. 21. P.W.10 Banshdhari Singh has stated that on 25.2.1977 he was posted as Sub-Inspector at police station Maharajpur and he started with the investigation and recorded the statement of the informant at the police station. He visited the place of occurrence along with Sub-Inspector G.S. Yadav. And Dy. S.P and the dead-body of the deceased was found by him at the doors of the house of the informant. He visited the place of occurrence along with Sub-Inspector G.S. Yadav. And Dy. S.P and the dead-body of the deceased was found by him at the doors of the house of the informant. Panchayatnama proceeding were conducted by S.I. G.S. Yadav and proved the same as Ext.Ka-5 which was in his handwriting and signatures. He recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C at the house of Chotey Lal and made spot inspection of the place of occurrence and prepared the site-plan as Ext.Ka-6. He also prepared Supurdaginama of the five gase light which were found at the house of Chotey Lal and took the same in his custody and prepared a recovery memo Ext.Ka-1 of the same then recorded the statement of the witnesses of Panch. He did not found any blood or empty cartridge at the place of occurrence as the place of occurrence was busy place and the incident has taken place a day earlier in the night, hence the same being cleaned. He prepared the site-plan of the place where the dead-body of the deceased was kept and proved the same as Ext.Ka-7. He has prepared the recovery memo of Gamcha which was blood-stained which he took into custody at the time of Panchnama as the same was found on the dead-body of the deceased and proved the same as Ext.Ka-8. The accused were searched but could not be traced out. After completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet as Ext.Ka-10. He has also prepared search memo Ext.Ka-9. He has further stated that Chik FIR was prepared by Head Moharrir Laxmi Narayan and proved the same as Ext.Ka-11 and the General Diary of the FIR is Ext.Ka-12. He has denied the suggestion that the FIR was lodged in due consultation with the police at the police station and the FIR was lodged after Panchnama. The special report was sent at 7.10 a.m. by constable Ram Bahadur who did not return on the same day. He had gone to the place of occurrence by motorcycle and he did not remember regarding others but D.S.P had also gone with him. He had proceeded from the police station to the place of occurrence at 7.15 a.m. and reached within twenty minutes and Chandrapal had reached few minutes after him along with police force. On the chalan nash, the time for sending the dead-body has not been mentioned. He had proceeded from the police station to the place of occurrence at 7.15 a.m. and reached within twenty minutes and Chandrapal had reached few minutes after him along with police force. On the chalan nash, the time for sending the dead-body has not been mentioned. In the Panchayatnama, the time in column no.3 has not been mentioned. He further stated in his cross-examination that after completing the investigation on 26.2.1977 at 19 hours, he did not remember whether he had remained in the village or not. Chandrapal had not accompanied him to the police station and after Panchayatnama he had been sent for medical examination. The witness Babu Lal had given him statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C stating that Krishna Gopal and Sabal Singh had caught-hold to Raghunath Singh and Raghubhushan Singh had fired with his licensee gun on the deceased Raghunath. He denied the suggestion that at the behest of Chaudhary Ram Gopal Yadav, M.P, he has submitted charge sheet in the present case. 22. P.W.11 Girja Singh Yadav has stated before the trial court that he had conducted the Panchayatnama of the deceased Raghunath and has proved the Panchayatnama as Ext.Ka-5 and he has conducted the Panchayatnama under the direction of the Station Officer. He has proved the Chalan Nash as Ext.Ka-13, report to R.I. Ext.Ka-14, report to C.M.O Ext.Ka-15, Photonash Ext.Ka-16, sample of seal Ext.Ka-17 under his writing and signatures. In cross-examination he has stated that the cloth which was tight-off from the dead-body of the deceased was handkerchief. The time for sending the dead-body in the Panchayatnama and Chalan Nash inadvertently was left by him and he denied the suggestion that no case was registered till the inquest report. 23. The trial court after considering the prosecution evidence and the defense version came to the conclusion and held the accused-appellant guilty for the offence in question and aggrieved by the same, the accused-appellant Raghubhushan Singh has preferred the instant appeal. 24. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 25. 24. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 25. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that there is material contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1 Babu Lal and P.W.9 Chandrapal on one hand and P.W.10 Banshdhari Singh on the other hand which goes to show that the presence of the said eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence is doubtful and they have not seen the incident and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of previous animosity between the parties. In this regard he has pointed out from the statement of P.W.1 Babu Lal that in the marriage of niece of Chotey Lal Baniya (P.W.6), P.W.9 Chandrapal and the deceased Raghunath were invited in the marriage and they had gone in the said marriage ceremony whereas P.W.6 in his statement before the trial court has denied the fact that neither the deceased Raghunath nor his son Chandrapal were invited by him in the marriage. From the evidence of P.W.1 it is evident that he reached the house of Chotey Lal Baniya when the Barat was being received but in his cross-examination, he has stated that he left the place of occurrence i.e. house of Chotey Lal Baniya before the Barat was received. From the evidence of P.W.1 it is evident that he reached the house of Chotey Lal Baniya when the Barat was being received but in his cross-examination, he has stated that he left the place of occurrence i.e. house of Chotey Lal Baniya before the Barat was received. It was further pointed out that P.W.1 had deposed that soon after the incident, the deceased was taken by him on a bullock-cart after he was lifted and his dead-body was kept on the bullock-cart and the said bullock-cart was carried to the police station but he died on the outskirts of the village and thereafter he brought the dead-body of the deceased to his house and he argued that P.W.1 has stated that he did not go to the police station along with P.W.9 to lodge the FIR nor gave any statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. to the Investigating Officer whereas P.W.10 Banshdhari Singh the Sub-Inspector/Investigating Officer has stated before the trial court that P.W.1 Babu Lal had also come to the police station along with Chandrapal to lodge an FIR and when he reached at the place of occurrence he had recorded the statement of P.W.1 Babu Lal u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated that Krishna Gopa and Sabal Singh had caught-hold the deceased Raghunath and accused Raghubhushan Singh had fired at the deceased Raghunath with his licensee gun. It was further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that in the FIR P.W.9 Chandrapal has not stated that there was scuffle between him and the accused Shiv Bhushan Singh, Shashi Bhushan Singh, Braj Bhushan @ Santosh who slapped him and assaulted him whereas Sabal Singh and Krishna Gopal had scuffle with his father Raghunath and on the exhortation of accused Raja Singh, the accused-appellant Raghubhushan Singh had fired shot at the deceased Raghunath which hit him on his abdomen and had fallen down but it was for the first time in the Court the fact about the scuffle taken place between the accused persons and the informant and his father and the informant Chandrapal received injuries at the hands of accused is a deliberate improvement and is an afterthought just to create the evidence of P.W.9 who is also an injured against the accused persons. Moreover he argued that P.W.9 Chandrapal is said to have sustained injuries on his person but his injuries were superficial in nature and can be self inflicted also and the said fact was also opined by the doctor P.W.8 H.P.P. Jha. He has also tried to demonstrate from the inquest report and the police papers prepared while conducting the inquest by P.W.11 Girja Singh Yadav (S.I) that FIR is an ante-timed document. He has also tried to show from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.9 on the one hand and P.W.10 Banshdhari Singh, the Investigating Officer, the time of arrival of the police at the place of occurrence after registration of the FIR and the time when the police left the village after conducting the inquest and sending the dead-body of the deceased for post-mortem. It was lastly argued that the place of occurrence as has been suggested by the prosecution is also doubtful as no blood was found at the place of occurrence and further P.W.1 and P.W.9 who carried the dead-body of the deceased on bullock-cart and when the deceased died at the outskirts of the village while taken to the police station, he brought back to his house by P.W.1 and P.W.9 and his dead-body was kept at the doors of the house of P.W.9. On the strength of the said arguments, he submitted that the deceased was done to death in some other manner and not as the statement of the prosecution and the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.9 at the place of occurrence appears to be doubtful and they reached after the incident had taken place. He has also drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of other eye-witnesses of the occurrence i.e. of P.W.2 Babadin, P.W.3 Ram Ratan, P.W.4 Subhash Chand Pandey and P.W.5 Raja Ram who have not stated anything against the accused-appellant that it was he who shot dead the deceased and they turned hostile. He has also drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of other eye-witnesses of the occurrence i.e. of P.W.2 Babadin, P.W.3 Ram Ratan, P.W.4 Subhash Chand Pandey and P.W.5 Raja Ram who have not stated anything against the accused-appellant that it was he who shot dead the deceased and they turned hostile. The learned counsel for the appellant doubted the place and time of the incident as it appears from the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was wearing baniyan and lungi which further goes to show that in a marriage party if the deceased was invited, then he would not have gone in such clothes which suggests that the deceased was done to death in some other manner and not as per prosecution lonely in the dark hours of the night and the accused-appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further drawn attention of the Court towards the evidence of P.W.6 Chotey Lal Baniya that earlier dacoity had taken place in his house and in the village, hence he had made an application for deploying the police party on his house at the time of the marriage and they were also present but P.W.1 Babu Lal and P.W.9 Banshdhari Singh have denied the fact that any such police party was deputed at the house of P.W.6 Chotey Lal Baniya. Thus the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court appears to be not correct on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, hence the judgement and order passed by the trial court convicting and sentencing may be set-aside and the appellant be acquitted. 26. The learned AGA on the other hand opposed the argument of learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the incident was witnessed by P.W.1 Babu Lal and P.W.9 Chandrapal who is the informant of the case and son of the deceased also and they have categorically stated in their evidence before the trial court that it was the accused-appellant Raghubhushan Singh who has shot dead the deceased with his licensee weapon on the exhortation of accused Raja Singh who was his father and the deceased after receiving gun-shot injury on his person has died on account of fire-arm injury. The accused-appellant had previous animosity with the deceased with respect to drainage of water and because of that animosity when they found the deceased at the place of occurrence, he was shot dead by the accused-appellant on the exhortation of his father Raja Singh. The other eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR i.e. P.W.2 Babadin, P.W.3 Ram Ratan, P.W.4 Subhash Chand Pandey and P.W.5 Raja Ram were present at the place of occurrence but have turned hostile and did not support the case, goes to show that they have been won over by the accused and P.W.6 Chote Lal Baniya did not support the prosecution case and has not disclosed the participation of the accused-appellant, further goes to show that he too has sided with the accused. He further submitted that the deceased was shot dead from a very close range as has been stated by P.W.1 Babu Lal and P.W.9 Chandrapal in their evidence and blackening and scorching was present on the injuries sustained by him which goes to show that the ocular testimony corroborates the medical evidence. The trial court after going through the evidence led by the prosecution and believing the testimony of P.W.1 Babu Lal and P.W.9 Chandrapal has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offence in question and prayed that the appeal of the accused-appellants is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 27. We have gone through the record as well as the impugned order passed by the trial court in the light of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 28. The FIR of the incident was lodged by P.W.9 Chandrapal who is the son of the deceased on 26.2.1977 at 6.20 a.m. for an incident which has take place on 25.2.1977 at 10 p.m. in the night in the village Tilsahari Buzurg against seven accused persons including the appellants out of which the trial court has acquitted the five accused persons namely Shashi Bhushan Singh, Sheo Bhushan Singh, Santosh, Sabal Singh and Krishna Gopal and convicted the accused-appellants Raja Singh (now dead) and Raghubhushan Singh for the offence in question. On the day of the incident, there was a marriage ceremony of the niece of P.W.6 Chotey Lal Baniya at his house and where the deceased was also invited and he along with his son Chandrapal had gone. On the day of the incident, there was a marriage ceremony of the niece of P.W.6 Chotey Lal Baniya at his house and where the deceased was also invited and he along with his son Chandrapal had gone. The accused persons had also gone at the place of occurrence and when they found the deceased present there, they shot dead the deceased Raghunath on the exhortation of accused-appellant Raja Singh with his licensee gun. The incident was witnessed by Babu Lal P.W.1, Babadin P.W.2, Ram Ratan P.W.3, Subhash Chand Pandey P.W.4, Raja Ram P.W.5 who were also present there but during the course of the trial, P.W.2 Babadin, P.W.3 Ram Ratan, P.W.4 Subhash Chand Pandey and P.W.5 Raja Ram have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. It was P.W.1 Babu Lal who has categorically stated before the trial court and has narrated the prosecution case as has been stated by P.W.9 Chandrapal who is an eye-witness, informant of the case and son of the deceased and also an injured witness. P.W.1 has stated that the deceased was caught-hold of by Sabal Singh and Krishna Gopal whereas Shashi Bhushan, Shiv Bhushan and Braj Bhushan @ Santosh had caught-hold of P.W.9 Chandrapal and had a scuffle with them. P.W.9 Chandrapal was assaulted by the accused persons who slapped him and the deceased was shot by the accused-appellant Raghubhushan Singh with his licensee gun who was immediately lifted by P.W.1 Babu Lal and his son Chandrapal P.W.9 who tied a cloth on his wounds and lifted from the place of occurrence and his dead-body was kept on a bullock-cart and P.W.1 Babu Lal along with P.W.9 Chandrapal were taking the deceased to the police station but at the outskirts, the deceased succumbed to his injuries and thereafter his dead-body was brought back to his house by P.W.9 who kept the same at the doors of his house throughout the night. P.W.9 Chandrapal has stated that all the eye-witness have left for the house and no one was present except him and in the morning he had left the village at about 5.15 a.m. and reached the police station and lodged the FIR at 6.30 a.m. in the morning and he did not go to the police station in the night apprehending danger on account of fear. Thereafter a report was written by him as Ext.Ka-1 on the basis of which an FIR was registered against the accused persons and the Investigating Officer recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. which was recorded by the Station Officer, P.W.10 whom has narrated the incident. The FIR lodged by P.W.9 Chandrapal was also endorsed in the G.D. The police immediately thereafter went to the village of P.W.9 and found the dead-body of the deceased lying at the doors of the house of P.W.9 Chandrapal and P.W.11 Girja Singh Yadav conducted the inquest proceeding and prepared police papers which he has proved before the trial court and sent the dead-body of the deceased for post-mortem after sealing the same through police constables. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the presence of P.W.1 Babu Lal and P.W.9 Chandrapal at the place of occurrence is doubtful has no force as P.W.1 has categorically stated in his evidence that he had gone at the house of P.W.6 Chotey Lal Baniya to see the Barat procession meaning thereby that as the marriage ceremony was going on and fire works (Atishbaji) during the marriage was being taken and it was a marriage of the niece of P.W.6 Chotey Lal Baniya who was a reputed person then it was quite natural for P.W.1 to be present there to witness the activities and fire works during the marriage ceremony during which the incident has taken place. He has further deposed before the trial court that soon after the incident, he had lifted the dead-body of the deceased along with P.W.9 and kept it on a bullock-cart and while taking the bullock-cart along with the dead-body to the police station with P.W.9 Chandrapal, the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the outskirts of the village and thereafter brought the dead-body back to his house and kept the same at the doors of his house. Moreover though it has been stated by P.W.9 Chandra Pal that he had not signed the inquest report but from the perusal of the inquest report it is apparent that he is one of the Panch witnesses who signed the injury report of deceased. It appears that due to lapse of time and fading memory when his evidence was recorded, he could not remember the same. It appears that due to lapse of time and fading memory when his evidence was recorded, he could not remember the same. P.W.1 Babu Lal has further stated before the trial court that it was the accused-appellant who has shot dead the deceased and deceased died on account of fire-arm injuries sustained by the deceased which was shot by the accused-appellant. The animosity of the said witness with the accused persons which was tried to be shown for falsely deposing against them is of no consequence as he was a natural witness of the occurrence and his testimony has been rightly believed by the trial court for recording the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants as the trial court also found his presence well established at the place of occurrence. He too is the witness of the inquest report of the deceased and has signed the same which is also apparent from inquest report. Similarly P.W.9 Chandrapal who was accompanying his father at the place of occurrence has also categorically supported the prosecution case as has been narrated in the FIR and reiterated before the trial court that there was a scuffle between him and the accused persons as well as between the accused persons and the deceased and the accused-appellant Raghubhushan Singh has shot dead the deceased on the exhortation of accused Raja Singh because of previous animosity as luckily the deceased was found at the place of occurrence. As soon as the deceased received gun-shot injury at the hands of the accused-appellant Raghubhushan Singh, then he immediately tied Angocha (cloth) on the wound of the deceased which was on the abdomen and the said Angocha was also found by the P.W.11 Girja Singh Yadav who conducted the inquest on the dead-body of the deceased. The said witness also carried his father along with P.W.1 Babu Lal by lifting his dead-body on a bullock-cart and was taking to police station but his father succumbed to his injuries, hence he brought the dead-body back to his house and kept at the doors of his house. 29. The said witness also carried his father along with P.W.1 Babu Lal by lifting his dead-body on a bullock-cart and was taking to police station but his father succumbed to his injuries, hence he brought the dead-body back to his house and kept at the doors of his house. 29. The attention of the Court has also been drawn by learned counsel for the appellant towards the discrepancies in evidence of P.W.1 Babu Lal and P.W.9 Chandrapal on one hand and P.W.10 Banshdhari Singh Investigating Officer on the other hand, but they are not of such nature which goes to the root of the prosecution case thus it would cast doubt or demolish the prosecution case. Such contradictions are bound to occur when the evidence of the witnesses are recorded after a long gap, as memory of the witnesses is bound to fade due to passage of time. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants that no blood was found at the place of occurrence is also of no consequence as it appears from the evidence of P.W.7 Dr. R.C Yadav that 1500 ml blood was found in the cavity which is apparent from the post-mortem report of the deceased, hence no blood was found at the place of occurrence. Further it appears from the evidence of P.W.1 Babu Lal and P.W.9 Chandrapal that the place of occurrence had been cleaned off and water was lying there and P.W.10 Banshdhari Singh also stated that because the incident had taken place earlier in the last night, hence it appears to have washed away because of it's being a busy place. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that FIR of the incident is an ante-timed document as no time was mentioned in the chalan nash as was tried to be demonstrated from the papers prepared during the inquest proceeding is also of no consequence as because in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.9 who are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, support has been found of the prosecution case which is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Moreover the trial court has also given a cogent finding regarding the discrepancies which have been tried to be demonstrated by the learned counsel for the appellant in the police papers prepared during the inquest proceeding. Moreover the trial court has also given a cogent finding regarding the discrepancies which have been tried to be demonstrated by the learned counsel for the appellant in the police papers prepared during the inquest proceeding. The evidence of P.W.6 Chhotey Lal Baniya and other prosecution witnesses goes to show that they were witnesses of the incident but they have sided with the accused and have not supported the prosecution case in order to help the accused persons. After going through the evidence of P.W.1 Babu Lal and P.W.9 Chandrapal, it is well established that they have witnessed the incident and were present at the place of occurrence and their statements corroborate the medical evidence and the trial court was perfectly right in believing their evidence and coming to the conclusion that it was the accused-appellant who had shot dead the deceased who died on account of fire-arm injury. Thus the prosecution has proved it's case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellant. 30. In view of the foregoing discussions, the participation of the accused-appellant Raghubhushan Singh is well established by the prosecution evidence and the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences, which he has been charged with and there appears to be no infirmity or illegality in it's judgment, hence the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court is hereby upheld. 31. The appellant Raghubhushan Singh is stated to be on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court. His bail bonds and sureties are cancelled. 32. The present appeals lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 33. The copy of this judgement along with the lower court record be transmitted to the trial court concerned immediately for compliance at once.