Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 389 (RAJ)

Gamdoor Singh v. State

2019-02-01

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The appellants herein stand convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 21.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh, Headquarter Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.05/2010. Name of the Appellant Conviction for the offence under Section Sentence awarded Gamdoor Singh 302/34 IPC Life term imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo fifteen days' additional simple imprisonment. 3/25 Arms Act One year's simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo fifteen days' additional simple imprisonment. 5/27 Arms Act Three years' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo fifteen days' additional simple imprisonment. Kewal Singh 302 IPC Life term imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo fifteen days' additional simple imprisonment. 3/25 Arms Act One year's simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo fifteen days' additional simple imprisonment. 5/27 Arms Act Three years' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo fifteen days' additional simple imprisonment. 2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the accused appellants have preferred these two appeals under Section 374 (2) Cr PC. As both the appeals are directed against a common judgment, the same are being decided together. 3. Brief facts of the case are narrated here in below for the sake of ready reference. Shri Boota Singh (P.W.1) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Suratgarh Sadar on 29.06.2009 at 10.30 p.m. alleging inter alia that on the very same day at about 6.30 p.m. in the evening, he along with Raghuveer Singh and Baldev Singh were going to give food to Sikandar Singh at the field in his Jeep bearing Registration No.RJ- 01-C-2256. The informant was allegedly driving the jeep, whereas Raghuveer Singh was sitting besides him in the front. While taking the turn towards the field, they saw Gamdoor Singh, Kewal Singh (the appellants herein), Gurnishan, Raju Nehra, Roopram and Hakam Singh armed with weapons. The informant was allegedly driving the jeep, whereas Raghuveer Singh was sitting besides him in the front. While taking the turn towards the field, they saw Gamdoor Singh, Kewal Singh (the appellants herein), Gurnishan, Raju Nehra, Roopram and Hakam Singh armed with weapons. Gamdoor Singh and Kewal Singh were armed with guns and Gurnishan was having a lathi in his hand. Initially, Gamdoor Singh fired a gunshot with his firearm, which hit Raghuveer Singh on his hand. Kewal Singh fired the second gunshot, which hit on the chest of Raghuveer Singh. Thereafter, the accused escaped in their jeeps. The complainant and Baldev Singh brought Raghuveer Singh to the Suratgarh hospital in the jeep. The doctors examined Raghuveer Singh and declared him dead. It was alleged in the report that a land dispute was going on between the deceased Raghuveer Singh and Gamdoor Singh, Kewal Singh etc. and owing to this enmity, these accused persons attacked and killed Raghuveer Singh. 4. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.234/2009 was registered at the Police Station Suratgarh Sadar and investigation was commenced. The site inspection of the place of occurrence was carried out and it is alleged that an empty cartridge and pieces of bullets etc. were recovered from and nearby the place of occurrence. The site inspection plan-cum-site inspection memo (Ex.P/11) was prepared in which all these circumstances were noted. After initial investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Gamdoor Singh, Kewal Singh, Roopram and Raju Nehra in the regular court for the offences under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 IPC, whereas, the minor accused Gurnishan was charge sheeted before the Juvenile Justice Board concerned. The trial court framed charges against the four charge-sheeted accused for the offences under Sections 120-B, 148 and 302/149 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses, where after, a subsequent charge-sheet came to be filed arraigning Hakam Singh for the offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC, and a supplementary charge-sheet for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act was filed against Kewal Singh and Gamdoor Singh. Additional Charges were framed in these very terms. All the accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined total of 13 witnesses in support of its case. Additional Charges were framed in these very terms. All the accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined total of 13 witnesses in support of its case. The accused, were examined under Section 313 Cr PC and upon being confronted with the circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Shri Narendra Kumar Kachchhawa, being the Assistant Director, Ballistic State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan was examined as D.W.1. 5. Upon conclusion of the proceedings and after hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and after sifting and analysing the evidence available on record, the trial court proceeded to acquit the accused Hakam Singh, Raju Nehra and Roopram from the charges and the accused Gamdoor Singh and Kewal Singh were convicted and sentenced as above. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentences, these two accused have preferred these two separate appeals. 6. Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rishabh Handa, representing the appellant Gamdoor Singh and Mr. R.S. Gill, learned counsel representing the appellant Kewal Singh, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The first informant Boota Singh (P.W.1) and the alleged eye-witnesses Baldev Singh (P.W.2), Sikandar Singh (P.W.3) and Jasveer Singh @ Jagseer Singh (P.W.4) are closely related to the deceased and their evidence is partisan in nature and hence is totally unreliable. It was contended that the manner in which, the prosecution witnesses claimed that the incident happened, is totally belied and falsified by the medical evidence and the evidence of the ballistic expert. Their fervent contention was that the eye-witnesses categorically asserted and it was also recorded in the site inspection plan (Ex.P/11) that Gamdoor Singh while standing near a Mulberry tree growing in the field across the road, fired the first gunshot, which hit Raghuveer Singh on his hand. Kewal Singh allegedly fired the second gunshot, while standing near a shrub across the road, which hit the chest region of the deceased Raghuveer Singh. Kewal Singh allegedly fired the second gunshot, while standing near a shrub across the road, which hit the chest region of the deceased Raghuveer Singh. They referred to the statements of the four eye-witnesses and the deposition of Investigating Officer and buttressed that the Mulberry tree, where the accused Gamdoor Singh was reportedly standing when he allegedly fired the first gunshot, is shown at a distance of 2 big has from the place where the deceased received the gunshot injury on his hand, whereas the shrub, from where the accused Kewal Singh allegedly fired the second gunshot is located at a distance of 3 bighas from the place where deceased Raghuveer Singh received the fatal gunshot on his chest. They drew the court's attention towards the statement of the Medical Jurist Dr. Vijay Prakash Bhadu (P.W.12), who, while carrying out postmortem upon the body of the deceased Raghuveer Singh, noted blackening on the wound of entry on his chest region. The doctor also noticed that the entry wound was elliptical in shape and that the trajectory of the wound was descending and the exit wound was located at a comparatively lower position. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the doctor, in his cross examination admitted that the injury No.1, which was the wound of entry, must have been fired from within a distance of 10 feet and that the assailant must be standing at an altitude, when he fired the gunshot at the deceased and that the injury in the nature of the one noticed on the chest of the deceased could not have been caused if shot was fired from the same level. Learned counsel also drew the court's attention to the statement of the Investigating Officer Shri Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.13) and more particularly the cross-examination made from him, wherein the Investigating Officer admitted that according to the eyewitnesses' account, the shots were fired from a distance of about one Murabba, i.e. 5 bighas, which would work out to between 800 and 1000 feet. They submitted that the Investigating Officer admitted in cross-examination that if the gunshots had been fired from the locations and distances as stated by the eye-witnesses, then the bullets would have fallen down midway after travelling to a distance of about 300 to 400 feet only. Learned counsel for the appellants also drew the court's attention to the statement of the Ballistic Expert Mr. Learned counsel for the appellants also drew the court's attention to the statement of the Ballistic Expert Mr. Narendra Kumar Kachchhawa examined by the defence as D.W.1, who stated that the empty cartridge and the remain ants of the bullets recovered by the Investigating Officer were not fired from the guns forwarded by the Investigating Officer to the FSL (the ones allegedly recovered in furtherance of the in formations provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act). They referred to the statement of the expert, wherein, he admitted that the firearms, which were presented before him, if fired from a distance of 800 feet, could not launch the projectiles with such velocity and force so as to cause an exit wound after hitting a human body. It was further contended that recoveries of firearms made at the instance of the accused are totally false and fabricated. The firearm was recovered and seized from the accused Kewal Singh on 02.11.2009 vide seizure memo Ex.P/13, whereas the recovery of the gun at the instance of accused Gamdoor Singh was made on 24.10.2009 vide seizure memo Ex.P/16. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that while effecting recoveries and seizures of the firearms, the Investigating Officer did not associate two independent witnesses from the locality. The independent witness Shri Radheyshyam (P.W.5) did not support the prosecution case. Learned defence counsel further urged that the Investigating Officer did not examine any independent witness from the locality so as to lend credence and corroboration to the testimony of the interested partisan eye-witnesses Boota Singh (P.W.1), Baldev Singh (P.W.2), Sikandar Singh (P.W.3) and Jasveer Singh @ Jagseer Singh (P.W.4). It was further contended that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is also vitiated because while deciding the case, the trial court failed to advert to and consider in correct perspective, evidence of the defence witness, who was none other than the Assistant Director Ballistics of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, who gave significant testimony on the scientific aspects and circumstances, which have a material bearing on the veracity of the prosecution case. They urged that in view of the fact that there is categoric opinion of the ballistic expert that the recovered empty cartridge, projectiles (pieces of bullets), which were seized from and nearby the place of occurrence and also from the body of the deceased were not fired from the firearms allegedly recovered from the accused, the seizures of weapons become redundant and hence, conviction of the accused as recorded by the trial court is totally illegal, unjust, perverse and not supported by reliable pieces of evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that it is a classic case, wherein the inconsistency in ocular and medical evidence is so stark and glaring that the same cannot be reconciled in any manner. Taking into account the numerous contradictions and infirmities in the evidence of the eye-witnesses, who are related to the deceased and the inconsistencies in their version vis-a-vis the medical evidence and the ballistic expert's opinion, the latter have to be given precedence, thereby destroying the very substratum of the prosecution case. 7. In support of their contentions, Mr. Kharlia and Mr. Gill placed reliance upon the following judgments :- (1) Mahavir Singh vs. State of M.P. [ AIR 2016 SC 5231 ] (2) Awadhesh & Anr. vs. State of M.P. [ AIR 1988 SC 1158 ] (3) Ram Narain vs. The State of Punjab [ AIR 1975 SC 1727 ] 8. On these grounds, learned counsel implored the court to accept the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused from the charges. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Kulwant Singh and Mr. D.S. Gharsana, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel and urged that the eyewitnesses had no occasion to falsely implicate the accused for the murder of Shri Raghuveer Singh. They urged that testimony of the eye-witnesses is absolutely natural and reliable. Regarding the minor contradictions inter se between the ocular evidence and the medical and ballistic opinion harped upon by the defence, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant was that such trivial contradictions are bound to occur in the testimony of truthful witnesses. They submitted that the discrepancy in the ocular testimony and the medical evidence is not so significant that the truthful version of the eyewitnesses can be discarded. They submitted that the discrepancy in the ocular testimony and the medical evidence is not so significant that the truthful version of the eyewitnesses can be discarded. They urged that the eyewitnesses have given affirmative evidence to the effect that the two appellants were armed with guns and that the accused Gamdoor Singh fired the gunshot, which hit the hand of the deceased and thereafter, the accused Kewal Singh fired the second gunshot, which entered from the chest region of the deceased and exited from the scapular area and proved fatal. They contended that this elaborate and firm deposition of the eyewitnesses is corroborated in material particulars by the site inspection plan, medical evidence in form of the postmortem report and the seizures of weapons made from the accused and as such, this court should not feel persuaded to interfere in the impugned judgment, which is based on a thorough and meticulous appreciation and evaluation of the evidence available on record. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned defence counsel as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and the complainant's counsel and have threadbare sifted and re-appreciated the evidence available on record. We have also gone through the impugned judgment. 11. Boota Singh (P.W.1), Baldev Singh (P.W.2), Sikandar Singh (P.W.3) and Jasveer Singh @ Jagseer Singh (p.W.4), were portrayed as eye-witnesses of the incident dated 29.06.2009, in which Shri Raghuveer Singh received the firearm injuries, which proved instantaneously fatal. Boota Singh (P.W.1) submitted the written report (Ex.P/1), wherein it was categorically mentioned that Gamdoor Singh fired the gunshot, which hit the hand of the deceased Raghuveer Singh, whereas Kewal Singh fired the second gunshot, which hit on the chest of the deceased. While deposing before the court, all the four eyewitnesses, named above, spoke out in chorus that the first gunshot was fired by the accused Gamdoor Singh while standing besides a mulberry tree and the accused Kewal Singh fired the second gunshot from near a shrub. The other accused were allegedly standing near the barkane tree. All these three spots, which are in field across the road in reference to the place of incident, were pinpointed by the Investigating Officer during investigation and are marked in the site inspection plan (Ex.P/11). The other accused were allegedly standing near the barkane tree. All these three spots, which are in field across the road in reference to the place of incident, were pinpointed by the Investigating Officer during investigation and are marked in the site inspection plan (Ex.P/11). It is the categoric assertion of all these eye witnesses that on receiving the first gunshot, which hit on the finger of Raghuveer Singh, he got down from the jeep and while he was trying to locate the assailant, the second gunshot was fired which hit on his chest. Significantly enough, the prosecution has not come out with any such theory that the shrub and mulberry tree, from where the two gunshots were allegedly fired, are located at an altitude as compared to the place where Raghuveer Singh was standing, when he received the gunshot wounds. These witnesses further alleged that a land dispute was pending between the deceased on the one hand and the accused on the other hand. However, this allegation of the witnesses has not been supported by any evidence in documentary form so as to affirmatively satisfy the court regarding any significant pending land dispute between the parties so as to impute motive to the accused. While preparing the site inspection plan, the Investigating Officer seized pieces of bullets from the Kotha, near which the deceased was standing. An empty cartridge was recovered near the barkane tree. The Medical Jurist Dr. Vijay Prakash Bhadu (P.W.12) in his cross-examination gave positive testimony to the effect that the wound of entry noticed on the right side of thorax wall of the deceased was elliptical in shape measuring / inch x V inch. The exit wound too was elliptical admeasuring % inch x / inch, which was located below the left scapular region. The internal organs in between these two entry and exit wounds, i.e. lungs, ribs and heart etc. were damaged. The doctor also noticed a lacerated firearm wound on the index finger of the right hand of the deceased, from which a copper golden coloured foreign body was recovered. The said metallic body was seized and handed over to the Investigating Officer. In cross-examination, the doctor positively affirmed that the entry wound was higher, the trajectory was going downwards and the exit wound was lower. The said metallic body was seized and handed over to the Investigating Officer. In cross-examination, the doctor positively affirmed that the entry wound was higher, the trajectory was going downwards and the exit wound was lower. The entry wound was having blackening giving rise to an inference that a gunshot was fired from close range. It was admitted by the Medical Jurist that the gunshot must have been fired from within a range of 10 feet and that the assailant must have been standing at a comparatively higher position than the deceased. The Investigating Officer Shri Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.13) in his evidence stated that he recovered an empty cartridge from below the Barkene tree. He also recovered the pieces of bullets from the wall of the Kotha. He prepared the site inspection plan (Ex.P/11), in which all these facts are noted. He also allegedly recovered two firearms at the instance of the accused appellants in furtherance of the informations provided by them under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In cross-examination, the Investigating Officer candidly admitted that as per his investigation and observations, the first gunshot was fired while the jeep was turning from a distance of around 1 Murabba, i.e. 5 bighas, and that the second gunshot was also fired from a distance of about 5 bighas. The Investigating Officer further clarified in his cross-examination that as per the statements of the eye-witnesses, the gunshots were fired from a distance of about 800 feet and that it was not possible that the bullets could have travelled to this long distance. The ballistic expert Shri Narendra Kumar Kachchhawa (D.W.1), whose evidence the trial court brushed aside casually in the impugned judgment, was the Assistant Director Ballistics, Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan. He was examined by the defence and affirmed that the empty cartridge forwarded by the Investigating Officer was not fired from either of the recovered weapons. The bullet pieces, which were forwarded by the Investigating Officer, were also not fired from any of the guns forwarded by the Investigating Officer to the FSL. He proved the ballistic report (Ex.P/27) to affirm these findings. 12. The bullet pieces, which were forwarded by the Investigating Officer, were also not fired from any of the guns forwarded by the Investigating Officer to the FSL. He proved the ballistic report (Ex.P/27) to affirm these findings. 12. In wake of these positive findings/observations, as emerging from the depositions of the Medical Jurist Shri Vijay Prakash Bhadu (P.W.12), the Investigating Officer Shri Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.13) and the Ballistic Expert Shri Narendra Kumar Kachchhawa (D.W.1), we are of the firm opinion that the case as set up in the testimony of the prosecution eye-witnesses Boota Singh (P.W.1), Baldev Singh (P.W.2), Sikandar Singh (P.W.3) and Jasveer Singh @ Jagseer Singh (P.W.4) that the two accused fired the gunshots towards the deceased from a distance ranging between two big has to three bighas is totally false, cooked up and concocted. Considering the undisputed fact that the entry wound on the chest of the deceased bore mark of blackening, it can be inferred beyond a shadow of doubt that the fatal gunshot must have been fired from a range of 10 feet and not more. Furthermore, the fact that the entry as well as the exit wounds were elliptical in shape and that the trajectory of the wound inside the body of the deceased was angled downwards leads to the only inference that the assailant must have been standing at an altitude as compared to the deceased when the fatal gunshot was fired. Furthermore, the fact that the bullet managed to traverse the entire thickness of the thorax region and exited from the scapular region of the deceased shows that the impact of the bullet was very forceful. It is an admitted position that in Ganganagar, where the lands are under Colonisation Department, a big has ad measures 165 feet x 165 feet, meaning thereby, the minimum distance from which the gunshots were fired as per the eye-witnesses, would be somewhere around 700 to 800 feet. In view of the categorical observations in the postmortem report (Ex.P/36) and the affirmative opinion of the Medical Jurist Dr. In view of the categorical observations in the postmortem report (Ex.P/36) and the affirmative opinion of the Medical Jurist Dr. Vijay Prakash Bhadu (P.W.12) regarding the distance and height from which the fatal gunshot was fired and the opinion of the Ballistic Expert that the blackening found on the wound in a gun fire made by 315 rifle would only be possible, if the shot was fired from 36 inches and the pertinent opinion that the weapons forwarded to him could not fire a projectile which would pierce the human body, we are of the firm opinion that the case set up by the eye-witnesses that the accused fired gunshots from the locations as alleged by them is totally false and in all probability, none of these eyewitnesses was present at the place of occurrence at the time, when the deceased was murdered by gun fires and all have given a cooked up version of the incident in order to wreak vengeance upon the accused as both the parties are inimical to each other. The convincing and significant reasons assigned in the foregoing pages are sufficient to hold that the gunshots were definitely not fired from a distance of 2 big has/3 big has as claimed by the prosecution witnesses and the distance of firing could not have been more than 10 feet. The facts in the case of Mahavir Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2016 SC 5231 and the principles laid down therein are applicable on all fours to the present case. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as below :- 20. We have thoroughly examined the evidence of expert witnesses as well as other ocular witnesses. The evidence of Dr. A.K. Upadhyay (PW 12) reveals that when the deceased sustained bullet injury, he might have been in a standing position and the bullet would have entered from left side and exited from right side of the body. This fact, however, corroborated with the evidences of PW 7 (Gambhir Singh) and PW 8 (Shanti Devi), but the statements of PW 9 (Madho Singh) and PW 11 (Bir Singh) do not support it. Similarly, there were contradictions between the statements of Dr. This fact, however, corroborated with the evidences of PW 7 (Gambhir Singh) and PW 8 (Shanti Devi), but the statements of PW 9 (Madho Singh) and PW 11 (Bir Singh) do not support it. Similarly, there were contradictions between the statements of Dr. Upadhyay (PW 12) and that of the eyewitnesses as to the distance and height of the assaulter while inflicting the grievous injury to the deceased and whether the deceased was standing on the platform (Chabutara) or came down from it while receiving the bullet injury. We find from the statement of Dr. Upadhyay (PW 12) that he was not clear and definite to say exactly from what position and distance the assaulter could have fired the gun. 21. Going by the seizure memo (Ex. P/3) apparently one gun, 12 live and 9 empty cartridges were recovered from the Appellant. The evidences of eyewitnesses support this fact and no question was put to the I.O. after the recovery of the gun and cartridges, that whether he himself shot from the seized gun to create evidence. The prosecution's story is somewhat strengthened by the ballistic expert's report (Ex. P/12) which affirms that the gun seized from the Appellant was in perfect order, the empty cartridges bore the same impression on pin as seized from the accused and the live cartridges were actually fired by the gun seized from the Appellant. But nowhere it was mentioned that the death of the victim occurred by the bullet released from the seized gun. Merely the seizure of gun and cartridges from the Appellant, the ongoing enmity between the parties on account of various criminal litigation's and the altercation and exchange of heated words between the rival groups on the morning of the same day, cannot establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. 22. The position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis--vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. 22. The position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis--vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes far that it completely Rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved [See: Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 ) : (2010 AIR SCW 5701 ).' 13. In the present case also, all the material prosecution eye-witnesses are interested witnesses and their evidence is totally partisan in nature and they had a motive to falsely implicate the accused as the relations between the parties were strained over a land dispute. As we have already concluded that testimony of the eye-witnesses is totally belied and contradicted by the medical evidence and the opinion of the ballistic expert, we feel it wholly unsafe to rely upon the same for upholding conviction of the appellants for the charge under Section 302 IPC. We are of the firm view that the findings recorded in the impugned judgment dated 21.05.2012, wherein the trial court placed implicit reliance upon the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses Boota Singh (P.W.1), Baldev Singh (P.W.2), Sikandar Singh (P.W.3) and Jasveer Singh @ Jagseer Singh (P.W.4), (whom we have branded to be interested and partisan witnesses) and discarded the strong opinion and scientific observations of the Medical Jurist Dr. Vijay Prakash Bhadu (P.W.12) and the Government Ballistic Expert Shri Narendra Kumar Kachchhawa (D.W.1) are totally perverse, unjust and were arrived at by a sheer misappreciation of material available on record. The trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the evidence of the Medical Jurist and the Government Ballistic Expert completely contradict and destroy the concocted version of these so-called eye-witnesses regarding the manner in which the incident took place and the variation noticeable in the two sets of evidence is so stark and glaring that the same cannot be reconciled. The trial court also committed grave legal error while casually sidelining the defence evidence in the form of the statement of the Government Ballistic Expert. The Ballistic Expert's report (Ex.P/27) is a document relied upon by the prosecution. The trial court also committed grave legal error while casually sidelining the defence evidence in the form of the statement of the Government Ballistic Expert. The Ballistic Expert's report (Ex.P/27) is a document relied upon by the prosecution. A bare perusal of the report and the evidence of its scribe, i.e. Dr. Narendra Kumar Kachchhawa (D.W.1), makes it clear that the bullet pieces recovered from the location of the incident were not fired from the two firearms. Had the trial court applied its judicial mind to this material piece of evidence and had not eschewed it from consideration in a casual manner, then in all probability, the conclusions drawn might have assumed a different colour. In view of the satisfaction recorded above, we are of the firm view that conviction of the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 302, 302/34 IPC is grossly illegal and cannot be sustained. 14. Now coming to the charges under Section 3/25 and 5/27 of the Arms Act, for which the two accused have been convicted. We find that the Investigating Officer associated only one independent witness each, viz. Radheyshyam (P.W.5) and Harbansh Singh (P.W.6) while effecting recoveries of the firearms from the two accused. The firearm was recovered at the instance of the accused Gamdoor Singh on 24.10.2009 vide seizure memo (Ex.P/16), i.e. after more than 25 days of the incident, whereas recovery of the firearm at the instance of accused Kewal Singh was made on 02.11.2009 vide seizure memo (Ex.P/13). It is unbelievable that having escaped from the scene of occurrence, the accused would preserve the not too valuable country-made firearms, so that the same could be recovered and used against them in evidence at a later stage. We also find that on a careful perusal of the report of the ballistic expert D.W.1 Shri Narendra Kumar Kachchhawa (Ex.P/27), it comes to light that the empty cartridge, pieces of bullets recovered from the finger of the deceased Raghuveer Singh and those recovered from the walls of the Kotha nearby the place of occurrence did not match with these recovered weapons. Thus, a strong presumption has to be raised in favour of the accused because by no means, can it be concluded that these very firearms allegedly recovered from the accused were used in the incident. Thus, a strong presumption has to be raised in favour of the accused because by no means, can it be concluded that these very firearms allegedly recovered from the accused were used in the incident. Furthermore, as has been noticed above, the Investigating Officer associated only a single independent witness each while effecting recoveries of the firearms from the accused. In addition to above, we note that the documents prepared by the Investigating Officer while taking the guns into possession, do not indicate that any identifying marks were appended on the packets as is evident from a bare perusal of the seizure memos Ex.P/13 and Ex.P/16. However, when these packets were received at the FSL, the ballistic expert while opening the packets noted in the FSL Report (Ex.P/27) that same bore marks W/1 and W/2. Therefore, no sanctity can be attached to the recoveries. Thus, we feel it unsafe to rely upon the evidence of the Investigating Officer, wherein he claimed to have effected recoveries of the two firearms from both the appellants and these recoveries deserves to be discarded. 15. As an upshot of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that prosecution failed to bring home the charges against the accused by leading plausible and convincing evidence and rather it is a case of false implication of the accused by interested partisan witnesses, i.e. Boota Singh (P.W.1), Baldev Singh (P.W.2), Sikandar Singh (P.W.3) and Jasveer Singh @ Jagseer Singh (P.W.4), who had a bone to grind against them because of inimical relations and hence, it is considered totally unsafe to rely upon their evidence so as to uphold the conviction of the accused appellants as recorded by the trial court for the offences under Section 302 and 302/34 IPC. The recoveries of the two firearms made at the instance of the accused appear to be planted ones and hence, deserves to be discarded. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 3/25 and 5/27 of the Arms Act cannot be sustained. 16. As a consequence of the discussion made here in above, the appeals deserve acceptance and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 21.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh, Headquarter Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.05/2010 is quashed and set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of the charges. They are in custody. 16. As a consequence of the discussion made here in above, the appeals deserve acceptance and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 21.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh, Headquarter Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.05/2010 is quashed and set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of the charges. They are in custody. They shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.