ORDER : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant - Vijai Pal Singh, son of Sri Babu Singh against the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.03.1986, passed by the Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 255 of 1984 (State vs. Vijai Pal Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of 1984, under Sections - 302, 307, 324 and 309 I.P.C., Police Station - Barhpura, District - Etawah, whereby the appellant was convicted under the aforesaid sections and was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C.; three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section - 324 I.P.C.; and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section - 309 I.P.C. 2. All these sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. In the same trial, accused was found not guilty under Section - 307 I.P.C. and was acquitted of the charge. 4. Factual chronology of the case, culminating into lodging of the F.I.R. by informant Chhotey Singh (P.W. 1), on 23.06.1984 at 01.55 a.m., at Police Station - Barhpura, District - Etawah, at Case Crime No. 45 of 1984, under Sections - 307, 309 I.P.C., was that the informant was a Company Hawaldar of 37 Batallion P.A.C. and was posted as such at Police Station - Barhpura. Today i.e. on the date of occurrence (23.06.1984), Constable/P.A.C. 19520 - Vijai Pal Singh was on Sentry duty at the said police station from 11:00 p.m. (to be precise 22.06.1984) to 01:00 a.m. (on 26.06.1984) in the night intervening 22/23.06.1984 and his duty was to be followed by another Sentry Constable - 20185 Arun Kumar, whose duty was to run from 01:00 a.m. to 03:00 a.m. on 23.06.1984. Neither did Constable Vijai Pal Singh wake up/report the informant after his duty was over, nor did he wake up Constable Arun Kumar for taking on his duty (after 1:00 a.m. in the night). It was around 01:30 a.m. (in the night intervening 22/23.06.1984) when a sound of fire was heard. This awakened the informant as well as the other personnel of the force. Vijai Pal Singh was sighted running towards the office of the police station with rifle and he was chased by the informant (Chhotey Singh), Constable 20251 Shanker Bux, Constable 19596 Siddh Nath Rai. Constable 19766 Bhai Lal Yadav and Sentry of the Police Station - C/C.P. 294 Ramesh Singh and Constable 119 Devi Prasad, who were holding torches in their hands. Constable 19766 Bhai Lal Yadav and Sentry of the Police Station - C/C.P. 294 Ramesh Singh and Constable 119 Devi Prasad, who were holding torches in their hands. Suddenly, Vijai Pal Singh pointed his rifle towards them and fired two shots on the informant and others, with intention to kill, from the verandah of the office of police station, but the informant and others, escaped unhurt as the bullet missed target and did not hit them. In the meanwhile, Constable Bhai Lal Yadav moved ahead to overpower Vijai Pal Singh, when he effected blow by bannet of his rifle on the back of Bhai Lal Yadav and caused injury to him and entered into the male lockup and confined himself there in the male lock up of the police station, and tried to commit suicide by shooting himself with his rifle on his abdomen. Consequently, he fell down in the lock up. When the informant and others also rushed to the well of the police station, they found Constable Rama Shanker groaning in pain on account of gunshot injury on his stomach. F.I.R. also contains details about the background of this happening that on 21.06.1984, Constable Vijai Pal Singh had rebuked P.A.C./Constables in the barrack, including Constable Shanker Bux. When Rama Shanker objected to the rebuking, Vijay Pal Singh threatened him with dire consequences and on account of that animosity, he shot Rama Shanker with Rifle No. 38458 and Butt No. F632 along with bannet, which were recovered from Vijai Pal Singh. There was one empty cartridge entangled in the chamber of rifle and there was one live cartridge in the magazine. Apart from that, 45 live cartridges were recovered from the belt of Vijai Pal Singh along with 10 chargers. 3 empty cartridges were found from the verandah. All these articles were deposited at the police station and request was made for lodging the report. The written report is Ext. Ka.1, whereas the Check F.I.R. is Ext. Ka.12, whereafter a case was registered at aforesaid case crime number against the appellant in the relevant G.D. of the aforesaid date and time at aforesaid police station. 5. The investigation was taken over by P.W. 8 Chandra Shekhar, who recorded statement of various witnesses. Besides that, he also recorded the statement of Rama Shanker and has proved the same as Ext. Ka.14. Thereafter, he prepared Site-plan (Ext. Ka.15) and various memos. 5. The investigation was taken over by P.W. 8 Chandra Shekhar, who recorded statement of various witnesses. Besides that, he also recorded the statement of Rama Shanker and has proved the same as Ext. Ka.14. Thereafter, he prepared Site-plan (Ext. Ka.15) and various memos. Prime being one pellet, which was recovered from male lockup. The recovery memo of the same was prepared and marked as Ext. Ka.16. All the materials collected from the spot were kept in the police malkhana and description of the same was entered in the relevant G.D. of the police station. The same is proved as Ext. Ka.17. He also prepared memo of torches, which were marked as Ext. Ka. 3 and Ext. Ka.19, respectively. He was also informed about the death of Rama Shanker, whereupon the case was converted from one under Sections - 307, 309 I.P.C. to one under Sections 302, 307, 309 I.P.C. Relevant note was made in the G.D. Concerned as Rapat No. 2 of date 24.06.1984. This witness has proved the G.D. entry as Ext. Ka.20, which was prepared in the hand writing of one Chhatrapal (Constable), with whom he is well acquainted and knows his handwriting as well. The Investigating Officer has also proved the inquest report of deceased - Rama Shanker as Ext. Ka.21. However, it is noticeable that during course of investigation, Vijai Pal Singh was medically examined on 23.06.1984 at 04:35 a.m. at District Hospital, Etawah by P.W. 7 Dr. Diwakar Sharma, wherein he found the following injuries on his person:- 1. Gun shot wound 1 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on the front of abdomen 6 cm above umbilicus at 1 o' clock position. Margins inverted. Blackening present (Entry). 2. Gun shot wound 5 cm x 5 cm x cavity deep on the back of left side 8 cm above iliac crest 11.5 cm away from mid line. Margins everted. Fresh bleeding present. (wound of exit) In the opinion of doctor, the condition of patient was poor. The patient was admitted and police was informed. Plain X-ray of abdomen was advised. Nature of injury was "kept under observation". Injury was stated to have been caused by firearm. Duration of the injury was noted fresh. The injury report of Vijai Pal Singh - Constable - is on record and the same is marked as Ex. Ka.6. 6. P.W. 7 Dr. Plain X-ray of abdomen was advised. Nature of injury was "kept under observation". Injury was stated to have been caused by firearm. Duration of the injury was noted fresh. The injury report of Vijai Pal Singh - Constable - is on record and the same is marked as Ex. Ka.6. 6. P.W. 7 Dr. Diwakar Sharma had also medically examined the injuries of deceased Rama Shanker (as he was then alive) on 23.06.1984 at 4:50 a.m. at District Hospital, Etawah, wherein he found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:- 1. Gun shot wound 1 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on front of lower abdomen 6 cm below umbilicus at 7 o' clock position 1 cm away from midline (right). Margins inverted. Blackening present (wound of entry). 2. Gun shot wound 2.5 cm x 3.5 cm x cavity deep on the right side back 36 cm below the root of neck. Margins everted. Bleeding present. (wound of exit) In the opinion of the doctor, the condition of patient was poor. He was admitted and police was informed. Plain X-ray of abdomen was advised. Nature of injury was "kept under observation". Duration of the injury was found fresh. The injury report of Rama Shanker, Constable is on record and the same is marked as Ex. Ka.7. 7. Besides, Dr. Diwakar Sharma also examined Constable Bhai Lal Yadav at 06:15 a.m. on 23.06.1984 and found the following injury on his person:- 1. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.8 cm x muscle deep on left scapular region 14 cm below top of left shoulder tailing present downwards. Wound was longitudinal. In the opinion of doctor, the injury was simple and caused by sharp-edged weapon. Duration of injury was found fresh. The injury report of Bhai Lal Yadav-Constable-is on record and the same is marked as Ex. Ka.8. 8. Dr. Diwakar has also proved fact that the condition of patient Rama Shanker was at the admission and during treatment serious, therefore, he informed the Magistrate for recording his statement, whereupon Tehsildar, Etawah recorded statement of Rama Shanker in his (Dr. Diwakar) presence after his certification about the fit condition of the patient prior to and subsequently to the recording of the statement, was given. This certification has been proved on the original sheet of the statement and marked as Exts. Ka.9 and Ext. Ka.10, respectively. Diwakar) presence after his certification about the fit condition of the patient prior to and subsequently to the recording of the statement, was given. This certification has been proved on the original sheet of the statement and marked as Exts. Ka.9 and Ext. Ka.10, respectively. The statement of the injured Rama Shanker, as recorded by the Tehsildar, Etawah has been proved as Ext. Ka-5. Pertinent to observe that P.W. 6 Tej Pal Singh-the then Tehsildar of the area - posted in Etawah on 23.06.1984, has proved recording of the statement of Rama Shanker in the morning and has proved his handwriting and the statement recorded at 05:00 a.m. and ended at 05:07 a.m. (on 23.06.1984) as Ext. Ka.5. However, the injured Rama Shanker died during the course of treatment. P.W. 7 Dr. Diwakar Sharma has testified to the fact that the information of death of Rama Shanker in the hospital was conveyed to S.H.O., Kotwali by Dr. H.N. Singh, with whom this witness was earlier posted and as such, was acquainted with his handwriting. He has proved the communication letter made by Dr. H.N. Singh as Ext. Ka.11. 9. The post post-mortem examination on the cadaver of the deceased Rama Shanker was done by Dr. M. Ali, wherein the following ante mortem injuries were found:- 1. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep in front of abdomen 7.5 cm below the umbilicus in midline directing upward & backward. 2. Gun shot wound of exit 4 cm x 3.5 cm x cavity deep on back of lumbar regions in midline 33 cms below the neck. Both the wounds were dressed. 3. Two wounds of cut open in both legs. Cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage. The post-mortem examination report of deceased Rama Shanker is on record and has been proved as Ext. Ka.4. 10. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.24) was submitted against the accused under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C. 11. Charges were framed under Sections - 302, 307, 324 and 309 I.P.C. The same were denied and trial was opted by the accused. 12. Prosecution, in all, produced 8 witnesses, out of which, P.W. 1 Chottey Singh, P.W. 2 Bhai Lal, P.W. 3 Shanker Bux, P.W. 4 Siddh Nath Rai and P.W. 5 Ramesh Singh were examined as witnesses of fact. 12. Prosecution, in all, produced 8 witnesses, out of which, P.W. 1 Chottey Singh, P.W. 2 Bhai Lal, P.W. 3 Shanker Bux, P.W. 4 Siddh Nath Rai and P.W. 5 Ramesh Singh were examined as witnesses of fact. Apart from that, the following formal witnesses were also examined - P.W. 6 Tej Pal Singh was the Tehsildar, Etawah, he recorded statement of both the accused as well as the deceased and has proved it as Ext. Ka. 5. Apart from that, he has also proved certain statement recorded by him, which he has admitted in his cross examination as Ext. Ka.12. P.W. 7 Dr. Diwakar Sharma has medically examined the deceased prior to his death as well as the other injured constables including the accused after the occurrence on 22/23.06.1984 at District Hospital, Etawah and he has proved the process. P.W. 8 S.I. Chandra Shekhar, is the Investigating Officer. He has detailed the investigation carried out by him and fact of filing the charge-sheet. 13. As no other testimony was adduced, evidence for the prosecution was closed and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section - 313 Cr.P.C., wherein allegation of firing on Rama Shanker was denied by him and he claimed to have been falsely implicated by levelling baseless charges by the informant side. However, in his submission, he has stated that Head Constable-Kashi Prasad had fired on him when he had gone to the chabutra to call Arun Kumar. In order to avert danger to himself, he also fired, which fire, instead of hitting Kashi Prasad, hit Rama Shanker. 14. No evidence, whatsoever, was led by the defense. 15. The trial court after vetting the testimony on record and properly appraising the facts and circumstances, recorded aforesaid finding of conviction and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life under Section - 302 I.P.C.; three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section - 324 I.P.C.; and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section - 309 I.P.C. which paved way for this appeal. 16. We have heard Sri Bhawishya Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant, Sri Krishna Pahal, learned A.A.G. assisted by Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 17. Contention has been raised on behalf of the appellant that in this case, all the prosecution witnesses are highly interested witnesses. 16. We have heard Sri Bhawishya Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant, Sri Krishna Pahal, learned A.A.G. assisted by Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 17. Contention has been raised on behalf of the appellant that in this case, all the prosecution witnesses are highly interested witnesses. They are highly motivated and influenced by the higher authorities and they are deliberately stating false theory before the court after forming their group. The fact is that the accused himself was shot at by another constable and in order to avoid danger and in self defense, the appellant fired, but the bullet missed its target and hit Rama Shanker. The statement given to the Tehsildar was not correctly recorded and the Tehsildar has sided with the informant side. The circumstances show that no one saw the actual occurrence as to when Rama Shanker, the deceased was hit by bullet/pellet fired by the appellant. The origin of the incident is shrouded in mystery. 18. Learned A.A.G. has claimed that all the prosecution witnesses were present on the spot at the time of occurrence and the incident took place around 01:30 a.m. in the night intervening 22/23.06.1984, when a fire was shot by the appellant and due to the sound of the fire all those sleeping over there got awakened and the accused was at that point of time seen rushing towards the office of the police station with a rifle in his hand and after reaching on the verandah of the police station, he pointed out his rifle towards the informant and the other personnel of the force and fired two shots, thought it did not cause any harm to anyone. Thereafter, the accused locked himself in the male lock up and tried to commit suicide by shooting himself on his abdomen with his rifle. Each and every detail of the occurrence has been proved reasonably beyond any shadow of doubt. P.W. 6 Tej Pal Singh is the Tehsildar of Etawah, who recorded statement of the victim as well as the accused, wherein also, the victim has categorically stated that the shot, which hit on his abdomen, was shot by Vijai Pal Singh - the accused. There is no reason to falsely implicate the accused. 19. P.W. 6 Tej Pal Singh is the Tehsildar of Etawah, who recorded statement of the victim as well as the accused, wherein also, the victim has categorically stated that the shot, which hit on his abdomen, was shot by Vijai Pal Singh - the accused. There is no reason to falsely implicate the accused. 19. In the light of the rival submissions, the moot point that arises for adjudication of this appeal relates to fact, whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charge beyond all reasonable doubt? 20. It can be conveniently observed that the incident in question is admitted to the defense but with difference (he was Constable Kashi Prasad, who shot at the accused first) that the fire shot by the accused in self-defence though aimed at Constable Kashi Prasad, because he had shot at the accused first, but it missed him and instead hit the deceased Rama Shanker. Now, we have to contemplate on this set-up, whether the same is gathered in the attendant facts and circumstances and the same is probable or not? 21. After arduous scrutiny of the record and the wholesome scrutiny of the five prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Chhotey Singh - the informant, P.W. 2 Bhai Lal Yadav - the injured witness, who was hit on his back by the bannet of the rifle by accused, P.W. 3 Shanker Bux Singh, P.W. 4 Siddh Nath Rai, P.W. 5 Ramesh Singh, it trickles out that in the night intervening 22/23.06.1984, the accused was on patrolling/guard duty at Police Station-Barhpura from 11:00 p.m. in the night (intervening 22.23.06.1984) up to 1:00 a.m. It so happened around 01:30 a.m. (in the night intervening 22/23.06.1984), that a sound of fire awakened these witnesses and the injured - Rama Shanker, when they saw the accused running away towards the office of the police station with rifle in his hand. A number of constables present over there tried to overpower him and in the process, P.W. 2 Bhai Lal Yadav, when moved ahead to take him in his grip, the accused gave blow with his bannet of the rifle on his back, which caused injury on his back. The injury of P.W. 2 Bhai Lal Yadav has been proved as incised wound 2 cm x 0.8 cm x Muscle deep on left scapular region 14 cm below top of left shoulder tailing present downwards. The injury of P.W. 2 Bhai Lal Yadav has been proved as incised wound 2 cm x 0.8 cm x Muscle deep on left scapular region 14 cm below top of left shoulder tailing present downwards. Wound was longitudinal and it was rated simple and caused by sharp edged weapon. Duration was the fresh. This medical examination was done by P.W. 7 Dr. Diwakar Sharma at District Hospital at 06:15 a.m. on 23.06.1984 and the injury report is Ext. Ka.8. Apart from that, the accused also tried to commit suicide by locking up himself in the male lockup of the police station and self suffered one rifle shot on his abdomen. His injuries have also been examined by the same doctor P.W. 7 Dr. Diwakar Sharma and has been proved as Ext. Ka.6. In his medical examination, one gun shot wound of entry and one gun shot wound of exit have been noted and the same has been proved as Ext. Ka.6. The testimony of all the witnesses of fact commensurates with the medical documents/evidence and there is no glaring or material inconsistency of any sort, which may reflect anything adverse than the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses regarding the occurrence on the whole and the nature of the injuries caused both on the informant side as well as the accused and the same cannot be doubted by any stretch of imagination. Thus, the statement of the accused as submitted under Section - 313 Cr.P.C. becomes a hollow claim not supported by any evidence or circumstances of the this case. 22. It is important to note that we have, before us, particular testimony of the then Tehsildar, Etawah, who recorded statement of the victim Rama Shanker on 23.06.1984 around 05:00 a.m. and a certification of fitness was previously obtained by him, which was given by Dr. Diwakar Sharma, who certified that the injured Rama Shanker was, at that point of time, in fit mental/physical condition to give statement. The certification given by the doctor has been proved as Exts. Ka.9 and Ext. Ka.10. Apart from that, the same fact has been fortified by P.W. 6, the then Tehsildar, Etawah-Tej Pal Singh. As per testimony of P.W. 6-Tej Pal Singh, he himself recorded statement of Rama Shanker Singh on 23.06.1984 in the morning, after obtaining certification from Dr. Diwakar Sharma. Ka.9 and Ext. Ka.10. Apart from that, the same fact has been fortified by P.W. 6, the then Tehsildar, Etawah-Tej Pal Singh. As per testimony of P.W. 6-Tej Pal Singh, he himself recorded statement of Rama Shanker Singh on 23.06.1984 in the morning, after obtaining certification from Dr. Diwakar Sharma. He has categorically stated that whatever was stated by the injured-Rama Shanker, was noted by him and after recording the statement, he also obtained signature of Rama Shanker on the statement. On perusal of the statement marked Ext. Ka.5, it is found that Rama Shanker has stated that he had some altercation with the accused on 21.06.1984. In the night intervening 22/23.06.1984, at around 12.30 a.m., while he was sleeping, Constable Vijai Pal was on duty. Vijial Pal shot him, whereupon he got up and in squatting position saw the accused. This piece of testimony is virtually unimpeachable, relevant and admissible under the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The fact of injury being caused to the victim by the accused thus stands proved by the victim by the accused thus stands proved himself and the claim of the appellant, as submitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he was first shot at by Kashi Prasad and then he fired on Kashi Prasad, but the fire missed its target and hit Rama Shanker) is not supported by any corroborating attendant circumstances or facts and not even a whisper is gathered by us after careful scrutiny of the entire record that it in fact so happened. A wholesome and cumulative reading of the testimony of all the five prosecution witnesses of fact has elaborately detailed about the occurrence and their testimony is natural and consistent on point of occurrence. They are worthy of credit. There is no doubt that apart from Rama Shanker (the deceased), no one else saw the shot being fired by the accused and hitting the deceased (Rama Shanker), while he was asleep in the fateful night at the well of the police station. However, the site-plan Ext. Ka.15 indicates, in all niceties, the very topography of the place of occurrence and gives a pictorial sketch of the incident as it originated and ended. Thus, the place of occurrence is also proved by the P.W. 8 The Investigating Officer Chandra Shekhar. 23. However, the site-plan Ext. Ka.15 indicates, in all niceties, the very topography of the place of occurrence and gives a pictorial sketch of the incident as it originated and ended. Thus, the place of occurrence is also proved by the P.W. 8 The Investigating Officer Chandra Shekhar. 23. To claim that the patient/deceased was not in fit mental and physical condition to give any statement, would not, in the absence of any supporting material, give advantage to the accused because fitness certificate prior to and subsequently to the recording of the statement by P.W. 6 Tehsildar Tej Pal singh was given by P.W. 7 Dr. Diwakar Sharma and who remained present throughout the period when the statement was being recorded. Recording of the statement commenced at 05:00 a.m. on 23.06.1984 and the process was completed by 05:07 a.m. i.e. within seven minutes. The extract of statement proved as Ext. Kha.1 and Ext. Kha.2 loses significance in view of the statement of the deceased himself as to how it all occurred. Assuming it to be that the version of the appellant is correct on point that he was shot by Head Constable Kashi Prasad, when he had gone to the 'chabutra' to wake up Constable Arun Kumar, had it been so, then the theory of sound of one fire being made around 01:30 in the night intervening 22/23.06.1984 goes into oblivion, for the reason that no two shots have been fired at that point of time and sound of one and only one fire was heard by the witnesses. It being so, the claim of the accused that he was shot by Head Constable Kashi Prasad, itself stands falsified and cannot be accepted by us. 24. In view of above scrutiny of evidence and analogy of facts and circumstances of this case, obviously it cannot be said that the charges have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and that the trial court erred while it recorded finding of conviction against the accused under Sections - 302, 324 and 309 I.P.C. and imposed the sentence on him. 25. 25. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 255 of 1984 (State vs. Vijai Pal Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of 1984, under Sections - 302, 307, 324 and 309 I.P.C., Police Station - Barhpura, District - Etawah. 26. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 27. Let a copy of this order be certified to the court below for its intimation and necessary compliance. The lower court record is directed to be remitted to the court concerned.