JUDGMENT : 1. The accused faced charges for commission of offences constituted under Sections 304, 201 of the IPC, and, under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 34 of the IP. 2. The learned trial Court through its decision made on 26.06.2009, upon, Sessions Case No.22/07, proceeded to convict the accused for offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, and, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. In pursuance thereto, the learned trial Court through a separate sentencing order drawn on 27.06.2009, sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for one year, and, to a pay a fine of Rs.2000/ each, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC. In default of fine, he sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Moreover, the learned trial Court through the afore sentencing order drawn on 27.06.2009, sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years, and, to a pay fine of Rs.5000/- each, for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and, in default of payment of fine amount, the accused became sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and, the period already undergone by the accused in custody hence during the course of investigation, and, trial, was ordered to be set off from the afore imposed sentences. 4. The State of Himachal Pradesh is not aggrieved, from the verdict of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court, and, appertaining to its convicting the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC, and, under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Consequently, the afore verdict of conviction appertaining to the afore offences acquires fullest conclusivity and binding effect. However, the accused/convicts are aggrieved from the afore verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentences supra, as became imposed upon each of them, hence, they are led to institute the instant criminal appeal before this Court. 5. The brief facts of the case are that on 5.1.2006 in the morning at about 8 a.m. the deceased Kushal Singh with his gun, had gone to jungle in Dharamshala Mahantan along with the accused for hunting. But he did not return till evening. 5. The brief facts of the case are that on 5.1.2006 in the morning at about 8 a.m. the deceased Kushal Singh with his gun, had gone to jungle in Dharamshala Mahantan along with the accused for hunting. But he did not return till evening. At about 5 p.m., accused Darshan Singh came to the house of complainant Yog Raj, the younger brother of deceased and told that while hunting Kushal Singh had received gun shot in his left arm and chest. On this complainant Yog Raj and his elder brother Gurdeep Singh accompanied accused Darshan Singh to the aforesaid jungle in a vehicle being driven by one Biju alias Vijay Kumar, resident of Abheypur and saw that the dead body of their brother Kushal Singh was lying by the side of Khad and accused Bidhi Chand and Gian Chand were sitting near the dead body. The gun belonging to the deceased was also with the accused. Thereafter the dead body of the deceased was brought to his house at about 9.00 p.m. in the same vehicle. Thereafter at about 10.30 p.m. somebody informed the police of Police Station, Gagret about the death of deceased due to gun shot. Accordingly, the police reached in village Abheypur and on reaching there it recorded the statement of complainant Yog Raj under Section 154 Cr.P.C., Ex. PW5/A, who suspected that the deceased was killed by the accused. Accordingly, a case under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the accused in Police Station Gagret. The post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted in D.H. Una. Later on it was found that the place of occurrence falls in the jurisdiction of Police Station Amb and accordingly the FIR registered in P.S. Gagret was cancelled and fresh FIR was recorded in Police Station, Amb on 9.1.2006. 6. During investigating the police took into possession a single barrel gun, Ex. P-3 belonging to the deceased besides its licence Ex.P-4, from complainant Yog Raj as he had brought the gun in question to his home from the spot. The police also took into possession one blood stained gunny bag Ex.P-2, three blood stained stones Exts. P-1, P-7, and P-8 and some paper pieces Ex.P-6 from the spot. A double barrel gun, Ex. The police also took into possession one blood stained gunny bag Ex.P-2, three blood stained stones Exts. P-1, P-7, and P-8 and some paper pieces Ex.P-6 from the spot. A double barrel gun, Ex. P-5 belonging to accused Bidhi Chand was also taken into possession by the police during investigation. All the aforesaid articles were sent to FSL Junga for chemical test and as per report of FSL Junga, Ex.PW26/A both the guns in questions were found fit to fire and the fire was caused with both the guns. Besides a fired cartridge was found in single barrel gun Ex.P-3. Similarly, viscera of the deceased was also sent to FSL Junga and as per report Ex.PW13/A contents of poison were not found in the viscera. As per the opinion of the doctors, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased the injuries noticed on the person of the deceased were fire arm injuries which could be caused with a gun shot. They further opined that the death had taken place due to haemorrhagic shock caused by injury to major vessels of axilla. 7. During the investigations, it was also revealed that after the death of the deceased the accused had tried to cause disappearance of certain evidence like blood stained gunny bag, and, dead body of deceased etc., from the spot with an intention to screen themselves from legal punishment. The investigation further revealed, that the accused had used the guns, in question for an unlawful purpose, and, accordingly sanction was obtained to prosecute them, for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and, after completion of investigations, the police came to the conclusion, that it was not a case of murder but a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and, accordingly the police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304 and 201 of the IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. 8. A perusal of the post-mortem report, borne in Ex./PW13/B, and, proven by PW-13, describes therein, the cause of demise of deceased, to arise from haemorrhagic shock, caused by injuries to major vessels of axilla. However, the afore opinion was subject to the report of the Chemical Analyst concerned. 8. A perusal of the post-mortem report, borne in Ex./PW13/B, and, proven by PW-13, describes therein, the cause of demise of deceased, to arise from haemorrhagic shock, caused by injuries to major vessels of axilla. However, the afore opinion was subject to the report of the Chemical Analyst concerned. Upon, the author of Ex.PW13/B, receiving the report of the chemical analyst, has made an opinion, that the opinion supra, did cause the demise of the deceased concerned. Moreover, articulations occur in Ex.PW13/A, exhibit whereof is the report, of the Chemical Analyst, that contents of poison were not found in the viscera of the deceased. In addition, the ballistic expert, at the FSL concerned, and, whereto the relevant licenced double barrel gun as purportedly wielded by the accused, at the relevant time, as also, the single barrel gun, became sent for analysis, upon his, making analysis upon Exhibit-1, SBBL, and, upon, Exhibit.-2, DBBL, made an opinion, that gun shots became fired from both the afore exhibits. However, he was unable to make a clear opinion about the timing of firings of gun shots from both the exhibits supra. The armed licence of deceased Kushal Singh, as, borne in Ex. P-4 reveals, that at the relevant time he was purportedly holding SBBL 13463. Since, in Ex.PW26/A the Ballistic Expert, whereto the afore exhibits became sent for analysis, has opined that the gun shots became fired from the SBBL, i.e. Ex. P-1, in respect whereof deceased Kushal Singh, held a valid licence, embodied in Ex.P-4, thereupon, the prosecution has obviously proven the factum of gun shots being fired from Exhibit-1. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/convicts, has laboured hard to convince this Court, that the gun shot, if any, as became fired from Ex. P-3 (SBBL), was not fired, with any culpable mens rea of the accused intending to commit the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder. He argues that the demise of the deceased Kushal Singh, rather falls within the exception to criminal liability, inasmuch, as the deceased Kushal Singh, had accidentally fired a gun shot from Ex.P-3. Consequently, this Court is enjoined to scan the entire evidence on record, for determining the efficacy of the afore made submission before this Court. 10. In the afore endeavour, a reading of the cross-examination of PW-1, Ram Kumari, is imperative. Consequently, this Court is enjoined to scan the entire evidence on record, for determining the efficacy of the afore made submission before this Court. 10. In the afore endeavour, a reading of the cross-examination of PW-1, Ram Kumari, is imperative. She through was not available at the site of occurrence, and, obviously could not carry forward the afore exculpatory effort of the learned counsel for the appellants. However, in her cross-examination no suggestion falling completely in tandem, with the afore argument addressed before this Court, rather became meted to her. Likewise the testimony of PW-2 also does not carry any suggestion, hence, to carry forward the afore made submission. 11. Be that as it may, PW-3, Vijay Kumar, had arrived at the site of occurrence. In his examination-in-chief, he has deposed, that upon his arrival at the relevant site, his witnessing that the body of the deceased was lying thereat, and, also he has testified that accused Bidhi Chand, and, Gudial Singh were also present there hence along with 2-3 other persons. He has further stated, that they picked up the body of the deceased, and, put it into the vehicle, and, brought it to the house of the deceased. Even in his cross-examination, no suggestion falling completely in tandem with the afore arguments addressed before this Court by the learned defence counsel rather became meted to him. PW-11, Santosh Kumari, is the wife of deceased Kushal Singh. In her examination-in-chief, she has echoed that, on the relevant day her deceased husband, on the asking of the accused, had along with his gun left for hunting with accused Bidhi Chand, and, Gurdial Singh. She has further testified that at about 10.30 p.m. of 05.01.2006, the accused brought the dead body of her deceased husband, and, kept it in the verandah of her house. She further deposed that, on his sighting the body of her husband, she queried the accused, as to the reason of the demise of her husband, and, whereupon accused Bidhi Chand asked her to apprise the police, that they had gone to fetch grass from the jungle, and, her husband died by falling in the gorge due to slip. She further deposed that, on his sighting the body of her husband, she queried the accused, as to the reason of the demise of her husband, and, whereupon accused Bidhi Chand asked her to apprise the police, that they had gone to fetch grass from the jungle, and, her husband died by falling in the gorge due to slip. However, during the course of hers being subjected to rigorous cross-examination, the above referred testification, occurring in his examination-in-chief, and, appertaining to the accused requesting her to intimate the police, that the cause of demise of deceased husband rather arising from his falling into the gorge owing to slip, apparently did remain uncontested, through, any suggestions being meted to her. Consequently, the afore echoing as occurs in the examination-in-chief of PW-11, acquires the apposite incriminatory effect, upon, the convicts/accused besides completely nullifies the afore canvassed defence, before this Court on their behalf by their learned counsel. Tritely also when only from cross-examination (supra), as made upon PW-1, and, PW-3, the learned counsel for the appellants, for reasons (supra), rather could validly erect the afore defence. 12. PW-9, Smt. Ritta Devi in her examination-in-chief, has deposed that on 5.01.2006 at about 12.30 p.m. one Bidhi Chand visited her home, and, requested her to permit him, to make a telephonic call, and, upon hers asking the reason, for his using her telephone, the afore replied that they killed a pig, and, they wanted to call for a vehicle. She continues to testify, that 10 minutes thereafter Gudial Singh, visited her house, and, asked for a glass of water, and, apprised her that their companion has been injured by a pig. However, she has further testified that after five minutes thereafter, she saw two persons carrying one person to the road. Though, she faced the ordeal of cross-examination, as became conducted upon her, by the learned defence counsel, and, also during course thereof, suggestions for nullifying the afore made testification, in her examination-in-chief, became meted to her. However, she denied the apposite suggestions. Though, she faced the ordeal of cross-examination, as became conducted upon her, by the learned defence counsel, and, also during course thereof, suggestions for nullifying the afore made testification, in her examination-in-chief, became meted to her. However, she denied the apposite suggestions. Therefore, it appears that even though, suggestions in denial of the afore echoings, became meted to PW-11, during the course of her cross-examination, and, toi which she answered in the dis-affirmative, yet the learned defence counsel, did not attempt to completely bely, the factum of visits being made by accused Bidhi Singh, and, later by accused Gurdial Singh, to PW-11, hence through his eliciting the records appertaining to the phone number installed at the house of PW-9, whereas, it constituted the best evidence, for repelling the afore echoings made in the examination-in-chief of PW-9. Omission supra, do constrain a conclusion, from this court, that both the accused namely Bidhi Chand, and, Gurdial Singh hence visited the house of PW-9, and, also hence a false explication became meted by both, to PW-9, vis-a-vis the cause of demise of deceased Kushal Singh. The effect of the afore false explication being purveyed to PW-9, by both accused Bidhi Singh and Gurdial Singh, both of whom evidently visited the house PW-9, does obviously marshal, a firm inference, that the accused become estopped, from canvassing the plea, that the gun shot as became fired from the SBBL hence purportedly wielded by deceased Kushal Singh, rather was accidentally fired there from. 13. An immense fortification to the afore made inference, is lent by PW-13, who conducted the post-mortem upon the body of the deceased, and, issued the post-mortem report embodied in Ex.PW13/B, inasmuch as, during the course of his cross-examination, he has made candid echoings, that the fatal injuries occurring on the body of deceased Kushal Singh, were causable thereon, through user of Ex.P-3, especially when the gun shots as became fired therefrom, were in fact fired from a distance of more than three feet. Therefore, the evidence supra, as occurring in the cross-examination of PW-13, when speaks of the inter se distance of the deceased hence, from Ex.P-3, thereupon, unless it is a case of suicide, which however is not, thereupon, the firing of gun shot as pointedly echoed, in the report of the ballistic expert, as embodied in Ex.PW26/A, is completely suggestive, that the distance supra inter se the gun and the deceased, rather was a sequel of the deceased standing opposite the accused , and, is also suggestive of the accused hence firing, the relevant fatal gun shot, from Ex.P-3, at the body of deceased Kushal Singh. Even though, from the afore prima facie garnered inference, the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder, is made out, against the accused, but since as aforestated the State has not challenged the conviction as became recorded by the learned trial Court, rather under Section 304-A of the IPC nor it had earlier challenged the order, framing the charges (supra). Therefore, the afore prima facie inference cannot constrain this Court to alter the conviction, as made, by the learned trial Court, upon the convicts, under, Section 304-A of the IPC, to one under Section 302 of the IPC. 14. The brother of the deceased, one Yog Raj had also stepped into the witness box as PW-20. In his examination-in-chief, he has made echoings that on 05.01.2006, deceased Kushal Singh accompanied all the three accused persons for hunting in the jungle. He further deposed, that at the relevant time, the afore were holding two guns, and, that one belonged, to the deceased, whereas, the other belonged to accused Bidhi Chand. He further deposed that the accused were also accompanied by dogs. At about 5.00 p.m., in the evening of the afore day, accused Gurdial Singh, is deposed, to, come to his house, and, apprise him that deceased, had been injured, on which he along with his brother Gurdeep Singh, and, accused Darshan Singh went to the spot, and, when he arrived at the spot, he found that the body of the deceased being concealed in the bushes, and, two persons i.e. Bidhi Chand and Gurdial Singh were sitting there. Moreover, he has also deposed, that on his observing the body of the deceased, he found that the deceased had received a gun shot on his left shoulder. Moreover, he has also deposed, that on his observing the body of the deceased, he found that the deceased had received a gun shot on his left shoulder. He has also deposed, that he has produced to the police single barrel gun, Ex.P-3, and, that hence it was taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW2/A. It is apparent on a scrutiny, of the testimony of PW-20, as carried in his examination-in-chief, that the accused at the relevant time, of PW-20 along with his brother Gurdeep Singh hence visiting the spot of occurrence, the accused rather concealing the body of the deceased, in the bushes. The afore concealment of the body of the deceased, by the accused, is, susceptible to the gravest suspicion, inasmuch, as, if they were innocent, may have taken to keep the gun Ex.P-3, as, purportedly wielded at the relevant time by the deceased, in proximity to the body, of the deceased, or hence keep it in the open than concealing his body in bushes. For want of Ex.P-3 becoming ensured by the accused, to be within the closest proximity of deceased Kushal Singh, does obviously, nail an inference, that the opinion voiced by PW-13, that the inter se distance inter se the deceased, and, user of Ex.P-3 or the other gun wielded by the accused, was about 3 feet, being valid, and also affirming the inference supra, that hence the firing of gun shots from both the guns rather was not accidental. Therefore, when the afore concealment of the body of deceased in bushes by the accused, and, also with the evident factum of Ex.P-3 not being kept in the closest proximity, to his body rather it being lifted from the spot by the accused, obviously the afore acts of the accused, are completely inconsistent with their innocence, and, leaves no scope for any inference, being made, that the accused accidentally fired any gun shot, from both the guns. The reason for the firing the guns shot, from both the guns, as becomes pronounced in the report of ballistic expert, report whereof is borne in Ex.PW26/A, does clearly bring forth an invincible conclusion, that both the guns were evidently wielded by the accused concerned, and, also there from rather guns shots became fired at the deceased Kushal Singh, imminently also rather with the accused neither opting to offer any valid explication about the firing of gun shots from both the guns. Therefore the afore conclusion, of guns shots becoming fired from both the guns, by the accused, as, echoed in the report of ballistic expert, does acquire, the completest formadibility. 15. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence, on record, in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart there from, the analysis of the material, on record, by the learned trial Court, hence, also does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane thereto evidence, on record. 16. Consequently, there is no merit in the extant criminal appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The judgment impugned before this Court is affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.