JUDGMENT : Vinod Chatterji Koul, J 1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 13th June, 2020 and the order of sentence dated 30th of June, 2020 passed by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam (“Trial Court” in short) in a Criminal Challan No.10/Sessions titled as State of J&K through SHO, Police Station, Kulgam vs. Sanjay Kumar Rai, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 and 307 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offences under Section 302 RPC and rigorous imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs.30,000/- for offence under Section 307 RPC and, in default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one year, and for setting aside the same. 2. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are challenged in this appeal, inter alia, on the following grounds: i. That impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are against law and facts and bad in the eyes of law as there was no reliable evidence on record to establish guilt of appellant/accused with alleged crime inasmuch as evidence of prosecution witnesses was full of contradictions, exaggerations and improvements; ii. That the Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive behind the murder of the deceased persons by the appellant and there was adequate delay in recording of the statement of material prosecution witnesses. iii. That the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the appellant has been wrongly and falsely implicated in the commission of crime by the police. It is stated that reliance placed on various judgments of the Supreme Court in support of the contention of the appellant has not been at all considered by the Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and impugned order. iv. It is stated that reliance placed on various judgments of the Supreme Court in support of the contention of the appellant has not been at all considered by the Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and impugned order. iv. That none of the witnesses who were present on the scene of occurrence in their statements recorded before the learned Trial Court has supported the prosecution version of the story and clearly deposed that there was complete dark in the room where the incident of firing occurred in which three persons lost their lives. When no one has personally witnessed the appellant carrying out the alleged assault, there exists, prima facie, doubt on the prosecution story and thus it is clearly established that appellant has been wrongly and falsely implicated in commission of the crime. In absence of any incriminating evidence against appellant, conviction and sentence of appellant is not legally permissible. This crucial aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked and brushed aside by the Trial Court while passing the judgment impugned. v. That the evidence brought on record lacks the requisite gravity and does not come up to the accepted standards of proof. The delay in recording the statement of the witnesses, prosecution case without support from the expert/doctor, non-disclosure of the assailant in the first possible instance, non-recording of statement of injured by the investigating officer and darkness at the time of occurrence would make the prosecution case absolutely doubtful and dubious and paved way for a clean acquittal of the appellant. However, the learned Trial Court did not consider these crucial aspects of the matter and passed the judgment and order impugned which if evaluated on the touchstone of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in different cases, is not legally sustainable. vi. That assuming the case of the prosecution was believed, otherwise only an offence under Section 304 part second RPC could have been made against the appellant as the alleged act of the appellant is not result of any pre-concert from the appellant nor motive nor enmity was established in the case and there is no ballistic opinion on record and the fingerprints opinion is also negative. Besides, subsequent conduct of the appellant, taking the victims to hospital for medical treatment has been completed overlooked by the learned Trial Court. vii. Besides, subsequent conduct of the appellant, taking the victims to hospital for medical treatment has been completed overlooked by the learned Trial Court. vii. That nobody has seen the appellant firing gunshots on the deceased and firing of gunshots was a mystery. The police in order to frame the appellant in the case have specifically planted some witnesses. The prosecution has further miserably failed to give any explanation for the delay caused in examination of the said witnesses, which created a serious doubt on the prosecution story. None of these crucial aspects have not been appreciated by the learned Trial Court while passing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned in this appeal. viii. That the delay in recording of statements of witnesses projected in the case has remained unexplained, but despite clear position of law that the delay, if unexplained, is fatal to the prosecution case, the learned Trial Court has returned the verdict of conviction against the appellant without any legal basis. ix. That the witnesses related to occurrence projected by the prosecution in the case did not support the prosecution version but the learned Trial Court clearly overlooked this crucial and significant aspect of the matter while convicting the appellant for the commission of crime of murder and conspiracy. x. That the learned Trial Court has committed another grave error while convicting the appellant which is quite evident from the fact that none of the witnesses, on whose evidence the appellant has been convicted, have ever supported the prosecution version of the story. xi. That the case of the prosecution is full of doubts and inherent contradictions which have been overlooked by the learned Trial Court while returning findings of guilt against the appellant. The case against the appellant was based upon circumstantial evidence which is highly improbable and unbelievable on the face of it. The circumstantial evidence which has been relied upon by the learned Trial Court while convicting the appellant is not legally tenable. The learned Court below has relied upon the statements of the official witnesses without any regard to the guarded mechanism as provided by the Supreme Court of India. xii. That the evidence which has been taken against the appellant is not legally permissible and could not have been taken as a circumstance against the appellant. The learned Court below has relied upon the statements of the official witnesses without any regard to the guarded mechanism as provided by the Supreme Court of India. xii. That the evidence which has been taken against the appellant is not legally permissible and could not have been taken as a circumstance against the appellant. The supporting evidence in the case has miserably failed to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. Further, the learned Trial Court has not even read or relied upon the evidence which has been led by the prosecution but has again with preconceived mind, convicted the appellant without being any legal evidence for the same. xiii. That the learned Trial Court while passing the judgment and orders of conviction and sentence in this appeal have lost track of the fact that the evidence which has been produced by the prosecution do not connect the appellant with the alleged commission of the crime. This aspect has not at all been dealt with and considered by the learned Trial Judge while passing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. A mere look to the judgment impugned clearly shows that the same have been passed on conjectures and surmises and without being any clinching evidence against the appellant. xiv. That the prosecution case is filled with various discrepancies to the extent that genesis of crime is shrouded with mystery and is unbelievable. The learned Trial Court has not exercised judicious discretion vested in it in accordance with law while passing the impugned judgment and order of sentence and further the provisions of law have been misconstrued. xv. The learned Trial court below has failed to appreciate the well-settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and various other High Courts. Numerous judgment in support of his case/defence were projected/cited during the course of arguments by the ld senior counsel for the appellant, which judgment/citations though have been indicated in the impugned judgment, but none of these judgments have been considered nor any findings contrary to the same have been returned which renders the impugned judgment and order highly vitiated and, therefore, the same deserve to be set aside. 3. We have heard learned counsel for parties. We have gone through the record on the file as also impugned judgment and considered the matter. 4. 3. We have heard learned counsel for parties. We have gone through the record on the file as also impugned judgment and considered the matter. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for appellant, by making reference to the statements of the witnesses, has urged that there is no evidence to prove that act in question caused death of appellant’s three colleagues/personnel and injury to others. He further states that even if evidence is taken into account and if it is found that act in question has been committed by the appellant, it would still fall within exception (1) i.e. culpable homicide, not amounting to murder because as per the evidence it was because of provocation. It is also contended that it is a case of sustained provocation because doctrine of sustained provocation is recognized by the Supreme Court as the deceased used to exchange of abuses inasmuch as victim drivers would cast scandalous aspersions on the wife and daughter of accused and that if this is a case that was unfounded by public prosecutor before the Trial Court, then the Trial Court could draw two inferences. First that it was a case of revenge, even then according to the Supreme Court, the offence is not murder as dominant intention is revenge not murder and second that to a CRPF man on active duty, who in a militant infested area, had performed strenuous duty, the possibility of uncontrollable rage cannot be ruled out. So this case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Supreme Court. Learned senior counsel also states that in impugned judgment it is mentioned that crime weapon was left at the situs. According to learned senior counsel, as per the extract of CRPF Rules, weapons are issued in the morning and deposited in the evening and that this particular weapon was issued on an earlier date but never deposited back by accused. His contention is that who picked up the weapon and who deposited it in armoury is not mentioned in impugned judgment. It is also submitted that appellant/accused was not arrested by PW1 on 24th December 2011 nor any seizure of weapon made on 24th December 2011, but the arrest was made on 25th December 2011 and although arrest was made, no arrest memo was prepared. It is also submitted that appellant/accused was not arrested by PW1 on 24th December 2011 nor any seizure of weapon made on 24th December 2011, but the arrest was made on 25th December 2011 and although arrest was made, no arrest memo was prepared. Perusal of first remand under section 167 Cr.P.C. would show that appellant/accused was not informed that he has a right to legal aid, because no remand is valid without hearing the accused. As accused was unrepresented, the court should have appointed an amicus curie. It is also averred that non-consultation with lawyer prevented accused to bring relevant facts to the notice of CJM concerned. It is also submitted that total number of witnesses cited by the prosecution is 33 but only 30 witnesses have been produced and examined. It is also stated that the Court ignored the case of accused that Kulgam was declared a Disturbed Area and accused was on active duty and suspected militants had attacked the camp and hence accused could not be prosecuted without sanction as the accused acted in exercise of his official duty and this issue is to be looked into and decided by this Court, particularly when Armed Forces of Union of India have some protection in law when they perform active duty. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents states that there is direct evidence in the present case, which shows involvement of appellant in the crime, even one of the witnesses, who is an injured, has given his statement against the appellant. She urges that appellant is a defence personnel and has been employed in the defence service for protection of the country. He was supposed to use the weapon provided to him by the authorities for protection and not for commission of crime. Learned counsel for respondents has further submitted that the judicial system has been set up chiefly for three purposes – (a) to punish the guilty, (b) to have the guilty repent and (c) to maintain social order. The facts and circumstances of the case/file has made it abundantly clear that the accused displaced a pre-dispossession for criminality as the accused has firmly been indicted for commission of offences under Section 302 & 307 RPC in reference to FIR No. 271/2011 of P/S Kulgam. The facts and circumstances of the case/file has made it abundantly clear that the accused displaced a pre-dispossession for criminality as the accused has firmly been indicted for commission of offences under Section 302 & 307 RPC in reference to FIR No. 271/2011 of P/S Kulgam. The accused/appellant is hardened criminal and any concession to reinstate the accused back in the society would lead to vibrant risk of extending an opportunity to the accused to commit a similar crime. Learned counsel for respondents also submits that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared site plan and recorded the statement of witnesses in which appellant (HC Sanjay Rai) was found involved in the commission of crime. Four CRPF personnel were shifted to District Hospital, Kulgam for treatment, out of them three personnel’s succumbed due to injuries. All the legal formalities of the investigation were carried out as per norms and case was prima facie established against the appellant/accused and charge sheet was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kulgam. During the trial, PW-07 (HC S. D. Murti) deposed that he identified the accused present in the court. He further deposed that on 24.12.2011 after taking dinner at 9.00 PM, he slept in the MT Bark upon his bed and about 10.45 PM he heard some gunshots, he wake up and saw that the accused Sanjay Rai with his Insas Rifle was standing near the bed of deceased HC Driver, Suman Pilay and was firing upon the deceased with the same weapon. The accused also fired upon the deceased HC Javaid Hussain and Constable P. Shiboo with his Rifle and thereafter he also fired upon him and received bullets on his right leg and abdomen and after that he got unconscious. The deponent further deposed that he was informed at Soura Hospital that due to bullet injury, his leg is to be cut and he was shifted to Tamil Nadu, where his right leg was cut. PW-2 (Asim Khan) also deposed before the Court that on the date of occurrence at about 10.15 PM he got up and upon hearing gunshots and once he turned out his head from the quilt he noticed the accused firing shots upon the sleeping personnel. PW-2 (Asim Khan) also deposed before the Court that on the date of occurrence at about 10.15 PM he got up and upon hearing gunshots and once he turned out his head from the quilt he noticed the accused firing shots upon the sleeping personnel. Similarly, PW-3 (Havildar Driver Subodh Kumar) has also deposed that at around 10.00 PM, he woke up by hearing gunshots and noticed that the accused was firing gunshots upon the VD1, VD2, VD3 and PW-7. Moreover, the PW-1 (Mr. Zahid Khan, 2nd –in – command, 18th BN CRPF HQR, Kulgam) has deposed that the crime weapon, Insas Rifle BT No. 29 and Body No. 16371602 and also 01 Magazine with 10 live rounds and 10 empty cartridges were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex PW-1 and the said crime weapon along with ammunition supra was duly issued to the accused which was in his custody at the time of occurrence. The said witnesses have dully supported the seizure Memo EXPW-1 and EXPW-12 after identifying the incriminating materials supra during the trial. Furthermore, the arms and ammunition allotted to VD1, VD2, VD3 and PW-7, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 were also seized but same were found intact after comparison with the relevant records. It was established that 10 empty cartridges were recovered and seized from the crime scene vide EXPW-1 which have been fired through crime weapon by the accused. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution established the commission of offences and connects the accused and on the basis of evidence the appellant/accused had been convicted for the offences under Section 302 and 307 RPC and the accused was awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000/- and both the sentences would run concurrently. 6. It is evident from perusal of the record on the file, that on 24.12.2011 at 22:20 hours, appellant/accused executed a murderous assault by firing shots with his service rifle upon four fellow CRPF personnel, asleep at that time, who were critically wounded and later three of them succumbed to injuries while as limb of 4th personnel was amputated during medical treatment for injuries received. Taking into account the case set up by appellant and rival contentions of learned counsel for parties, it would be appropriate to have brief resume of the statements of the witnesses produced by parties before the Trial Court hereunder: (1) PW1, Zahid Khan, 2nd in command, in his statement before the Trial Court deposed that he identified accused; that on 24.12.2011 he was in residential quarter and he heard sound of gunshots and he came out from his residential quarter and went to quarter guard wherefrom he saw that at recreation room the Jawan were taking their position. He asked QAT about firing, who stated that there was firing in the MT Bank. He and Hawaldar Pradeep Kumar (commander QAT) went near the door of MT Bark and enquired there what happened inside. There was no answer from MT Bank, but he heard screaming of Jawans from the MT Bark. He and Hawaldar Pradeep Kumar opened the door of the MT Bark and entered into the sak Bark. There was little light inside the Bark. Hawaldar Pradeep, Kumar switch on the light and seen that four Jawans of CRPF were in the pool of blood on their cots. Among them one Hawaldar Namely S. D. Murti was lingering right side of his cot; all of them have received the bullets. He asked Hawaldar Javaid Hussain who had opened the fire, he signaled towards left side of his cot and accused Sanjay Kumar was in his cot. All other Jawans were laid their possession under their cots. He ordered all the Jawans that nobody touched anything and ordered to prepare the ambulance. He informed SHO, Kulgam about ¾ minutes, Police came on spot and they started the investigation. The injured were taken to hospital. He saw Ansas Rifle Butt No. 729 near the cot of Ashish Baravi and some rounds from the said Rifle were fired and their empty rounds were also found near the cots of injured Jawans. Police sealed the MT Bark and recorded the statements of witnesses in the night. Police in the morning alongwith FSL team came on spot and seized the Ansas Rifle which was issued to accused Sanjay Kumar Roy, magazine, ten live rounds, ten empty rounds and had prepare the seizure memo. Police sealed the MT Bark and recorded the statements of witnesses in the night. Police in the morning alongwith FSL team came on spot and seized the Ansas Rifle which was issued to accused Sanjay Kumar Roy, magazine, ten live rounds, ten empty rounds and had prepare the seizure memo. The weapons of other Jawans who had residing in the MT Bark were also seized, to that extent Police had prepared separate seizure momo. The contents of the seizure memo were read over to them which they admitted after identifying their signatures over the same. (2) PW2, Asim Khan, in his statement before the Trial Court deposed that he identifies the accused present in the court. On the day of occurrence, he was posted in 18th BN of CRPF at Kulgam. On 24th December, 2011, at 8.00 PM he after taking meals came into the MT Bark, at that time he along with Driver Javid Hussain, Hawaldar Driver S.D. Murti, Hawaldar Driver Shiboo Kumar Jah, Constable G.D Ashish Kumar Bario etc. were present in the MT Bark. He went to his bed for sleeping and at that time Hawaldar Driver S. D. Murti and Hawaldar Driver Javid Hussain were talking with each other. At around 10.15 PM he heard the noise of firing and he woke up and saw that the accused Sanjay Kumar Rai was firing one by one upon the deceased persons and after that Sanjay Kumar Rai went to his bed. He managed to ran away from the Bark and the Jawans deputed near the MT Office asked him about the firing. He replied them that the firing is happened in the MT Bark by the accused Sanjay Kumar Rai. After than Commander of Quick Action Team and Second in Command (Zahid Khan) went to the MT Bark where they saw in the pool of blood Hawaldar Driver Javid Hussain, Hawaldar Driver S. D. Morti, Hawaldar Driver Summan Pillay and Hawaldar Driver P. Shiboo were asked for help. In the meantime, J&K Police came on spot and take photographs in the Bark and make preparations for taking the above injured constables to hospital. Thereafter Second in Command (Zahid Khan) and J&K Police jointly enquired about the incident from him and the other constables who were present in the Bark at the time of occurrence. In the meantime, J&K Police came on spot and take photographs in the Bark and make preparations for taking the above injured constables to hospital. Thereafter Second in Command (Zahid Khan) and J&K Police jointly enquired about the incident from him and the other constables who were present in the Bark at the time of occurrence. After two days of the occurrence police brought him in the Court and recorded his statement in which he put his signatures in English. Four constables namely Hawaldar Driver Javid Hussain, Hawaldar Driver S. D. Morti, Hawaldar Driver Summan Pillay and Hawaldar Driver P. Shiboo were died. (3) PW3 Hawaldar Driver Subodh Kumar has deposed that he identified the accused present in the Court. On 24th December, 2011, he along with 10 other Jawans including accused Sanjay Kumar Rai, injured and deceased persons were sleeping in the MT Bark At 10.00 PM he heard fire sounds and he wake up and saw accused Sanjay Kumar Rai was firing upon the deceased persons. After firing, the accused came back on his cot and put his service rifle on one side. In the meantime, Assistant Commander, Zahid Khan came into the Bark who was accompanied by Pardeep Kumar who brought the vehicle and took the injured Jawans to hospital. After taking the injured Jawans to Hospital, he came back to Camp, at that time civil police has also reached the spot. Nobody was allowed to entire to the place of occurrence (MT Bark). On the second day of occurrence police has seized the service rifle of accused, one magazine with ten live rounds and ten empty rounds on spot. Seizure memo was prepared on spot. He has seen the seizure memo with regard to the rifle, magazine, and empty round which is on file and admit its contents to be true and correct and identified his signatures over the same. The sealed items viz, rifle, magazine and empty rounds were produced in the court and prosecution was permitted to reopen the seal. The said items were seen to the witness in the open court, who identified the same which were seized in his presence. The witness had given his statement u/s 164-Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. In the said occurrence the CRPE' personnel namely Javaid Hussain, P Shiboo, Hawaldar Suman Pillay were died and S. D. Mourti got seriously injured. The said items were seen to the witness in the open court, who identified the same which were seized in his presence. The witness had given his statement u/s 164-Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. In the said occurrence the CRPE' personnel namely Javaid Hussain, P Shiboo, Hawaldar Suman Pillay were died and S. D. Mourti got seriously injured. (4) PW4 Ashish Kumar Barol in his statement deposed that he knows the accused, occurrence took place on 24.12.2011 at I0:00 PM & he was posted at MT section as Constable. On that day his duty was from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM & at 8:00 PM he went to mess for taking meals & after that went to his respective Bark & makes a phone call to his parents & after that slept. After firing incident he woke up and come out of his bed & reached to the corner of the Bark where to get his service Rifle & try to look where from the noise of firing is coming out but the firing stopped & saw that Sanjay Kurnar Rai was coming towards his bed. After that 2nd commander, Zahid khan also reached to the Bark & put the light on. He came out under his bed along with service Rifle and found Zahid Khan, Suman Pillay & Hawaldar P. Shaboo & Driver Hawaldar S. D Mourti were in a pool of blood on their beds. Commander told him, hurry up, take them to the Hospital and we took them to the Hospital. All the CRPF personnel of the MT Bark were arrested by the Police for investigation and kept under custody for two days and after investigation Civil Police came to know that the accused Sanjay Kumar Rai has open the fire which he has confessed before the police so all other arrested CRPF personnel were let free by the police. (5) PW-5, K.D Krishna, in his statement before the Trial Court deposed that on the date of occurrence he was performing his duties at Banker No.3 as sentry from I0:00 MP to 12:00 PM. The occurrence took place on 24.12.2011. Till 10:00PM Raj Kal Sakiya was performing the duty of sentry on Banker no.3. At 10:15 PM he heard noise of two/three gunshots. The occurrence took place on 24.12.2011. Till 10:00PM Raj Kal Sakiya was performing the duty of sentry on Banker no.3. At 10:15 PM he heard noise of two/three gunshots. At 10:30PM Major Varindar Singh come near the Banker no.3 & inquired about the noise of gunshots and he told the Major Varindar Singh that the noise of gunshots was coming from the MT Bark. In the meantime, he saw two/three vehicles were going towards the Wanpoh Kulgam road, thereafter 2nd Commander Zahid Khan come towards his Banker and new sentry was Bankered in Banker No. 3, he went with 2nd Commander, Zahid Khan to the occurrence spot where he heard from CT Asif Khan and other CRPF persons that the accused Sanjay Kumar Rai has fired upon the CRPF personnel by which three CRPF personnel namely Javid Hussain, Soman Pilay and P. Shaboo got dies. He too was sleeping in the said MT Bark. Civil Police has seized the weapon of all the personnel stationed at MT Bark and next day of occurrence Police recorded his statement. (6) PW-6 MD Rajakul Sakib, in his statement deposed that he was Bankered as driver in the Camp from last 25 days. On the day of Occurrence i.e.24.12.2011 he was performing his duty in the MT Bark from 8:00PM to 10:00PM and later on K.D Krishna came in his place. He went for sleeping at 10.00PM. When he went for sleeping, he saw Zahid Hussain, SD Morti, P Shiboo, Sumon Pillay, SK Jah, Sanjay Kumar, Asif Khan & Asitosh Kumar Raio were sleeping in their respective beds. After 20-25 minutes, when he heard sound of firing in the Bark he took his service rifle and take position under his bed. He did not see any person except Sanjay Kumar Rai who was coming towards his bed with his service Rifle which he kept on his empty bed. After 20-25 minutes, when he heard sound of firing in the Bark he took his service rifle and take position under his bed. He did not see any person except Sanjay Kumar Rai who was coming towards his bed with his service Rifle which he kept on his empty bed. After that Commandant Zahid Khan along with other person came into the Bark where Driver Javid Hussain, S. D. Morti, P. Shiboo and Soman Pillay were in a pool of blood on their respective beds and the accused Sanjay Kumar Rai told the Commander, Zahid Khan to take the injured persons to the Hospital and the Commander took the injured personnel to the District Hospital, Kulgam where P. Shiboo & SD Morti, were declared to be dead and Javaid Hussain was referred to Srinagar Hospital for treatment where he also died. He too was accompanying with the injured personnel to Kulgam Hospital and after two hours came back to the Camp where Police persons took him to Police Station, Kulgam for investigation. Police has already taken Sanjay Kumar Rai for investigation who himself told the police that he killed the deceased persons as they used abusive language to his daughter and wife which irritates him and he killed them. CRPF personnel namely KD Krishan, Asitosh Kumar, Asif Khan, P. Shiboo were accompanying him in the Police Station. He recorded his statement before the Police in the Police Station, Kulgam. (7) PW-07 S. D. Hurti, (Head Constable) in his statement deposed that he identifies the accused present in the court. On 24.12.2011 after taking dinner at: 9.00 PM he slept in the MT Bark upon his bed. At about 10.15 PM, he heard sound of some gunshots and he wake up and saw that accused Sanjay Roy with his Insas Rifle was standing near the bed of deceased Summan Pillay and was firing upon the deceased. With the same weapon he fired upon the deceased Javaid Hussain. After that the accused fired upon the Constable P.Shiboo with his Rifle and he afraid of the firing and skipped down from his bed. Accused also fired upon him, he received bullets on his right leg and abdomen. Thereafter the accused returned to his bed. He got unconscious and knows only that he was kept in the vehicle for Hospital wherefrom he was referred to Soura Hospital. Accused also fired upon him, he received bullets on his right leg and abdomen. Thereafter the accused returned to his bed. He got unconscious and knows only that he was kept in the vehicle for Hospital wherefrom he was referred to Soura Hospital. Police recorded his statement after 5/6 days in the Hospital which was read over to him. He was also informed at Soura Hospital that due to bullet injury, his leg is to be cut for which he requested the Hospital authorities to shift him to his State for treatment and he was shifted to Tamil Nadu, where his right leg was cut. (8) PW-9 Jai-Prakash Singh in his statement deposed that he knew the accused. On 24.12.2011 at about 10:15 Occurrence took place and he was in his room and after enquire about the incident came to know that in the MT Bark firing took place so he started to move towards the MT Bark and entered into the MT Bark where 2nd Commander, Zahid Ali Khan along with QAT was already present. He saw four CRPF persons were in a pool of blood in their beds. With the permission of 2nd in Command, Zahid Ali Khan, he took the injured persons to the hospital at Kulgam where doctors declare Hawaldar Soman Pillay, Hawaldar P.Shiboo as died and other two were referred to Srinagar Hospital for treatment. He along with one officer namely K.K.Bandhari took the injured to the Srinagar Hospital however, near the gate of hospital, Hawaldar Javid Hussain died and the injured SD Morti has been admitted in the Srinagar Hospital. After coming from Hospital to Camp he came to know that one rifle bearing No. 729 has been received from MT Bark from which ten bullets have been fired. The said Rifle has been allotted to the accused Sanjay Kumar Rai. After police investigation, they come to know that sanjay Kumnar has open fire from his rifle because Sanjay Kumar Rai has confessed before the police that he has committed the offence. He has recorded his statement before the Police. The said Rifle has been allotted to the accused Sanjay Kumar Rai. After police investigation, they come to know that sanjay Kumnar has open fire from his rifle because Sanjay Kumar Rai has confessed before the police that he has committed the offence. He has recorded his statement before the Police. (9) PW-10 Lakhveer Singh, in his statement deposed that he know the accused and he was posted in CRPF Camp, Kulgam on the day of occurrence and was performing his duty as sentry in the Camp in the Banker No.06 from 10:00PM to 12:00PM and did not hear the gunshot as some noise was coming from the nearby residence. He was alert in his Banker as no militant has entered from the Banker no.6 from 10:00 PM to 12:00 PM. At around 10:30 PM some vehicles went from the Camp & from the central sentry he came to know that firing took place in MT Bark. On the next morning, he came to know that Sanjay Kumar Rai has opened the fire on CRPF persons with his Insas Rifle. He has recorded his statement before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (10) PW-11 CT Durga Singh, in his statement deposed that he know the accused. He was working as constable in the Camp. Occurrence took place at around 10:15 PM in year 2011 when he was posted at the main gate. The noise was coming from the MT Bark. During my duties at main gate, neither anybody has entered outside the Camp nor has anybody gone from the Camp. (11) PW-12 Yogash, in his statement deposed that he know the accused. On the day of occurrence he was performing his duty in Quarter Guard from 9.00PM to 11.00 PM. At around 10.00PM the personnel of QAT rushed towards the MT Bark where the noise of firing was coming but he remained firm on his duty. On the next day, he came to know that the accused Sanjay Kumar Rai has opened fire on the CRPF persons of MT Bark in which four person Hawaldar Javid Hussain SD Morti got injured and Hawaldar Shiboo and Soman Pillay died. He took the dead body of the CRPF Persons to Srinagar Airport and came back to his Camp at Kulgam. (12) PW-13 CT. Skinder, in his statement deposed that he know the accused. He took the dead body of the CRPF Persons to Srinagar Airport and came back to his Camp at Kulgam. (12) PW-13 CT. Skinder, in his statement deposed that he know the accused. On the day of occurrence, he was posted at CRPF Camp and was slept in his Bark when he heard firing. He came out of the Bark and take position and then our Commander Pradeep Kumar came there and told him to sit in the Vehicle and thereafter we went to the Hospital. (13) PW-14 Ct Amreek Singh in his statement deposed that he know the accused. On the day of occurrence, he was posted at CRPF Camp and was slept in his Bark when he heard firing. In the meantime, QAT Commander Pradeep Kumar entered in the Bark and asked persons present in the Bark what happen, take you our positions. Thereafter, they along with 2nd Commander Zahid Khan rushed towards MT Bark where they saw four persons of CRPF namely Javid Hussain, S. D. Morti, P. Shiboo and Soman Pillay were in a pool of blood & we take them to the hospital where Shiboo and S. D. Morti were died and other two injured were referred to Srinagar Hospital & Javid Hussain died on way to Srinagar. On the next day of occurrence, he came to know that accused Sanjay Kumar Rai has done the firing incident. (14) PW15 Ct Santosh Singh, in his statement has deposed that he know the accused. On the day of occurrence, he was posted at CRPF Camp Kulgam and was slept in his Bark when he heard some fire shots. He takes position and walked towards the occurrence place and found four CRPF persons - Javid Hussain, S. D. Morti, P. Shiboo and Soman Pillay were in a pool of blood on the floor of the Bark and takes the injured persons to the District Hospital, Kulgam. He knows the three injured persons but he did not know the name of forth one i.e Soman Pillay. Two injured persons were died at Kulgam Hospital and other two were referred to the Srinagar Hospital. He has recorded his statement before the police. (15) PW16 Krishana Kumar Yogi, in his statement deposed that from 2009 to 2013 he was posted with DRPF, 18th BN at Kulgam Headquarter. Two injured persons were died at Kulgam Hospital and other two were referred to the Srinagar Hospital. He has recorded his statement before the police. (15) PW16 Krishana Kumar Yogi, in his statement deposed that from 2009 to 2013 he was posted with DRPF, 18th BN at Kulgam Headquarter. He did not know the accused as he has joined at the camp a day before the occurrence. On 24.12.2011 at night he heard some gunshots. He along with CRPF personal went outside their Bark till Incharge Commandant and 2nd Commandant has also come out. His officer ordered him to accompany him when he went inside the MT Bark, where four CRPE personals were injured and we broad them into a vehicle and take them to the District Hospital, wherefrom the injured CRPF personal were referred to Soura Hospital. We spent three days at Soura Hospital but he did not known the injured CRPF personal as he has joined the camp day before the occurrence. Police recorded his statement. (16) PW17 HC Varindar Singh in his statement deposed that he knows the accused. Occurrence took place in the month of December 2011. He was posted at CRPF Camp Kulgam as BHM. He went for sleeping and at10:00 PM he heard sound of some gunshots and came to know that firing had taken place and after that he took his gun & came out of the Bark with other three persons and asked the QAT about the incident, In the meantime, CT Asif Khan came running towards them and told them that the firing incident took place at MT Bark. When we reached at the door of MT Bark, it was closed but we three/four person pushed the door and opened it and entered into the Bark where we saw four persons namely Javid Hussain, S. D. Morti, P. Shiboo and Soman Pillay were injured. We enquired from the persons present in the MT Bark about the incident but they all told that they were sleeping & did not know actually what happen. Thereafter, we took the injured to the hospital at Kulgam. The civil Police was informed and they came on spot and seized the Rifle bearing no.729 with 10 live bullets and 10 Khokha. Thereafter, we took the injured to the hospital at Kulgam. The civil Police was informed and they came on spot and seized the Rifle bearing no.729 with 10 live bullets and 10 Khokha. After matching the said Rifle with the Ammunition Register, it came to know that the Rifle which was used in the incident has been issued to the accused Sanjay Kumar Rai. He recorded his statement before the police. (17) PW18 Pradeep Kumar in his statement deposed that accused Sanjay Kumar Rai is known to him. On 14.12.2011 after performed his duty he went for sleeping and about 10:15 PM he heard the sound of fire. He prepared the QRT as he was the Commander of QRT. While taking the position near Recreation Room, Zahid Khan, Second in Command came there. Asim Khan informed that the fire incident took place at MT Line and Toda Swami ordered to move towards the MT Line. We went towards the MT Line and on reaching there we saw that four persons were injured lying on the floor. We take the injured persons to the Hospital where doctors declared P. Shiboo and Soman Pillay as dead. Javid Hussain and S. D. Morti, were referred to Srinagar Hospital where after one and a half hours Javid Hussain also died. After four days, he came to know that the occurrence was committed by the accused, Sajay Kumar Rai. After that he went on leave. His statement was recorded by the police. (18) PW 19 Rajveer Singh, in his statement deposed that he knows the accused. On 2412.20l1 occurrence took place. He was performing the duty of Koke commander and is working in 18 BN CRPF since last ten months. One Rifle bearing no.729 body no.16371602 has been allotted to Sanjav Kumar Rai which was recovered along with 20 rounds and 10 Khokha in the MT Bark and Hawaldar Javaid Hussain, Hawaldar driver Somari pillay, Hawaldar driver P. Shiboo and others have also been allotted weapons. (19) PW20 Zahoor Ahmad Ganie in his statement deposed that one the date of occurrence he has posted at FSL Unit Anantnag when he received a wireless from Police Station Kulgam to visit the CRPF Camp Kulgam which he visited for spot inspection and took the blood samples and recovered one Rifle and prepared seizure memo. He admits the contents of the seizure memo to be true. He admits the contents of the seizure memo to be true. (20) PW 21 & 22 Abdul Gani Wani and Mushtaq Ahmad Dar, in their statements deposed that on the day of occurrence they were posted as Patwari Kulgam. On the directions of Tehsildar Kulgam they went to CRPF Kulgam on the next day of occurrence wherefrom they heard that last night four CRPF personnel were injured in a firing incident. Later on, three of them were died and one is under treatment at Hospital. On the directions of Tehsildar concerned, they made the Jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari of the place of occurrence and handed over the same to Tehsildar Kulgam which is annexed with the file. (21) PW 23 Hamidullah Mir in his statement deposed that on the date of occurrence he was posted as Tehsildar Kulgam. Police party from Police Station Kulgam brought some weapons which were sealed before him and thereafter he send the same to FSL for analysis under covering letter and today identifies the same in the court which bears his seal and signature. (22) PW 23 Manzoor Ahmad in his statement deposed that on the date of occurrence, he was posted at Police Station, Kulgam. On 24.12.2011 at around 10.30 PM he along with SHO P/S Kulgam reached CRPF Camp Kulgam where he saw blood in the room and took photographs. He took photographs of two dead bodies of CRPF personnel at District Hospital Kulgam. He also took the photograph of 3rd dead body and handed over the said photographs to I/O. (23) PW25 Farooq Ahmad in his statement deposed that on the date of occurrence in the year 2011, he was posted at PCR, Srinagar in Photo Section. On 25.12.2011 Police Station Kulgam brought a dead body of a CRPF person for photography. He did not know from where the dead body was brought. He took the photographs of dead CRPF person and handover the said photographs to the police. He identified the photographs annexed with the file in the Court. These are the photographs of Javid Hussain. (24) PW26 ASI Mohammad Amin Bhat deposed that occurrence took place on 24.12.2011. At about 10.15 PM, Police Station Kulgam received information that firing incident took place in CRPF Camp at Kulgam. After receiving information, FIR No. 271/2011 under Section 307, 302 RPC has been registered in P/S Kulgam and investigation commence. These are the photographs of Javid Hussain. (24) PW26 ASI Mohammad Amin Bhat deposed that occurrence took place on 24.12.2011. At about 10.15 PM, Police Station Kulgam received information that firing incident took place in CRPF Camp at Kulgam. After receiving information, FIR No. 271/2011 under Section 307, 302 RPC has been registered in P/S Kulgam and investigation commence. He along with police party including SHO concerned reached on spot and saw some CRPF personnel have been injured in the MT Bark. The injured CRPF personnel were taken to Hospital where two personnel died and two were referred to Srinagar Hospital, where another died and one is under treatment at Soura Srinagar. I/O recovered I Insas Rifle bearing No. 729, 10 live rounds and 10 Khokha, prepared seizure memo and send the seizure items for FSL analysis. (25) PW27 HC Fayaz Ahmad in his statement deposed that on 24.12.2011 Police Station, received information regarding firing incident in CRPF Camp at Kulgam in which four CRPF personnel has been injured and a case FIR No. 271/2011 U/S 307RPC has been registered in P/S Kulgam and he started investigation of the case and during investigation site map and seizure memo along with one Bolt seizure memo was prepared by him. Thereafter, was transferred to another Police Station and the said case was handed over to another head constable. (26) PW 28 Dr. Mushtaq Majid, in his statement deposed that he was then posted as Assistant Surgeon at District Hospital Kulgam and is presently posted as Medical Officer at PHC Mattan. I have conducted the autopsy of one Soman Pillay who was brought by SGCT Mushtaq Ahmad, belt No. 366/Kgam of Police Station, Kulgam. The victim was unconscious and on his examination he was declared brought dead. The cause of death of the deceased was due to damage of vital organs like stomach, liver and leading to the massive internal bleeding and ultimately death due to cardio respiratory arrest due to bullet. The another victim namely Shibu was also brought by SGCT Mushtaq Ahmad Belt No. 366/Kgam of P/S Kulgam. On his examination, he found bullet injury on the left side of the chest and left forearm. The patient was declared dead at 11.15 PM. On the next day of the autopsy was conducted. The another victim namely Shibu was also brought by SGCT Mushtaq Ahmad Belt No. 366/Kgam of P/S Kulgam. On his examination, he found bullet injury on the left side of the chest and left forearm. The patient was declared dead at 11.15 PM. On the next day of the autopsy was conducted. After conducting the autopsy, it was observed that death has been caused due to damage to the vital organs like heart and lungs, leading to death due to cardio respiratory arrest due to bullet. The report and the opinion which he has given was as per my observations. (27) PW30 Nazir Ahmad (FSL) in his statement deposed that on 05.01.2012, while posted as Assistant Scientific Officer Ballistics, FSL, Srinagar he received three sealed packets in case FIR No. 271/2011 U/S 302 RPC of Police Station, Kulgam through ASI Mohammad Amin, vide letter No. DySp/Hq/FSL/02 dated 02.01.2012. On opening the packet –B bearing seven intact seals was found to contain one empty magazine which was marked as Exhibit No. N-09/12 by him in the laboratory. Packet–C bearing six intact seals was found to contain 10 cartridges, five having base stamp as KF/09/5.56, four having base stamp as OFV/07/515.56, which were marked as exhibit No.B-10/12 to B-109/12 by him in the laboratory. Packet –D with eight intact seals was found to contain ten fired cartridge cases, four having base stamp as KF/09/5.56, four having base stamp as OFV /10/5.56, two having base stamp as OFVB/07/5.56, which were marked as exhibit No. B-20/12 to B-29/12 in the laboratory by him. Further, One 5.56 MM Insas Rifle having body No. 16371602/2000, Butt No. 729/12 was received on 10.01.2012 in open condition from Figure Print Division FSL Srinagar. This 5.56 MM Insas Rifle was marked as exhibit No. B-30/12 by him in the laboratory. The 5.56MM Insas Rifle marked as exhibit B-30/12 was found in working condition. The opinion given is based upon the examination conducted by him. (28) PW32 Inspector Mohammad Yousuf in his statement deposed that in the intervening night of 23/24 of December, 2011 at about 10.20 PM, Police Station Kulgam received an information that a firing incident has occurred in the MT Bark of CRPF 18th BN Kulgam and some of the persons of the CRPF were injured. On this report an FIR for the commission of offence u/s 307 RPC was registered and went to CRPF camp. On this report an FIR for the commission of offence u/s 307 RPC was registered and went to CRPF camp. When he entered in the MT Bark, he found the blood stained clothes, bedding and a Insas Rifle and some empty cartridges were also scattered on the ground. He was informed that due to firing incident some persons have been injured, who has been shifted to Hospital Kulgam for treatment, Thereafter the place of occurrence was cordoned and asked the CRPF personnel not to go inside the Bark. Thereafter he went to District Hospital, Kulgam and found that three persons have been died in the hospital and fourth one was referred to Srinagar for further treatment. All the procedural formalities were executed in the hospital. Thereafter he came back in the MT Bark and seized Insas Rifle from the place of occurrence. The cartridges were also recovered and seized. Blood strained garments and bedding was also seized and in this regard seizure memo was prepared. Finger prints of the accused and the finger prints on the seized Rifle were obtained with the help of FSL after the arrest of the accused. After sealing of the finger prints, the same were sent to FSL for expert opinion. (29) The statements of the prosecution witnesses were also recorded u/s 164-A CR. PC and thereafter, he was transferred and further investigation was entrusted to some other official. It is pertinent to mention here that the persons other than accused sleeping in the MT Bark were also called for questioning, after recording their statements, they were set free and sent to their Bark. The statement of two witnesses u/s 164-A Cr. PC were recorded. The weapons of the persons other than the accused sleeping in the Bark were sent for FSL opinion but the opinion of finger prints of the seized Rifle was not obtaining during his tenure from the FSL. He got the postmortem of the three deceased persons but their opinion was not received by him during his tenure. (30) PW33 Inspector Atthar Samad in his statement deposed that he identified the accused present in the Court. On 18.01.2012 he was transferred to Police Station Kulgam and the investigation of the case was entrusted to him. He had gone through the file. In this FIR, the investigation was about to complete except the report of FSL and postmortem. (30) PW33 Inspector Atthar Samad in his statement deposed that he identified the accused present in the Court. On 18.01.2012 he was transferred to Police Station Kulgam and the investigation of the case was entrusted to him. He had gone through the file. In this FIR, the investigation was about to complete except the report of FSL and postmortem. He has obtained both the certificates; the report reveals that the accused has committed the offence; to that extent he has investigated the FIR and produced the challan before the Court of law. 7. In the present case, as record would tend to show on 24.12.2011 at 22:20 hours, accused along with victims were in MT Bark and to this extent there is direct evidence adduced by the prosecution, which are PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6, and PW7. It is statement of PW7, who is also victim of offence, that after taking meals he went to MT Bark at about 9:00 PM and at about quarter past 10:00 PM, he also woke up on hearing the gunshots and noticed accused carrying his INSAS Rifle was standing near the Cot of VD2 and firing shots upon him. PW7 has also stated that with the crime weapon, the accused fired shots upon VCI and VD3 and later shots were also fired upon him by accused. The direct evidence vis-à-vis incident is that of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW7. It is also evident from perusal of the file that there was no external assault made over the camp at the time of occurrence. As noted above, PW7 is victim of incident as he was also in the MT Bark. He got gunshots in his right leg and abdomen. 8. Another aspect of the matter is that it is not only evidence of PW4 that accused made a confessional statement before police about commission of crime alleged against him, but it is also evidence of PW6 that accused made confession before him about commission of crime. 9. Next aspect of the matter is that crime weapon along with ammunition was issued to accused. The crime weapon as also one magazine with ten live rounds and ten empty cartridges were recovered and seized from crime scene vide Seizure Memo EXPW-1. 9. Next aspect of the matter is that crime weapon along with ammunition was issued to accused. The crime weapon as also one magazine with ten live rounds and ten empty cartridges were recovered and seized from crime scene vide Seizure Memo EXPW-1. Insofar as other nine personnel are concerned, the ammunition issued to them was in order and no deficiency was found in the ammunition issued to those nine personnel. 10. It has rightly been found by the Trial Court that accused was guilty of killing the three personnel and injuring one, whose right limb was later amputated. All other necessary requirements were fulfilled including FSL examination, which all lead to conclusion that accused is involved in the crime. After having minute discussion on all aspects of the matter, the Trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted accused for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 & 307 RPC. 11. Upon a conspectus and conjoint reading of circumstances set up by the prosecution and convict, the Trial Court found that imprisonment of life would be an appropriate sentence for accused under Section 302 RPC and accordingly the accused/ convict came to be sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 RPC. The convict/accused has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs.30,000/- for offence under Section 307 RPC and both these sentences have been directed to run concurrently and default in payment of fine would result in simple imprisonment for further period of one year, which would run consecutive to substantive sentences. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgments relied upon by learned senior counsel appearing for appellant fail to advance the case of accused/appellant on merits of the case as well as with regard to sentence. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. Thus, the Criminal Appeal, bearing CRLA(D) no.12/2020 is dismissed and appellant’s conviction and sentence as recorded by the Trial Court are affirmed. As a consequence of which, the Reference made by the Trial Court is confirmed.