JUDGMENT : Rajnesh Oswal, J. 1. All these four appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2017 passed by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as “the trial court”) in chargesheet titled “State vs. Gurdev Singh & Ors.” arising out of FIR No.160/2009 of P/S Satwari, by virtue of which, all the appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under section 302/34 R.P.C. The appellants namely Gurdev Singh alias Danchi and Harpreet Singh alias Sunny have been further convicted for the commission of offence under section 3/25 Indian Arms Act. All the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 RPC and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each. In default of payment of fine of Rs.50,000/, the appellants have been ordered to undergo further imprisonment of like nature for a period of one year. The appellants namely Gurdev Singh alias Danchi and Harpreet Singh alias Sunny have been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years under section 3/25 Indian Arms Act and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine of Rs.10,000/ both the appellants have been ordered to undergo further imprisonment of like nature for a period of three months. 2. Though the appellants have filed four separate appeals but the main and common ground of challenge thrown to the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence is that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and the alleged eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution had made contradictory statements before the learned trial court. It is also stated that all the three eye witnesses examined by the prosecution were the family members of the deceased and in fact, there was no occasion for all of them to be present on spot to witness the murder of the deceased. It is also stated that PW Gyan Singh, father of the deceased during his cross-examination, resiled from his statement made during examination-in-chief but the learned trial court has not appreciated the same. The appellants have also raised the issue of delay in recording the statements of the eye witnesses thereby urging that the witnesses were planted only to falsely implicate the appellants. Prosecution Case: 3. The appellants have also raised the issue of delay in recording the statements of the eye witnesses thereby urging that the witnesses were planted only to falsely implicate the appellants. Prosecution Case: 3. The brief facts as they emanate from the charge-sheet are that FIR bearing No. 160/2009 dated 27.11.2009 for commission of offences under section 302 RPC read with sections 3 and 25 Arms Act was registered, after the receipt of a Report No. 24 dated 27.11.2009 of Police Post Gadigarh at Police Station, Satwari at 6.15 AM. It was stated in the report No.24 that on 27.11.2009 at 5.00 AM an information was received from reliable source that one person Harpreet Singh alias Babbi S/o. Gyan Singh was killed by some unknown person(s) in the night intervening 26/27th November, 2009 by gunshot and his dead body was lying on the road at Rani Bagh near Mahindra Body Builders Workshop. After the registration of FIR, investigation was entrusted to Sub-Inspector Mohd. Irfan, In-charge Police Post Gadigarh, Jammu. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan. Photographs of the deceased were taken. He also seized the blood-stained clay and simple clay from the spot. Auto rickshaw No. JK02F-3317 of the deceased was also seized. The Investigating Officer in his investigation concluded that on 24.11.2009, all the accused persons in the shop of Gurdeep Singh situated at Gadigarh were conspiring to kill the deceased and the conspiracy of the accused was heard and watched by the parents of the deceased. The deceased was an Auto driver by profession and used to drive Auto till late night. When the deceased did not return as usual on 26.11.2009, his parents and sister started searching for him on 27.11.2009 and when at around 3 to 4 AM, reached near Rani Bagh, auto of the deceased passed them, which was followed by one motorcycle and Van bearing No. JK02-0050. Gurdev Singh alias Danchi, Harpreet Singh alias Sunny were on the motorcycle whereas accused Gurdeep Singh, Ravinder Singh, Praveen Singh alias Manpal Singh, Pankaj Sharma alias Killer and Tarlok Singh were travelling in the Van. The accused on the motorcycle parked the motorcycle in front of the Auto and stopped the Auto, whereas other accused who were travelling in the Van also stopped and pulled the deceased out of the Auto. The accused on the motorcycle parked the motorcycle in front of the Auto and stopped the Auto, whereas other accused who were travelling in the Van also stopped and pulled the deceased out of the Auto. Accused Ravinder Singh exhorted and asked accused Danchi to hand over the gun to Sunny. Then Gurdev Singh alias Danchi handed over 12 Bore Shot Gun to Harpreet Singh alias Sunny, who shot two bullets at the back of Harpreet Singh alias Babbi (deceased), who was caught hold by other accused. Thereafter, the deceased was thrown away on the road side and the accused fled away. During the investigation, pursuant to the disclosure made by the accused Gurdev Singh alias Danchi, the weapon of offence was recovered from the house of one Jagdish Raj. One Bajaj Discover Motorcycle and Van bearing No. JK02/0050, were also seized. After the conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for commission of offences under section 302/341/34/201 R.P.C, 3/25/27 Indian Arms Act against the appellants on 13.02.2010 which was committed to the learned trial court. The learned trial court vide order dated 15.12.2010 charged the appellants Gurdev Singh alias Danchi and Harpreet Singh alias Sunny for commission of offences under sections 302, 341, 109, 201 RPC and 3/25 and 27 Arms Act whereas the other appellants along with accused Tarlok Singh were charged for commission of offences under sections 302, 341 and 109 RPC. The prosecution had cited as many as 33 witnesses out of which, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses, whereas the appellants did not lead any evidence in their defence. Learned trial court after hearing the parties, acquitted one accused namely Tarlok Singh, however, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Arguments: 4. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in CRA No. 40/2017 has submitted that there is no evidence against the appellant in commission of offence and the whole story has been manufactured by the Police with the assistance of three eyewitnesses who were the parents and sister of the deceased. Their statements cannot be relied upon as they were recorded after considerable delay. He also raised the issue in respect of unnatural conduct of the eyewitnesses in not reporting the matter to Police. 5. Mr. Their statements cannot be relied upon as they were recorded after considerable delay. He also raised the issue in respect of unnatural conduct of the eyewitnesses in not reporting the matter to Police. 5. Mr. Rohan Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in CRA No. 43/2017 has vehemently argued that there is absolutely no evidence against the appellants and no role has been attributed to the appellants in respect of the commission of offence. He further argued that the alleged story of conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased has also not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants have been convicted when there was absolutely nothing on record to establish their involvement in the commission of offence of murder. 6. Mr. Prince Khanna, learned counsel appearing for appellants in CRA No. 44/2017 has vehemently argued that there is unexplained delay in recording the statements of three eye witnesses and a perusal of their statements reveal that their conduct was unnatural and further the presence of the eyewitnesses on the place of occurrence has been negated by the Investigating Officer in his testimony which clearly establishes the false implication of the appellants. 7. Mr. Pawan Kumar Kundal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CRA No. 41/2017 has vehemently argued that no independent witness was associated with the recovery and even the person from whose house the alleged weapon of offence was recovered did not support the prosecution case. He also reiterated the submissions made by the other counsels who argued prior to him. 8. Per contra, Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing for the respondent has vehemently argued that the parents and sister of the deceased have categorically deposed about the mode and manner in which the deceased was pulled out from his Auto and was brutally murdered on the road side. He further argued that the Doctor as well as Forensic Experts have also corroborated the murder of the deceased by a gunshot from 12 Bore DBBL shotgun. 9. Heard and perused the record. 10. He further argued that the Doctor as well as Forensic Experts have also corroborated the murder of the deceased by a gunshot from 12 Bore DBBL shotgun. 9. Heard and perused the record. 10. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the appellants that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and has not considered the issue of delay in recording the statements of the eye witnesses and their unnatural conduct in proper manner, it is imperative to have a brief resume of the evidence led by the prosecution. Prosecution evidence: 11. PW-Gyan Singh (Farther of the deceased, witness No.2 in the charge-sheet) stated that the accused persons were known to him. In the mid of September 2009, he along with Harpreet Singh alias Babbi had come to the court. Accused Ravinder Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Gurdev Singh and one unknown boy were also there. All those 4 persons abused his son and threatened to eliminate him at an appropriate time. He enquired from his son but he told him that he would disclose the same after returning to home. On 24.11.2009 between 4 to 4:30 PM, he along with his wife was going towards Satwari. They reached near the house and shop of Gurdeep Singh and were waiting for matador. Some boys were talking loudly in the shop. He looked towards them and found that they were saying that they would kill Harpreet Singh alias Babbi. They were Ravinder Singh, Gurdeep Singh (Owner of hotel), Gurdev Singh alias Danchi, Manpal Singh, Pankaj Sharma alias Killer, Tarlok Singh and Harpreet Singh. When he looked towards them, they started moving out one by one by hiding their faces. He told his wife that they were hatching conspiracy to kill Harpreet Singh. They went home in the matador. On 26.11.2009, at around 9’O clock, his son along with accused Manpal left in the auto. They waited for his return but he did not. His daughter had also come to his house that day. At around 2:30 in the night, his wife woke up and found that the deceased had not returned and his auto was also not there. They decided to search for him at his stop, which was at airport. They waited for his return but he did not. His daughter had also come to his house that day. At around 2:30 in the night, his wife woke up and found that the deceased had not returned and his auto was also not there. They decided to search for him at his stop, which was at airport. They proceeded towards that side and when they reached at main road from Gadigarh to Satwari, one auto passed them, which was going towards Satwari and auto was being followed by one motorcycle. One white coloured van bearing number JK02-0050 also passed them. At some distance where the workshop was located, the motorcyclist stopped the motorcycle in front of the auto and the persons in the van also parked the van with auto, so that he could not run away. Four to five persons alighted from the van. Two persons were in front of the van and three persons started pulling him out of auto. The persons who were pulling him were Ravinder Singh, Gurdev Singh and Gurdeep Singh. They were accompanied by Pankaj Sharma and Manpal Singh. Thereafter Gurdeep Singh asked them to do the job quickly as someone was coming. Ravinder Singh asked to bring gun and fire shot. Accused Danchi on the instructions of Ravinder Singh brought the gun and handed over to Harpreet Singh alias Sunny. In their presence, accused Sunny fired two shots on the back and killed him. They were frightened, so they did not proceed ahead. All the accused one by one boarded the vehicle and asked each other to run. Three accused namely Ravinder Singh, Danchi and Gurdeep Singh picked up his son from pucca road and threw on the Kacha Road. They went towards the dead body and found that number of Auto was JK 02F 3317, which belonged to his son. They moved ahead and when turned the body, they found that the deceased was his son. They started crying and a boy came there and took him to his residence, as his condition was very bad. His wife and daughter remained there. He had forbidden them to touch the body as it was Police case and had told them that he was going to inform Police. He phoned the Police but Police told him that they had already received the information and they were proceeding towards the place of occurrence. His wife and daughter remained there. He had forbidden them to touch the body as it was Police case and had told them that he was going to inform Police. He phoned the Police but Police told him that they had already received the information and they were proceeding towards the place of occurrence. He was the patient of blood pressure, sugar and was also having heart problem. He remained under treatment for 5-7 days and Doctor had advised him complete rest. His statement under section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded on 05.12.2009. On 18.12.2009, he along with his son-in-law Jarnail Singh had gone to Police Post in connection with the case and Police told him that they had arrested Gurdev Singh and he disclosed that he had concealed the double barrel cut gun used by them to kill Harpreet and one live cartridge behind the godrej almirah in the room of the house of Jagdish Raj. He proved the disclosure memo (ExtP-I) and recovery memo (ExtP-II) in respect of gun and cartridge. Police seized the gun and one live cartridge on spot. He identified the gun and cartridge shown to him in the court. After sealing the gun and cartridge, the ring was placed on Supurdnama of Jarnail Singh. He proved the Supurdnama (ExtP-III). On 28th January 2010, he had gone to police post Gadigarh and he identified one black colour motorcycle, which was used by Gurdev Singh alias Danchi and Harpreet Singh alias Sunny for fleeing after killing his son. He proved the identification memo (Ext P-IV). The brother of accused Gurdeep Singh and Ravinder Singh had opened fire on his younger son namely Parveen Singh, in order to kill him, in respect of which, the case was pending adjudication before the 3rd Additional Sessions Court. During the pendency of the said case, accused Pindi, who was the brother of Gurdeep Singh was killed by someone and accused believed the involvement of his son in the murder of said Pindi. Because of that enmity, accused killed his son. His statement was recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C before the Special Mobile Magistrate (Passenger Tax) Jammu on 23.12.2009. During cross-examination, he stated that on 27.11.2009, in the morning he was informed by the police about the murder of his son, the previous night. Because of that enmity, accused killed his son. His statement was recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C before the Special Mobile Magistrate (Passenger Tax) Jammu on 23.12.2009. During cross-examination, he stated that on 27.11.2009, in the morning he was informed by the police about the murder of his son, the previous night. He had not seen himself the commission of murder and also, he did not identify the accused because his eye-sight was weak. The statements made by him before the Magistrate and before the Court were made by him at the instance of police. He admitted that on the day of occurrence, he, his wife and sister were at home and all of them were informed by the police in the morning about the occurrence. He admitted that he had no personal knowledge in respect of conspiracy of 24.11.2009. 12. PW Mohinder Kaur (Mother of the deceased, witness No.3 in the charge-sheet) identified the accused present in the court. On 24.11.2009 at 3-4 PM, she and her husband were waiting for a Matador on the road side. There was a shop of Gurdeep Singh on the roadside, where he used to sell meat and fish soup. Ravinder Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Praveen Singh alias Manpal, Pankaj Sharma, Gurdev Singh alias Danchi and Harpreet Singh alias Sunny along with one boy, whom she did not recognize were sitting in the shop of Gurdeep Singh. They were consulting and Ravinder Singh was telling them to bring Harpreet Singh alias Babbi (deceased), to him in drunken state so that they would kill him and not permit him to go back. They killed her son the other day. On. 26.11.2009 at around 9:00 AM, Praveen Singh came to their house and took Harpreet Singh along with him. Her son was auto driver. Her daughter Paramjeet Kaur came to her house the same evening. Her son used to come back to his home in the evening but he did not return that night. She and her daughter after waiting for him, slept after 11:00 PM. She woke up at 2-2:30 AM and went to toilet. She found that her son had not come. She woke her husband and daughter. They got disturbed and went to search for him. When they went towards Satwari and were passing through the floor mill, one black motorcycle and one white van passed them. She woke up at 2-2:30 AM and went to toilet. She found that her son had not come. She woke her husband and daughter. They got disturbed and went to search for him. When they went towards Satwari and were passing through the floor mill, one black motorcycle and one white van passed them. The driver of a motorcycle stopped his motorcycle in front of auto and five boys-Ravinder Singh, Parveen Singh, Pankaj Sharma @ killer, Gurdeep Singh and one unknown came out of white van bearing number-JK-02/0050. They pulled out auto driver forcibly. Accused Gurdeep Singh was saying that someone was coming, then Ravinder Singh asked Gurdev Singh to get gun from the van. Gurdev Singh brought the gun from the van and handed over to Harpreet Singh. Ravinder Singh asked Sunny to kill him. Other accused released the auto driver, who tried to run away in order to save himself but Harpreet Singh fired two bullets at him which hit the deceased at his back and he fell down. Ravinder Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Pankaj Sharma dragged the deceased and threw him on the Kachca side of the road with face downwards. Accused Sunny and Danchi fled away on the bike towards Satwari and five boys namely Ravinder Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Pankaj Sharma, Parveen Singh and one unknown person fled in a van towards Satwari. When the accused ran away, they found that number of auto was JK-02/3317 which belonged to her son. Her son was lying dead on the roadside. When she and her daughter tried to turn their son, her husband stopped them from doing so, as it was a police case and asked them not to turn the dead body. She and her daughter started crying and her husband got unwell. As such he returned to his home and thereafter, informed the police but police told him that they were already having the knowledge of occurrence. Police also came on spot. Her husband was having heart and kidney problem, as such, could not tolerate the incident and his health deteriorated. Deceased and accused had a fight 5-6 years ago and since then the accused were having enmity with the deceased and were in search for an occasion to kill him. Police came to her for getting her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C and thereafter her statement was recorded on 29.12.2009 before Court. Deceased and accused had a fight 5-6 years ago and since then the accused were having enmity with the deceased and were in search for an occasion to kill him. Police came to her for getting her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C and thereafter her statement was recorded on 29.12.2009 before Court. She also identified the double barrel shotgun shown to her in the court, which was used by Harpreet Singh to kill her son by firing two bullets at the behest of Danchi and other accused i.e. Ravinder Singh. On 28.01.2010, she, her husband and daughter went to Police station and identified the black motorcycle, which was used during the occurrence and fleeing away by the accused. She proved the identification memo of the motorcycle (Ext-P-IV). During cross-examination, she stated that the accused had fight with her son but there was no case in the court. Accused Manpal had come to their house and she had asked her son not to go with him as they were the enemies but he stated that they used to fight in the morning but were friends in the evening. Accused Parveen Singh alias Manpal was close friend of the deceased. When she phoned her son at 10 PM, the phone of her son was switched off. She had not told any of her relatives that Parveen Singh alias Manpal had taken the deceased in auto. She had not lodged any report in the Police Station in respect of conversation between the accused and unknown person on 24.11.2009 but she had told the same to her deceased son. Her son replied that earlier also on number of occasions the accused had threatened him. She had stated the same in her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C but it was not found to be in her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. She had not told her son about the murder plan, who was working in the Police but had told her daughter. She admitted that in her statement recorded before the Magistrate, the presence of Manpal in the shop was not mentioned. They were standing 10-15 feet away from the spot. She admitted that in her statement recorded before the Magistrate, the presence of Manpal in the shop was not mentioned. They were standing 10-15 feet away from the spot. She had stated before the Magistrate that Ravinder Singh, Parveen Singh, Pankaj Sharma, Gurdeep Singh and one unknown boy stopped the auto but in her statement the names of Ravinder Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Pankaj Sharma only were mentioned and there was no mention of other two boys. She stated that she had disclosed about all the five but perhaps due to noise in the court, the same could not be heard. When the accused were pulling the deceased out of auto there was lot of noise and auto driver was also shouting. People had come on spot after hearing the noise. She recognized all the five but could not recognise auto driver at that time. Even after hearing the voice of auto driver, she could not recognize that he was her son. In her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C it is not mentioned that accused Gurdev Singh was saying that someone was coming. In her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C it is not mentioned that altercation took place between the accused and the deceased for 2–4 minutes. They did not try to disengage them and also, they did not make any noise. When the accused left the auto driver, he hardly moved 3-4 feet ahead and from a distance of 3–4 feet, accused Harpreet Singh alias Sunny fired upon the deceased. In her statement recorded under section 164-A CrPC it is not mentioned that when the accused left the deceased, he started running. In her statement recorded under section 164-A CrPC, there are no details of firing of two gunshots on the back of the auto driver. In her statement recorded under section 164-ACr.P.C it is also not mentioned when the gunshots hit the deceased, he fell down and accused Ravinder Singh and Pankaj Sharma dragged the deceased and left him on the Kacha road with face downwards. When the accused ran away, they shouted and then people gathered on spot. The people must have gathered at 4:00 AM and after 10 to 15 minutes, police also came on spot. The police was conducting the proceedings in her presence and they were crying. When the accused ran away, they shouted and then people gathered on spot. The people must have gathered at 4:00 AM and after 10 to 15 minutes, police also came on spot. The police was conducting the proceedings in her presence and they were crying. They told SHO that the accused had killed the deceased but SHO did not record their statements on spot. She remained on spot for 45 minutes and police remained there for a long time even after their departure from the spot. The body of the deceased was not taken to hospital in their presence. She went to her house and did not go to hospital. In her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C, it is not mentioned that her husband was suffering from sugar, heart problem and he could not bear the shock and further that his condition became serious. In her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C, it is not mentioned that 5-6 years ago, there was a fight between the deceased and accused due to which the accused were having enmity with the deceased and wanted to kill him. Her statement was recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C one month after the occurrence and during that period she remained in Jammu. During further cross-examination, she stated that on 24.11.2009, she had gone to market along with her husband for shopping. She had never purchased meat and fish from the shop of the accused. She could not say whether there was a glass door in that shop or not. All the accused persons were inside the shop at that moment. She did not notice whether the doors of the shop were open. The accused were talking to each other but they (accused) did not see them. It is true that there was divider in the main road and the vehicles were moving on that road. They heard about the conspiracy from the shop. On 26.11.2009, the accused Manpal came to her residence in the morning to take the deceased. He used to come to their residence. On 26.11.2009, the deceased did not return. On 26.11.2009, none went to house of the accused Manpal. This is wrong that the accused Manpal had gone to Srinagar from 25.11.2009 to 26.11.2009. Her statement was never recorded by the Police during investigation. 13. He used to come to their residence. On 26.11.2009, the deceased did not return. On 26.11.2009, none went to house of the accused Manpal. This is wrong that the accused Manpal had gone to Srinagar from 25.11.2009 to 26.11.2009. Her statement was never recorded by the Police during investigation. 13. PW Paramjeet Kour (Sister of the deceased, witness No.4 in the charge-sheet), stated that the accused were known to her. On 26.11.2009, she had come to her paternal home and spent the night there. Harpreet Singh alias Babbi, her brother was auto driver. He did not come home that night. At 2:30 in the night, she told her mother that her brother had not come home and at around 3:15, she woke her father. She along with her parents came out to search for her brother Harpreet Singh. They proceeded towards Satwari on R.S. Pura-Jammu road and when reached near floor mill, one auto was going from R S Pura towards Satwari. One motorcycle also passed. At a distance of 20-25 feet, persons in one white coloured van and on the motorcycle stopped Auto. Ravinder Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Gurdev Singh alias Danchi, Pankaj Sharma alias Killer, Parveen Singh alias Manpal, Harpreet Singh alias Sunny pulled Harpreet out of auto. Accused Ravinder asked Gurdev Singh to bring gun from the van. He brought the gun and handed over to Harpreet Singh and asked him to fire. Then accused Sunny shot at her brother Harpreet and threw him there only. After hearing the sound of fire, they got frightened. Gurdeep Singh asked other accused that someone was coming, so run away. Gurdev Singh alias Danchi, Harpreet Singh alias Sunny fled on the motorcycle and the other accused fled towards Satwari in a Van. She along with her parents went on spot and found that her brother was shot at and he had expired on spot. They started crying. Motorcycle was black in colour and without number. Van was bearing number JK-02-0050 and was white in colour. After 15 to 20 minutes, police also came on spot. Her father went to home, as he was having blood pressure, sugar and heart problem. He could not tolerate the incident. Thereafter they also came back to home. Police had asked them to go back to their home and then they went back. They had told the police on spot about the occurrence. Her father went to home, as he was having blood pressure, sugar and heart problem. He could not tolerate the incident. Thereafter they also came back to home. Police had asked them to go back to their home and then they went back. They had told the police on spot about the occurrence. After two to three days, police came to their house. The condition of her father was not good and he was being treated at his home. She made the statement before the Magistrate on 30.12.2009. She identified her statement recorded before the Magistrate. She along with her parents had gone to Police Post Gadigarh on 28.01.2010 and had identified the motorcycle. Police seized the motorcycle and she along with her parents signed the identification memo. She identified her signatures on the memo of identification (ExtP-IV). The brother of accused Gurdeep Singh was killed by someone and the accused were having doubt that he was killed by her brother. She on her own stated that accused had sent some criminals to their house, who brought her father and asked him to make statement in their favour. When the statement of her father was recorded second time, he had made that statement on gun point. When she came to her paternal house, her father told her and then they went to police post Gadigarh but police told them that it was court case as such they could do nothing. She identified the double barrel gun shown to her in the court, which was used to kill her brother. During cross-examination she stated that Police came on spot after 10 to 15 minutes of her reaching on spot. S.H.O or S.I was present on spot. None had gone to call the police but father, after coming to home, had phoned the police but the police replied had that they had already received the information. She remained on spot for 10 to 15minutes after the arrival of police. SHO had made enquiries from her. Police had affected the seizures in her presence. But neither her nor her father’s signatures were obtained by the police on the documents. They had also gone to hospital. For about one month, police had not obtained her signature on any document. Her statement was recorded on 30.12.2009 and before that, her statement was never recorded. Police had affected the seizures in her presence. But neither her nor her father’s signatures were obtained by the police on the documents. They had also gone to hospital. For about one month, police had not obtained her signature on any document. Her statement was recorded on 30.12.2009 and before that, her statement was never recorded. From 26.11.2009 till 30.12.2009, she remained at her parental house due to illness of her father. Police had come on 27–28.12.2009 in connection with her statement. She had disclosed about the occurrence to her brother, sister and other relatives. She did not remember whether she had disclosed that in her statement under section 164-A CrPC. On perusal of her statement under section 164-ACr.P.C, it was found that she had not disclosed that in her statement. Her father was admitted in hospital after 10 days of the occurrence and prior to that he was being treated at home. Due to ailment of her father, she could not earlier get her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. But it is not mentioned in her statement recorded under section 164-ACr.P.C. They were not knowing the location of her brother, when they went to search for him. After 10 to 15 minutes, they reached the place of occurrence. Her brother had not phoned in home about his location. They had not enquired on phone from any of the friends of her brother. When the incident took place, number of people residing in the adjoining shops, had gathered on spot. They had come on spot after hearing their noise. They were also present, when police arrived on spot. She further stated that her father immediately went back to his home after the occurrence. After reaching home, he immediately informed the police. Police had come on spot, but she had not made any statement to police. She had told the police that her health was not well, so she was not going to make any statement. She had not handed over any medical certificate to police. Prior to recording of her statement on 30th, statements of her parents had already been recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. When the bullet hit her brother, he was trying to run away from the accused. He had run only up to 2-3 feet. People had come on spot after fire. She did not know the names of persons who had come on spot. He had run only up to 2-3 feet. People had come on spot after fire. She did not know the names of persons who had come on spot. They had not enquired from them about the occurrence and they also did not tell them about the occurrence. Prior to the arrival of residents of Mohalla, the accused had fled away. From 26th till 30th, police had come three to four times to her. She was not on bed, but was moving. She denied the suggestion that she had not seen the occurrence herself and due to enmity, she was making false statement. She further stated that her elder brother, Iqbal Singh resided in the separate house, adjoining the house of their father. Her mother had woken her and she had wrongly stated that she asked her mother that her brother had not come home. Van and motorcycle were parked in front of auto. In her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C, she had not mentioned about Manpal Singh alias Praveen Singh, dragging auto driver out of auto. She could not explain as to why the presence of Manpal Singh alias Praveen Singh was not mentioned in her statement. When her statement was recorded in the court, there was lot of noise. The statement recorded by Judge Sahib was not read over to her. They had watched the occurrence from a distance of 20 to 25 feet. They did not go on spot to save the deceased from the accused. There was scuffle between the accused and the deceased for 5-6 minutes. She was confronted with her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C wherein she had stated that accused Ravinder asked Danchi to bring gun and Danchi brought the gun. Then, Ravinder asked Sunny to shoot and then Sunny fired the shot. She admitted that out of both the statements, the statement recorded under section 164-A was correct. She on her own stated that there was light at a distance of 10 feet from the place of occurrence. When her brother was shot at, he was on the Kacha part of the road. They had not informed her brother Iqbal Singh in respect of occurrence, as they were not having any phone. She was present on spot when Iqbal Singh came on spot. When Iqbal Singh came on spot, there was light. When her brother was shot at, he was on the Kacha part of the road. They had not informed her brother Iqbal Singh in respect of occurrence, as they were not having any phone. She was present on spot when Iqbal Singh came on spot. When Iqbal Singh came on spot, there was light. In her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C, it was not mentioned that accused Gurdev Singh and Sunny fled on the motorcycle. In her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C, the colour of the motorcycle was not mentioned. It was also not mentioned in her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C that “Her father was having sugar, BP problem and he could not tolerate the incident. They came back. Police told them to go to their home. They told police on spot in respect of occurrence. After the post-mortem, police came to them but health of her father was not good. He was being treated in home.” It was also not mentioned in her statement under section 164-A Cr.P.C that brother of accused Gurdeep Singh was killed by someone and the accused were having doubt that he was killed by her brother. 14. PW Iqbal Singh (Brother of the deceased, witness No.5 in the charge-sheet) stated that on 27.11.2009, the body of the deceased was taken into possession by the Police and he signed the documents i.e. ‘fard maqboozgi nash’ (Expt-7-A). Before conducting the post mortem, the clothes of the deceased were also seized vide seizure memo ExtP-7/B and he signed the same. The clothes were sealed on spot and he identified the same in the court. The Police also seized 12 bullet pieces, two wads and two skin pieces. Number of different packets were prepared and sealed. Seizure memo was prepared in that regard on spot (ExtP-7/C). Thereafter, the dead body was handed over for last rites against proper receipt (ExtP-7/2), which was signed by him. The ring used by the Police for sealing was placed on his supurdnama. He proved the supardnama (ExtP-7/D). When the parents and sister of the deceased came on the day of occurrence, they were crying. He enquired from them and then his sister told that the accused Gurdev Singh alias Danchi, Harpreet Singh alias Sunny, Gurdeep Singh, Pankaj Sharma, Manpal Singh and Ravinder Singh had killed the deceased. He proved the supardnama (ExtP-7/D). When the parents and sister of the deceased came on the day of occurrence, they were crying. He enquired from them and then his sister told that the accused Gurdev Singh alias Danchi, Harpreet Singh alias Sunny, Gurdeep Singh, Pankaj Sharma, Manpal Singh and Ravinder Singh had killed the deceased. During cross-examination, he stated that he was Police employee and on the day of occurrence, he was posted at Gulshan Ground Jammu. He had gone to GMC Jammu at 7/8 O’ clock, then again stated that he had gone before 7. The Police had recorded his statement on spot at the time of preparing the seizure memo of the dead body. His parents and sister came home crying before 4. When his statement was recorded at 12:30 O’clock, he had told that he was informed by his parents and sister. In the statement recorded by the Police, it is not mentioned that he was told about the occurrence by his parents and wife and thereafter no further statement was recorded. 15. PW Harmohinder Singh (Witness No.6 in the charge-sheet) did not support the prosecution case. Despite cross-examination by the Special Public Prosecutor, no incriminating material could be extracted from him. 16. PW Inderdeep Singh (Witness No.7 in the charge-sheet) proved the seizure memo regarding blood-stained clay near Mahindra Body Builders (ExtP-7). The Police also seized the plain clay vide seizure memo Ext P-7/1. On 27.11.2009 dead body of Harpreet Singh was handed over to Iqbal Singh S/o. Gyan Singh against a proper receipt (ExtP-7/2). He also identified his signature on supurdnama dated 27.11.2009 in respect of the ring. During cross-examination, he stated that he did not know Urdu and was not aware as to what was written on the seizure memos (ExtP-7/2, ExtP-7/1 & ExtP-7). He was just asked to sign, by the Police. 17. PW Jaswinder Singh (Witness No.9 in the charge-sheet) stated that the deceased was his relative and on 27.11.2009, he received a telephone call about the murder of Harpreet Singh. On 27.11.2009 at 6/6.30 AM when he reached on spot, the body of deceased was lying there and Auto No. 3317/JK02F was also parked there. Police seized the said Auto and seizure memo was prepared. He proved the seizure memo (ExtP-11). The Police also seized the plain soil and blood-stained soil from the spot and sealed the same. On 27.11.2009 at 6/6.30 AM when he reached on spot, the body of deceased was lying there and Auto No. 3317/JK02F was also parked there. Police seized the said Auto and seizure memo was prepared. He proved the seizure memo (ExtP-11). The Police also seized the plain soil and blood-stained soil from the spot and sealed the same. The Police took the possession of the body of the deceased and post mortem was conducted at GMC Jammu. After post-mortem, the dead body was handed over to brother Iqbal Singh for the performance of last rites. He proved the receipt. During cross-examination, he stated that in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, he had not mentioned that witness Iqbal Singh called him on telephone to come at Ranibagh as Harpreet Singh had been murdered. When he reached on spot at 6/6.30, it was dark and there was no light. The Police only seized the Auto and lifted the soil in his presence. Two to three police personnel were present. Besides Iqbal Singh, two to three more civilians were also present. 18. PW Harpal Singh (Witness No.10 in the charge-sheet) was examined to prove the seizure memo but was declared hostile. Despite cross-examination, no incriminating material could be extracted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. 19. PW Harvinder Singh (Witness No.11 in the charge-sheet) stated that the deceased was known to him. He denied his signatures appended on ExtP-7/A, however, admitted his signatures appended on ExtP-7/1 but denied its contents. He stated that in his presence, police had not seized the clothes of the deceased. He also denied the contents of exhibit Ext P-7/C. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by Special Public Prosecutor but despite that no incriminating material could be extracted from him. 20. PW Jarnail Singh (Brother-in-law of the deceased, witness No.12 in the charge-sheet) stated that he knew the accused Gurdev Singh alias Danchi. Deceased was his brother-in-law, who was killed by the accused. On 18.12.2009 they had gone to Police Post Gadi Garh. Accused Gurdev Singh was in the police custody and in his presence, Officer In-charge of Police Post made enquiry from him. In his presence, he disclosed that he was having knowledge about the place where 12 bore gun which was cut, had been concealed. On 18.12.2009 they had gone to Police Post Gadi Garh. Accused Gurdev Singh was in the police custody and in his presence, Officer In-charge of Police Post made enquiry from him. In his presence, he disclosed that he was having knowledge about the place where 12 bore gun which was cut, had been concealed. He also disclosed that he had concealed one live cartridge and one gun behind the almirah in the room of the house of Jagdish Raj at Kotli Charka, Tehsil Bishnah. Disclosure memo was prepared (ExtP-1). PW Gyan Singh also appended his signatures on the disclosure memo. Accused Gurdev Singh also put his signatures on the same. Thereafter, the Police along with accused went to the house of Jagdish Raj and pursuant to identification of Gurdev Singh, recovered 12 bore gun and one live cartridge from behind the Godrej Almirah in the house of Jagdish Raj. Both were separately sealed and seizure memo (ExtP-II) was prepared on spot. He, Gyan Singh and accused had put their signatures on the same. He identified the gun and live cartridge shown to him in the court. He also proved the supurdnama (ExtP-III). During cross-examination, he stated that they had gone to house of Jagdish Raj at 4 PM. Jagdish Raj and his family members were also there at that time and the proceedings were conducted in the presence of Jagdish Raj but he was not asked to sign. His house had three rooms and a lobby. The room from where the gun was recovered was open. In his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., it is not mentioned that the gun was cut. The seizure was made after about a month of the occurrence. At the time of recovery, no person was called from neighbourhood though there was thick population. He admitted that he was suspended in a theft case in Police Station but was later reinstated. The Police did not enquire from Jagdish as to how he had no information regarding gun lying in his house. 21. PW Vinod Kumar (Witness No.13 in the charge-sheet) stated that he clicked the photographs of the deceased on spot. They were marked as A to J. During cross-examination, he stated that he reached on spot at 7 O’ Clock. Police personnel and some people were present on spot. At 7 O’ Clock in the morning, there was neither darkness nor sufficient light. They were marked as A to J. During cross-examination, he stated that he reached on spot at 7 O’ Clock. Police personnel and some people were present on spot. At 7 O’ Clock in the morning, there was neither darkness nor sufficient light. 22. PW Mohd Iqbal (Witness No.16 in the charge-sheet) stated that on 06.01.2010 photocopy of FIR No. 33/2008 under sections 302/341/34 RPC and 3/25 and 4/25 Arms Act of Police Station, R. S. Pura and one copy of challan No. 47/2008 was handed over to constable Ashok Kumar for the purpose of further handing over to Police Post, Gadigarh. He proved the seizure memo (ExtP-13). 23. PW Vinay Sharma (Witness No.17 in the charge-sheet) stated that on 19.01.2010, he had gone to Gadigarh along with Sandeep Singh at 3/3.30 PM. While they were returning, they were stopped by the Police. They were told that one vehicle was seized and they were to be cited as witnesses. The number of the van seized by the police was JK02-0050. He proved the seizure memo (ExtP-16). PW Sandeep Singh also put his signatures on it. During cross-examination he stated that at 4 PM, they came back from Gadigarh and when they were stopped, 2/3 civilians were also present. He did not know the location from where the Police had brought that vehicle and from where the vehicle was seized by the Police. There were houses and shops near the place of seizure of vehicle, but none either from the shops or the houses was called by the Police. The Police had taken their signatures at 4/4.30 PM. Seizure memo was prepared by one constable. 24. PW Sandeep Singh (Witness No.18 in the charge-sheet) stated that on 19.01.2010, when they were coming back and reached Gadigarh, one Sub Inspector stopped their vehicle and the Police seized one white coloured van bearing No. JK02-0050 in his presence. He proved the seizure memo (ExtP-16). During cross-examination, he stated that they had left at 3/3.30 PM towards Gadigarh. When they were stopped by the Police, no civilian was present. He did not know the location and the case in respect of the seizure of the van. Residential houses were situated at the place where van was seized but there was no shop. No civilian was called in his presence. 25. When they were stopped by the Police, no civilian was present. He did not know the location and the case in respect of the seizure of the van. Residential houses were situated at the place where van was seized but there was no shop. No civilian was called in his presence. 25. PW Jagdish Raj (Witness No.19 in the charge-sheet) stated that he did not know any of the accused present in the court and nothing happened in his presence. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Special Public Prosecutor. During cross examination, he stated that he did not know whether Gurdev Singh was driver by profession along with his elder brother Surjeet Singh or not. He also expressed ignorance as to whether Gurdev Singh had friendship with his brother Surjeet Singh. In December, 2009, Satwari Police came to his residence and told him that he was being called by the SHO. He then went to the Police Post but the Police did not enquire from him whether accused Gurdev Singh, Pankaj and Harpreet Singh had come to his house at Kotli or not. The Police also did not enquire from him whether the above-named persons had spent night or day in his house or not. He had also not told the Police that the abovenamed persons had come on a motorcycle without number plate and had kept gun behind the almirah in his room. He identified his signatures on his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. but denied the contents. 26. PW Om Parkash Dingra (Witness No.20 in the charge-sheet) stated that Pankaj Sharma, Harpreet Singh and Gurdev Singh were known to him and he did not know rest of the accused persons. He had purchased one motorcycle of make Discover in the name of his son. He denied that the accused used to come to his place. During cross-examination, he stated that the motorcycle was seized by the Gadigarh Police and he went to the police station to enquire about the same. The Police told him that motorcycle was used in the commission of murder of the deceased. The Police had not got the motorcycle identified from him. 27. PW Mohinder Singh (Witness No.21 in the charge-sheet) stated that on 28.01.2010, he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station, Hiranagar. The Police told him that motorcycle was used in the commission of murder of the deceased. The Police had not got the motorcycle identified from him. 27. PW Mohinder Singh (Witness No.21 in the charge-sheet) stated that on 28.01.2010, he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station, Hiranagar. One Investigating Officer from Gadigarh Police Post brought one order with regard to the motorcycle and produced before SHO, who told that motorcycle be given to the IO concerned. In his presence, Investigating Officer seized the motorcycle vide seizure memo (ExtP-31/5). During cross-examination, he stated that the said motor cycle was seized under section 550 Cr.P.C. on 27.11.2009. 28. PW Ajay Sharma (Witness No.22 in the charge-sheet) stated that on 28.01.2010 he was posted as Mohrir at Police Station, R. S. Pura. One motorcycle was seized by the Investigating Officer and one seizure memo (ExtP-31/5) was prepared. During cross-examination, he stated that the motorcycle was seized in case under section 302 RPC. 29. PW Shakti Kumar (Witness No.23 in the charge-sheet) stated that he was posted as Patwari Halqa Gadigarh. He proved the site plan (ExtP-14). During cross-examination, he stated that he prepared the site plan on the identification of the Chowki Officer, Police Post, Gadigarh. 30. PW Dr. Shahid Hussian (Witness No.26 in the charge-sheet) stated that on 27.11.2009 he was posted as Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicines, GMC Hospital, Jammu. He conducted the post mortem on the body of the Harpreet Singh, who was identified by Iqbal Singh brother of the deceased and Inderdeep Singh, cousin of the deceased. He proved the injuries suffered by the deceased and in his opinion, the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock because of projectile from a firearm. He proved the post-mortem report (ExtP-SH). During cross-examination, he stated that there were two entry wounds in this case. Both the wounds could be caused by two different firearms. These wounds were caused by pellets as per his assessment. These types of pellets are fired through any smooth barrel firearm. The firearm shown to him in the court was not shown to him earlier. The distance between the deceased and the assailant who fired in this case, was approximately one feet. The firearm track in this case was found upward to downward and it may be possible that the assailant was standing and the victim was sitting. The firearm shown to him in the court was not shown to him earlier. The distance between the deceased and the assailant who fired in this case, was approximately one feet. The firearm track in this case was found upward to downward and it may be possible that the assailant was standing and the victim was sitting. He had found 12 pellets in the body and the rest may have gone out. He had not mentioned any exit wound in the post mortem report. These wounds could be caused by a single shot. 31. PW Mool Raj, Scientific Officer, FSL Jammu (Witness No.27 in the charge-sheet) proved the report bearing exhibit as ExtP-MR. As per the report, human blood of group B was found in exhibits B/1051/2010 to 1055/2010. During cross-examination, he stated that the exhibits pertaining to the case were examined after one year because of huge pendency of the case. 32. PW Rajinder Singh Jamwal, Scientific Officer, FSL Jammu (Witness No.29 in the charge-sheet) stated that he received two sealed packets which were forwarded by the SDPO City South, Jammu i.e. Packet-I and Packet-II. Packet-I was having two intact seals bearing specimen impression forwarded by Dr. Shahid Hussain, which contained two red plastic wads and twelve mutilated metallic pellets, which were marked exhibits as RB780/10 and RB 781/10 and the pellets were collectively marked RB 782/10 by him. Packet-II, contained one 2.5 cm dia (approx). Circular skin cut piece bearing a black circle of diameter 2.0 cm which was marked exhibit RB 783/10 by him. As per result, two wads and twelve mutilated lead pellets collectively marked could have been fired from 12 bore DBBL shot gun from a range of up to 2 meters. The black colour mark on the skin cut piece was of the size of 12 bore diameter and was due to fire arm discharge residue. He proved the certificate (Ext. P8). He identified the wads and 12 mutilated pellets and piece of skin in the court. He further stated that 12 bore DBBL gun was found to be in normal working condition and bore signs of discharge prior to test firing from it. The suspected holes in the garments were shot gun entry holes and could have been caused by firing from the 12 bore DBBL shot gun from a range of up to two meters. He proved the certificate (ExtP-P8/1). The suspected holes in the garments were shot gun entry holes and could have been caused by firing from the 12 bore DBBL shot gun from a range of up to two meters. He proved the certificate (ExtP-P8/1). He also identified the 12 bore DBBL shot gun shown to him in the court, which was received by him in sealed packet-A. He also received the clothes in Packet-B, which were blood-stained grey jacket, blood-stained striped shirt, blood-stained white undershirt, a big sky blue cloth, a small sky blue cloth and blood-stained dark brown pantaloon. During cross-examination, he stated that suspected holes on the garments were only indicative that the holes were caused by a DBBL shot gun which could have been caused by two shots from single barrel gun as well. The gun and ammunition remained with him for one year and two months approximately before the report was furnished by him. The articles remained in his custody for whole of the period as there was no separate malkhana in FSL Jammu. 3. PW Mohd. Irfan (Investigating Officer, Witness No.31 in the charge-sheet) stated that on 27.11.2009, an information was received from reliable source that one person namely Harpreet Singh, was murdered during the intervening night of 26/27.11.2009 with gunshot. The entry was made in the daily diary of police post and docket was sent to the police station for registration of FIR. He along with police personnel proceeded on spot and found that an auto number 3317/JK02F was parked on the roadside. Pursuant to the report made in daily diary, FIR (Ext-P-32) was registered in police station Satwari on 27.11.2009. One dead body was lying alongside auto, which was drenched in the blood. He informed the PCR to send photographer on spot. He prepared the site plan (Ext-P.31). Photographer came on spot and took photographs of the place of occurrence and the dead body. He took the dead body in his possession for conducting the postmortem. Seizure Memo (Ext-7A) was prepared in that respect. He also seized the blood-stained clay, simple clay in the presence of witnesses and sealed the same. He also seized the auto in presence of the witnesses on spot and prepared the seizure memo (Ext.P-11). Postmortem of the deceased was conducted and postmortem report was obtained. He prepared the Fard Surathal (Ext.P31/1) in GMC on 27.11.2009. He also seized the blood-stained clay, simple clay in the presence of witnesses and sealed the same. He also seized the auto in presence of the witnesses on spot and prepared the seizure memo (Ext.P-11). Postmortem of the deceased was conducted and postmortem report was obtained. He prepared the Fard Surathal (Ext.P31/1) in GMC on 27.11.2009. After postmortem of the deceased, seizure memo of the clothes of the deceased was prepared. In the mortuary, he seized two wads, 12 pieces of pellets and two pieces of skin from the person who produced them. He prepared three packets and after sealing handed over to FSL. Seizure memo (Ext.P7/1) was prepared. After post mortem, the dead body was handed over to the brother of deceased vide receipt (Ext.P-7/2). On 17.12.2009, accused Gurdev Singh was arrested and during custody of police, he admitted that he had hidden one double barrel gun and one live cartridge behind the Godrej almirah in guest room of a residential house of Jagdish Raj. Disclosure Memo (Ext.P-1) was prepared. Pursuant to the disclosure statement, one 12 bore double barrel gun and one live 12 bore cartridge were recovered from the House of Jagdish Raj, on the identification of accused. Recovery and Seizure Memo (Ext.P-II) was prepared. The photographs of the recovered gun were taken by him through his mobile. He also prepared the sketch of gun (ExtP-31/2) in presence of the witnesses and the site plan (ExtP-31/3). After sealing the gun and live cartridge as well as other articles, the ring was kept on Supardanama (ExtP-III) of Jarnail Singh. During investigation, accused Harpreet Singh alias Sunny and Pankaj Sharma alias killer were arrested while they were trying to flee near Dayala-Chack. The police of police station Hiranagar seized the motorcycle and seizure memo ((EXT-P31/5) was prepared on 28.1.2010. Motorcycle was also got identified from the eyewitnesses of the occurrence and in that respect, memo of identification (EXTP-IV) was prepared. He got the statements of eyewitnesses recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. On 19.01.2010, he seized the van of white colour vide seizure memo (EXTP-16). The auto was released on 22.12.2009 on the Supardanama (EXTP-31/6) of Gian Singh pursuant to the orders of the Court. The site plan (EXYP-14) of place of occurrence was got prepared through Patwari. Accused Harpeeet Singh alias Babi was arrested on 08.01.2010 and the accused Ravinder Singh and Gurdeep Singh were arrested on 14.01.2010. The auto was released on 22.12.2009 on the Supardanama (EXTP-31/6) of Gian Singh pursuant to the orders of the Court. The site plan (EXYP-14) of place of occurrence was got prepared through Patwari. Accused Harpeeet Singh alias Babi was arrested on 08.01.2010 and the accused Ravinder Singh and Gurdeep Singh were arrested on 14.01.2010. Accused Manpal Singh was also arrested. Other accused had absconded and later, they were also arrested. After the completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the court. During cross-examination, he stated that in FIR, it was not mentioned as to who committed the murder. As per the contents of report, the police post Gadigarh received the information from reliable source. FIR was registered at 6:15 pm and thereafter investigation was entrusted to Investigating Officer. Information was received in the police post at 5:00 O clock. Information was received on telephone but he could not say as to how it was received. No information was provided by Gyan Singh over telephone in the police post. At about 5:15 in the morning, he reached at the place of occurrence and nobody was present there but people had gathered on spot after his arrival. When he reached on spot, the dead body was lying on the side of a road. The street light was there at the place of occurrence but light was very less. The Mahindra Workshop was at a distance of 40/50 feet from the place of occurrence. The floor mill was not shown in the site plan. The dead body was identified by brother of deceased namely Iqbal Singh. The witness Iqbal Singh, his mother Mohinder Kaur, Paramjit Kaur and Gian Singh had reached on spot 15 minutes after his arrival. PW Iqbal Singh in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C had not disclosed that his mother Mohinder Kaur, father Gian Singh and sister Paramjeet Kour while weeping told that the accused had fired on the deceased. The witnesses had not told in respect of occurrence. The statement of Iqbal Singh was recorded on 27.11.2009 in respect of seizure. He (witness) remained on spot till 08.00AM. The statement of witness Gyan Singh was recorded on 05.12.2009, who disclosed that he had himself seen the occurrence and prior to that, it was not told. He was heart patient and was in a state of shock due to death of his son. He (witness) remained on spot till 08.00AM. The statement of witness Gyan Singh was recorded on 05.12.2009, who disclosed that he had himself seen the occurrence and prior to that, it was not told. He was heart patient and was in a state of shock due to death of his son. He had left the place and thereafter he told the same. The Witness Gyan Singh had not stated in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C that he was heart patient and was in condition of shock due to death of his son as a result of which he could not disclose about the occurrence earlier. It was mentioned in case diary dated 05.12.2009 that the witness was in state of shock. The witness did not produce medical record in that respect. Disclosure memo of accused Gurdev Singh was prepared in the afternoon at about 3:30 PM. Prior to disclosure, Gyan Singh and Jarnail Singh had come to the police station but the time of their arrival was not mentioned in the record. At the time of preparation of disclosure memo, no other civilian was called. He reached at the place of seizure at 4:30 in the evening. There were houses on front and rear side of the place of seizure. People were present at the place of recovery but none made any statement as no civilian was ready to depose. 7-8 civilians were present. He did not initiate any legal proceeding against the witnesses who were not ready to make statements. Jagdish Raj was present in his house at the time of seizure of weapon of offence but he was not cited as witness to the seizure of weapon of offence. His statement was recorded. He was not aware that weapon of offence was in his house and that accused Gurdev Singh had concealed the weapon of offence in his house. He came to know about the weapon of offence only when it was recovered. He left the place of recovery at 6:30. In the statement of witness Gyan Singh recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C it was not mentioned that on 26.11.2009 in the morning, accused Manpal took the deceased from his house along with him. PW Gyan Singh for the first time on 05.12.2009 had stated that he had seen the occurrence along with his wife and daughter. In the statement of witness Gyan Singh recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C it was not mentioned that on 26.11.2009 in the morning, accused Manpal took the deceased from his house along with him. PW Gyan Singh for the first time on 05.12.2009 had stated that he had seen the occurrence along with his wife and daughter. Prior to that Mohinder Kaur and Paramjeet Kour had not come to him to disclose that they had seen the occurrence. This is correct that for the first time the witnesses stated in their statements recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C that they were eyewitnesses. He was confronted with the statements made by Paramjeet Kaur and Mohinder Kaur under section 164-A Cr.P.C, wherein they had stated about the firing of the two shots with shotgun by accused Harpreet Singh, he stated that in their statements it was not mentioned that two gunshots were fired at the back of the deceased but only it was mentioned that shot was fired. In his investigation it did not emerge that there was scuffle between the accused and the deceased. It is correct that both Mahinder Kaur and Paramjit Kour had not told him anything about the occurrence as they were weeping. He denied the suggestion that both Mahinder Kaur and Paramjit Kour told him about the occurrence but he told them to go to home. It has not come in the investigation that witnesses Mohinder Kaur and Paramjeet Kaur called the deceased prior to occurrence and that they had gone to search for the deceased, when he did not return. Except witness Mohinder Kaur and Paramjeet Kaur no other witness or person told him that they had heard the noise of bullets and on hearing the noise, reached on spot. No record was produced before him to demonstrate that accused other than Gurdeep Singh, were having enmity with the deceased but they were friends of Gurdeep Singh. Paramjeet Kaur and Mohinder Kaur have not mentioned about the presence of Manpal Singh on spot in their statements recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C, but witness Gyan Singh has mentioned about the presence of accused Manpal Singh in his statement. He had mentioned about the presence of accused Manpal Singh in his statement recorded under section 161 and not 164-A Cr.P.C. Gun was not shown to the doctor who conducted postmortem. He had mentioned about the presence of accused Manpal Singh in his statement recorded under section 161 and not 164-A Cr.P.C. Gun was not shown to the doctor who conducted postmortem. No witness came to the police station to lodge the report. How the information was received from the source, was not mentioned in the case diary. It has not come in his investigation that eyewitnesses had talked to anyone prior to registration of FIR, who could inform the Police. None of the eyewitnesses had named any individual who was present at the time of occurrence. He had reached at the place of occurrence at 5:15 AM. His investigation commenced at 7:15 AM and site map was prepared at 7:15 AM. When he reached on spot, the father of the deceased i.e. witness Gyan Singh was present on spot. Statement of Gyan Singh was recorded on 23.12.2009. Statement of witness Mohinder Kaur was recorded on 29.12.2009 and statement of witness Paramjeet Kaur was recorded on 30.12.2009. On 27.11. 2009, he had come to know about the eye witnesses and despite that after one month of occurrence, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and only the statement of Gyan Singh was recorded within 3-4 days. The delay in recording the statements of the witnesses was because they were not ready as they were not feeling well. None of the three witnesses had produced medical record in respect of their illness. Statement of witness Gyan Singh was recorded on 05.12.2009 and the statements of other witnesses were not recorded on that day. On 05.12.2009, he for the first time came to know about the eyewitnesses. Under law, he cannot record the statement of eyewitness under section 161 Cr.P.C, whose statement is to be recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. This is correct that it is not mentioned in case diary that he went to record the statements of the eye witnesses between 27.11.2009 and 04.12.2009 but could not record their statements. From 29th till 5th he was in Udhampur for training. In his absence, the investigation was conducted by ASI Kasturi Lal and SI Bashir Ahmed. It is not mentioned in case diary that efforts were made for recording the statements of the eyewitnesses from 29.11.2009 till 04.11.2009. From 29th till 5th he was in Udhampur for training. In his absence, the investigation was conducted by ASI Kasturi Lal and SI Bashir Ahmed. It is not mentioned in case diary that efforts were made for recording the statements of the eyewitnesses from 29.11.2009 till 04.11.2009. When statement of Gyan Singh was recorded on 05.12.2009, he was not brought to court as he had stated that he would go to court later for recording of statement and it was mentioned in case diary. The health status of the witness has not been mentioned in the case diary. Despite knowing that the statement of an eyewitness cannot be recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, he recorded the statement of witness Gyan Singh on 05.12.2009, as it was necessary to arrest the accused and he felt that health of Gyan Singh was not good. 34. PW Arjun Singh (Witness No.32 in the charge-sheet) stated that on 27.11.2009, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Satwari. On 27.11.2009, at about 6/6.15 AM, on the basis of copy of Report No. 24 dated 27.11.2009, FIR No. 160/2009 dated 27.11.2009 under sections 302 RPC and 3/25 Arms Act was registered. He proved the FIR (EXT-P-32). During cross-examination, he stated that as per contents of the FIR, the name of the person who had committed the murder was not mentioned. The FIR was lodged at 6.15 AM and thereafter, the investigation was handed over to the Investigating Officer. Appreciation: 35. The allegations against the appellants are that on 27.11.2009 at around 4 AM in the morning with common intention in order to kill Harpreet Singh alias Babbi, dragged him from the Auto near Mahindra Body Builders, Rani Bagh and accused Gurdev Singh alias Danchi handed over 12 Bore Double shotgun to Harpreet Singh alias Sunny, who fired two shots at the back of deceased-Harpreet Singh alias Babby and left him on the road, who later on died. The appellants thereafter fled from the spot on the motorcycle and van. 36. The prosecution, in order to prove the case, mainly banked upon the evidence of three eyewitnesses, namely, PW-2 Gyan Singh, PW-3 Mohinder Kour and PW-4 Paramjeet Kour. PW Gyan Singh and PW Mohinder Kour are the parents of the deceased-Harpreet Singh and PW-Paramjeet Kour is the sister of the deceased. A perusal of the FIR (ExtP-32) coupled with the evidence of Investigating Officer, PW Mohd. PW Gyan Singh and PW Mohinder Kour are the parents of the deceased-Harpreet Singh and PW-Paramjeet Kour is the sister of the deceased. A perusal of the FIR (ExtP-32) coupled with the evidence of Investigating Officer, PW Mohd. Irfan demonstrates that in FIR, which was registered at 6.15 AM on 27.11.2009 pursuant to the Daily Diary Report No. 24 dated 27.11.2009, the names of the assailants, who murdered Harpreet Singh alias Babby were not mentioned. Investigating Officer, PW Mohd Irfan in his cross-examination, has stated that on 27.11.2009, he came to know about the eyewitnesses and he further stated that the statement of father of the deceased- PW Gyan Singh was recorded on 05.12.2009 under section 161 Cr.P.C, though he admitted that he could not have recorded the statements of eyewitnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. and the reason for violating the mandate of law furnished by the Investigating Officer was that the accused were to be arrested. PW Mohd. Irfan has stated that statement of PW Gyan Singh was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C on 05.12.2009 and his statement was not recorded in the court on that day as PW Gyan Singh had stated that he would get his statement recorded in the court later. PW Mohd. Irfan further admitted that in case diary, health status of the witness was not mentioned. PW-Mohd. Irfan has further admitted that the statements of PWs Gyan Singh, Mohinder Kour and Paramjeet Kour were recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. on 23.12.2009, 29.12.2009 and 30.12.2009 respectively. The occurrence took place in the night intervening 26th/27th of November, 2009 and the statements of all the three eye witnesses, who were related to the deceased, were recorded after nearly one month of the occurrence. PW Mohinder Kour admitted in her cross-examination that her statement was recorded one month after the occurrence and she remained in Jammu during that period. PW Mohinder Kour admitted in her cross-examination that her statement was recorded one month after the occurrence and she remained in Jammu during that period. PW Paramjeet Kour stated that her statement was recorded on 30.12.2009 and from 26.11.2009 till 30.12.2009, she remained in her paternal home and due to ailment of her father, she could not get her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. The reason furnished by the Investigating Officer for not recording the statements of the eyewitnesses promptly is that the witnesses were not ready as they were not feeling well but at the same time, he admitted that none of the three eyewitnesses produced any medical record in respect of their illness. The reason furnished by the IO or the witnesses for delay in recording the statements during investigation cannot be accepted as gospel truth and reason so projected can be examined in the light of the attending circumstances to find out as to whether the same inspires confidence or not. In “Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 651”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India did not accept the explanation offered by the witness for the delay in making disclosure of commission of offence. PW Mohinder Kour has nowhere stated that she was not feeling well and not in a position to get her statements recorded, as stated by PW Mohd. Irfan (IO). Thus, this court is of the considered view that the cause projected for delay in recording the statements of the eyewitnesses does not inspire confidence. 37. Even if the cause projected for delay in recording statements of the eyewitnesses is accepted still their testimonies cannot be relied upon for convicting the appellants. PW Gyan Singh stated that he phoned the Police about the occurrence but he was told by the Police that they had already received the information. PW Mohd Irfan has categorically denied that PW Gyan Singh informed the Police Post in respect of occurrence through telephone. He further denied the suggestion made to him during cross-examination that both PWs Mohinder Kour and Paramjeet Kour had told him about the occurrence on spot, as stated by PW Mohinder Kour & PW Paramjeet Kour in their statements before the trial court. He further denied that he told them to go back to their home, as stated by PW Paramjeet Kour. He further denied that he told them to go back to their home, as stated by PW Paramjeet Kour. He has further admitted that PW Gyan Singh for the first time on 05.12.2009 stated that he had seen the occurrence and prior to that, neither Mohinder Kour nor Paramjeet Kour disclosed that they had seen the occurrence. 38. All the three eye witnesses are not only related but they fall within the category of chance witnesses as well. They might have gone to search for Harpreet Singh alias Babby, but it was a sheer co-incidence that Harpreet Singh alias Babbi was allegedly killed by the accused persons-appellants in their presence. In “Mohd. Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1440”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under : 55. It is noted that great weight has been attached to the testimonies of the witnesses in the instant case. Having regard to the aforesaid fact that this Court has examined the credibility of the witnesses to rule out any tainted evidence given in the court of Law. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses in the present case and that the witnesses were related to each other. This Court in a number of cases has had the opportunity to consider the said aspect of related/interested/partisan witnesses and the credibility of such witnesses. This Court is conscious of the well-settled principle that just because the witnesses are related/interested/partisan witnesses, their testimonies cannot be disregarded, however, it is also true that when the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection. In the case of Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381 , this Court held that the testimony of such related witnesses should be analysed with caution for its credibility. 56. In Raju alias Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 12 SCC 701 , this Court observed: “29. The sum and substance is that the evidence of a related or interested witness should be meticulously and carefully examined. In a case where the related and interested witness may have some enmity with the assailant, the bar would need to be raised and the evidence of the witness would have to be examined by applying a standard of discerning scrutiny. In a case where the related and interested witness may have some enmity with the assailant, the bar would need to be raised and the evidence of the witness would have to be examined by applying a standard of discerning scrutiny. However, this is only a rule of prudence and not one of law, as held in Dalip Singh [ AIR 1953 SC 364 ] and pithily reiterated in Sarwan Singh [ (1976) 4 SCC 369 ] in the following words : “10. … The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with a little care. Once that approach is made and the court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration.” 57. Further delving on the same issue, it is noted that in the case of Ganapathi v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 5 SCC 549 , this Court held that in several cases when only family members are present at the time of the incident and the case of the prosecution is based only on their evidence, Courts have to be cautious and meticulously evaluate the evidence in the process of trial. (emphasis added) 39. In Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under : 22. The evidence of a chance witness requires a very cautious and close scrutiny and a chance witness must adequately explain his presence at the place of occurrence (Satbir v. Surat Singh [ (1997) 4 SCC 192 ], Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2004) 11 SCC 253 ], Acharaparambath Pradeepan v. State of Kerala [(2006) 13 SCC 643] and Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh [ (2007) 13 SCC 360 ] ). Deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful should be discarded (vide Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan [ (2004) 10 SCC 632 ] ). (emphasis added) 40. Further in “Ravi Mandal’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under : 26. As regards the testimony of PW-5 (Mahender Khurana) he too, is a chance witness. (emphasis added) 40. Further in “Ravi Mandal’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under : 26. As regards the testimony of PW-5 (Mahender Khurana) he too, is a chance witness. As to when testimony of a chance witness could be relied, the law is settled, which is, that the evidence of a chance witness requires a very cautious and close scrutiny and a chance witness must adequately explain his presence at the place of occurrence. Deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful should be discarded. (emphasis added) 41. From the above-mentioned judicial precedents, it is amply clear that the evidence of the chance as well as related witnesses is to be appreciated by a standard of discerning scrutiny, though it is not a rule of law but a rule of prudence. If the presence of chance witness is found to be doubtful, then his evidence has to be discarded. Moreso, once the statements of the related witnesses who happen to be the chance witnesses as well have been recorded after considerable delay, then certainly the benefit must go to the accused. 42. From the evidence brought on record, this court finds that the presence of the eye-witnesses on spot is doubtful. PW Gyan Singh has stated that when the deceased was shot dead by Harpreet Singh alias Sunny, they got frightened and did not proceed ahead. After the accused fled away, they went towards the body and turned the body and found that deceased was his son. They started crying and a boy came there and took him to his residence as his condition was not good. His wife and daughter remained there and he had forbidden them not to touch the body as it was a police case. He also told them that he was going to inform the Police. He informed the Police but the Police told him that they had already received the information. PW Mohd Irfan (Investigating Officer) has categorically stated that he reached at the place of occurrence at 5.15 PM in the morning and nobody was present there. People gathered on spot only after his arrival. He further stated that witnesses Iqbal Singh, his mother Mohinder Kour, Paramjeet Kour and Gyan Singh reached on spot 15 minutes after his arrival. PW Mohd Irfan (Investigating Officer) has categorically stated that he reached at the place of occurrence at 5.15 PM in the morning and nobody was present there. People gathered on spot only after his arrival. He further stated that witnesses Iqbal Singh, his mother Mohinder Kour, Paramjeet Kour and Gyan Singh reached on spot 15 minutes after his arrival. He subsequently also stated that witness Gyan Singh was present on spot when he reached on spot. Both these statements made by Mohd. Irfan are contradictory but from the statement of PW Gyan Singh, it is evident that in his presence, the Police had not arrived on spot as he was taken away by a boy to his residence. PW Mohinder Kour has stated that when she and her daughter tried to turn the body, her husband stopped her for doing so as it was a police case and asked them not to turn the body. She further stated that health of her husband deteriorated, therefore, he returned to his home and thereafter, he informed the Police and the Police told him that they were already having the knowledge of occurrence. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the Police came on spot after 10-15 minutes and was conducting the proceedings in her presence and they were crying and she remained on spot for 45 minutes. She further told the Police in respect of occurrence. PW Paramjeet Kour has stated that when her brother died on spot, they started crying. After 15 to 20 minutes, the Police also came on spot. Her father went to home as he was having blood pressure, sugar & heart problem and could not tolerate the incident. The Police had asked them to go back to their home and then they went back. They had told the Police about the occurrence. She has not stated that they turned the body and further that PW Gyan Singh i.e. her father had forbidden her and her mother from touching the body as it was a Police case, as stated by PW Gyan Singh in his deposition before the trial court. She even has not stated that when she and her mother tried to turn the dead body, her father stopped them from doing so, as it was a Police case. She even has not stated that when she and her mother tried to turn the dead body, her father stopped them from doing so, as it was a Police case. Notwithstanding the delay in recording the statements of all these three eye witnesses, their presence on the place of occurrence is also doubtful as the Investigating Officer has himself admitted that when he reached on spot, none was present and people started gathering there after his arrival. He also admitted that PW Iqbal Singh along with PWs Mohinder Kour, Parmajeet Kour, Gyan Singh reached on spot after 15 minutes of his arrival. PW Iqbal Singh who happened to be the brother of the deceased in his deposition has stated that when the parents and sister of the deceased came on the day of occurrence, they were crying and when he enquired from them, her sister told him that accused Gurdev Singh alias Danchi, Harpreet Singh alias Sunny, Pankaj Sharma, Gurdeep Singh, Manpal Singh and Ravinder Singh had killed the deceased, but at the same time PW Iqbal Singh has stated that the seizure memos were prepared on spot at 7/8 O’clock and when his statement was recorded at 12:30 O’clock, he had told that he was informed by his parents and sister but at the same time, he admitted that in his statement recorded by the Police, it was not mentioned that he was told about the occurrence by his parents and wife.. Though he was not an eyewitness to the occurrence, but his testimony would have been relevant had he been told by the eyewitnesses in respect of the occurrence immediately thereafter. But once no such statement was made by the witness during the course of investigation, the said part of the statement cannot be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating the evidence of three eye witnesses. Once the presence of eyewitnesses on spot is doubtful then their evidence cannot be relied upon for holding the appellants guilty of committing the offence of murder. In fact, the presence of the eyewitnesses on the place of occurrence has been disputed by the Investigating Officer himself. In “Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 6 SCC 804 ”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the evidence of the eyewitnesses, when their presence on spot was denied by the Police Officials, who immediately reached on spot after the incident. In “Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 6 SCC 804 ”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the evidence of the eyewitnesses, when their presence on spot was denied by the Police Officials, who immediately reached on spot after the incident. It was held as under : 5. On reading testimonies of Gulam Navi (PW 7) and Babulal Bhaskar (PW 10), we find that their versions contradict the version given by Tara Singh (PW 1) and Varun Singh (PW 4) as to their presence at the place of occurrence and their claim that they were following the deceased Shiv Charan and the injured Babu Singh on another motorcycle. Their presence is highly doubtful and their eyewitness account apparently conjured, as they were not found at the spot when Gulam Navi (PW 7) the SHO and investigating officer had reached Chauve ke bandh at around 5.30 p.m. on 30-8-2009. Gulam Navi (PW 7) in his cross-examination also had accepted as correct that the informant Tara Singh (PW 1) was not present at the place of the occurrence till the time Babu Singh was sent to hospital. Between 5.30 p.m. to 8.20 p.m., PW 7 was not informed and told as to who had fired upon Shiv Charan. First conversation between Tara Singh (PW 1) and Varun Singh (PW 4) and Gulam Navi (PW 7) was in the hospital at about 8.20 p.m., nearly 3 hours after the occurrence, and both had then for the first time projected themselves as eyewitnesses. The assertion and claim of Tara Singh (PW 1) and Varun Singh (PW 4) of being eyewitnesses to the incident was clearly on second thoughts and after due deliberation. (emphasis added) 43. More so, this Court finds that there are material contradictions in the statements of the eyewitnesses. PW Gyan Singh though supported the prosecution story in his examination in chief but during the course of cross-examination, he completely resiled from what he stated earlier and rather admitted that he was told about the occurrence the next morning and he had not seen the occurrence himself. PW Gyan Singh in his examination-in-chief stated that Ravinder Singh, Danchi and Gurdeep Singh threw the body of the deceased on a kacha road and ran away. They moved ahead and when they turned the dead body, the same was found to be of his son. PW Gyan Singh in his examination-in-chief stated that Ravinder Singh, Danchi and Gurdeep Singh threw the body of the deceased on a kacha road and ran away. They moved ahead and when they turned the dead body, the same was found to be of his son. PW-Mohinder Kour has stated that when the accused ran away, they found that number of Auto was JK02 3317, which belonged to her son. When she and her daughter tried to turn the body, her husband stopped them from doing so as it was a police case. She and her daughter started crying and her husband got unwell. PW-Paramjeet Kour stated that she and her parents went on spot and found that her brother had received gunshot and had died on spot only and they started wailing. All these three eyewitnesses have made statements differently in respect of same fact as to the identification of the dead body being of their brother/son as the case may be. PW Gyan Singh stated that accused Ravinder Singh, Danchi and Gurdeep Singh threw the dead body on kacha road. PW Mohinder Kour stated that the accused Ravinder Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Pankaj Sharma dragged the deceased and threw him on kacha road but she stated in cross-examination that he was killed on kacha road. PW Paramjeet Kour has not deposed that body of the deceased was dragged and thrown on the kacha road but she stated in cross-examination that he was killed on kacha road. PW Gyan Singh has stated that Ravinder Singh asked to bring gun & fire shot. On his instructions, accused Danchi brought the gun and handed over to Harpreet Singh alias Sunny and in his presence, accused Sunny fired two shots on the back of the deceased-Harpreet Singh and killed him. PW Mohinder Kour stated that when the other accused released the Auto driver, he tried to run away to save himself but Harpreet Singh alias Sunny fired two bullets at him which hit the deceased at his back and he fell down. PW Mohinder Kour stated that when the other accused released the Auto driver, he tried to run away to save himself but Harpreet Singh alias Sunny fired two bullets at him which hit the deceased at his back and he fell down. In her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C, it was not mentioned that the when the accused released the deceased, he started running and also there were no details of firing the two gunshots on the back of the Auto driver and that when the gun shots hit the deceased, he fell down and the accused Ravinder Singh and Pankaj Sharma dragged the deceased and left him on the kacha road with the face downwards. There is incoherence in her statement also, as she has stated that she asked his son not to go with accused Manpal Singh as they were the enemies but at the same time, she stated that accused Parveen Singh was close friend of the deceased. PW Paramjeet Kour has stated that her brother was shot at kacha part of the road. She further stated that when the bullets hit her brother, he was trying to run away from the accused and he had run only up to 2 to 3 feet. She has also stated that there was scuffle between the accused and the deceased, which continued for 5-6 minutes. She was confronted with her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. wherein she had stated that Ravinder Singh asked Danchi to bring gun and Danchi brought the gun, then Ravinder Singh asked Sunny to shot him and Sunny fired shots whereas in her chief-examination, she had that Ravinder Singh asked Gurdev Singh to bring the gun from the van, he brought the gun and handed over to Harpreet Singh and asked him to fire, then accused Sunny shot at her brother(deceased). She admitted that her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. was correct. She further admitted that in her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. it was not mentioned that Manpal Singh was also dragging Auto driver out of the Auto. Other two witnesses have not deposed in respect of any scuffle between the accused and the deceased. She admitted that her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. was correct. She further admitted that in her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. it was not mentioned that Manpal Singh was also dragging Auto driver out of the Auto. Other two witnesses have not deposed in respect of any scuffle between the accused and the deceased. Though the witnesses cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and certain minor contradictions are bound to occur in their depositions before the court but when the eyewitnesses are related as well as chance witnesses and they make contradictory statements in respect of the material facts and make improvements during their depositions in the court, then their evidence cannot be relied upon, particularly when their presence on the spot is doubtful. 44. The prosecution also intended to prove that the accused persons had conspired to kill the deceased on account of previous enmity. So far as conspiracy part is concerned, PW Gyan Singh has stated that on 24.11.2009 at 4.30 AM, he and his wife had heard the accused persons conspiring with each other to kill Harpreet Singh alias Babbi. PW Mohinder Kour has stated that the accused were consulting each other and accused Ravinder Singh was telling the other accused to bring Harpreet Singh in drunken condition so that he was killed. PW Mohinder Kour in her cross-examination, admitted that she did not lodge any report about that to the Police but she told her deceased son in respect of that. Once the witness did not inform the Police despite having a specific knowledge of the alleged conspiracy, no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of the said witness in respect of the alleged conspiracy. More so, PW Gyan Singh like PW Mohinder Kour has not specifically referred to Ravinder Singh telling others to bring Harpreet Singh in drunken condition in order to kill him. 45. The motive projected by the eyewitnesses for the murder of the deceased is that the accused were having doubt that brother of Gurdeep Singh was killed by the deceased and because of past enmity, the deceased was killed by the accused. 45. The motive projected by the eyewitnesses for the murder of the deceased is that the accused were having doubt that brother of Gurdeep Singh was killed by the deceased and because of past enmity, the deceased was killed by the accused. In “Balaram v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1468”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the previous enmity is a double-edged weapon; on the one hand it provides the motive, whereas on the other hand, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. 46. So far as the present case is concerned, there is no independent witness who has watched the occurrence and all the three eye witnesses relied heavily by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused/appellants are related and chance witnesses, whose statements were recorded after considerable delay. In fact, it was the blind murder case, which the Investigating Officer had tried to solve with the aid and assistance of the three eyewitnesses. 47. The prosecution also relied heavily upon the disclosure statement of the appellant Gurdev Singh alias Danchi i.e. ExtP-I and the seizure memo of Ext P-II. A perusal of the disclosure statement reveals that the same was recorded on 18.12.2009 and PW Gyan Singh & PW Jarnail Singh have been cited as witnesses to the disclosure statement made by Gurdev Singh alias Danchi. As per the disclosure statement ExtP-I, the weapon of offence i.e. 12 Double Bore Shot Gun along with one cartridge was concealed behind the Godrej Almirah lying in the house of one Jagdish Raj R/o. Kotli Charka. PW Gyan Singh and PW Jarnail Singh are the son and brother-in-law of the deceased respectively and these two witnesses only have been cited as witnesses to both the recovery and seizure memo (ExtP-II). PW Gyan Singh has deposed in respect of disclosure statement made by accused Gurdev Singh and subsequent recovery of weapon from the house of Jagdish Raj. In cross examination, he stated that he made the statement at the instructions of the Police. PW Jarnail Singh also deposed in respect of the disclosure statement ExtP-I and recovery-cum-seizure memo (ExtP-II). He further stated that Jagdish Raj and his family members were also present and the proceedings were conducted in the presence of Jagdish Raj. He further admitted that no person was called from the neighborhood though the area was densely populated. PW Jarnail Singh also deposed in respect of the disclosure statement ExtP-I and recovery-cum-seizure memo (ExtP-II). He further stated that Jagdish Raj and his family members were also present and the proceedings were conducted in the presence of Jagdish Raj. He further admitted that no person was called from the neighborhood though the area was densely populated. PW Jagdish Raj in his statement before the court did not support the prosecution, resultantly he was declared hostile. He was cross-examined at length. He specifically denied that the accused Gurdev Singh, Pankaj Sharma and Harpreet Singh alias Sunny had come to his house on a motorcycle without number plate and concealed the gun behind the almirah of his room. Investigating Officer admitted that at the time of preparation of disclosure memo, no other civilian was called and Jagdish Raj was present in his house at the time of recovery of the weapon of offence, but he was not associated as a witness to the seizure memo in respect of weapon of offence but his statement was recorded. He also admitted that 7-8 civilians were present at the place of recovery. Though PW Gyan Singh and PW Jarnail Singh have deposed in respect of the disclosure statement made by Gurdev Singh and subsequent recovery and seizure of weapon of offence but it would be unsafe to place reliance upon their evidence, more particularly, in view of the fact that both were related witnesses, one of them being the eyewitness as well, had every reason to depose against the accused due to past enmity and further that the owner of the house from where the weapon of offence was recovered did not support the prosecution case at all. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the Investigating Officer ought to have associated the independent witness at least during the course of affecting recovery and seizure of the weapon in order to demonstrate that the investigation was conducted in a fair and transparent manner. In State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, (2002) 2 SCC 426 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under : 19. In State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, (2002) 2 SCC 426 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under : 19. Significantly all disclosures, discoveries and even arrests have been made in the presence of three specific persons, namely, Budh Ram, Dholu Ram and Atma Ram — no independent witness could be found in the aforesaid context — is it deliberate or is it sheer coincidence — this is where the relevance of the passage from Sarkar on Evidence comes on. The ingenuity devised by the prosecutor knew no bounds — can it be attributed to be sheer coincidence? Without any further consideration of the matter, one thing can be, more or less with certain amount of conclusiveness be stated that these at least create a doubt or suspicion as to whether the same have been tailor-made or not and in the event of there being such a doubt, the benefit must and ought to be transposed to the accused persons. The trial court addressed itself on scrutiny of evidence and came to a conclusion that the evidence available on record is trustworthy but the High Court acquitted one of the accused persons on the basis of some discrepancy between the oral testimony and the documentary evidence as noticed fully hereinbefore. The oral testimony thus stands tainted with suspicion. If that be the case, then there is no other evidence apart from the omnipresent Budh Ram and Dholu Ram, who however are totally interested witnesses. While it is true that legitimacy of interested witnesses cannot be discredited in any way nor termed to be a suspect witness but the evidence before being ascribed to be trustworthy or being capable of creating confidence, the court has to consider the same upon proper scrutiny. In our view, the High Court was wholly in error in not considering the evidence available on record in its proper perspective. --------------. (emphasis added) 48. Also, in Krishan v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 70, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under : 9. More than one factor renders the prosecution theory regarding recovery very suspicious and doubtful. The first factor is that the recovery was allegedly made one month and four days after the occurrence. Secondly, the recovery was made from open space in a garden. Thus, the place was easily accessible to many. More than one factor renders the prosecution theory regarding recovery very suspicious and doubtful. The first factor is that the recovery was allegedly made one month and four days after the occurrence. Secondly, the recovery was made from open space in a garden. Thus, the place was easily accessible to many. Thirdly, neither PW-15 nor PW-20 have stated that the weapon and cartridges were buried underground and were recovered only after digging. Lastly, though independent witnesses were available, they were not made witnesses to the Panchnama made pursuant to the alleged statement made by the appellant. As the recovery of the weapon at the appellant's instance cannot be believed, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent are not significant at all. She relied upon the decisions which hold that in certain cases, a conviction can be based on the recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused. (emphasis added) 49. This Court has examined the judgment passed by the learned trial court and this Court finds that the learned trial court has not examined the contentions raised by the defence in a proper manner. The learned trial court held that the delay in recording the statements of eye witnesses was sufficiently explained, which in the opinion of this court has not been rightly considered by the learned trial court. The learned trial court simply believed the ocular version of the witnesses as a truth in respect of their inability to get their statements recorded promptly. Both Mohinder Kour and Paramjeet Kour admitted that they remained in Jammu only from the date of occurrence till the date when their statements were recorded before the Magistrate. PW Paramjeet Kour stated that it was not mentioned in her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. that her father was having blood pressure, sugar and heart problem and could not tolerate the incident and further that after the post mortem, the Police came to them but health of her father was not good and he was admitted and being treated in Hospital. There is no material on record that the PW Gyan Singh was being treated in Hospital. There is no material on record that the PW Gyan Singh was being treated in Hospital. There were very serious allegations against the appellants in respect of commission of offence of murder, which is punishable with death or life imprisonment and in absence of any independent eyewitness to the occurrence, the statements of the three eyewitnesses who were not only related but chance-witnesses as well were required to be appreciated with due care and caution particularly when there was substantial delay in recording their statements during the course of investigation and also when the reason/cause for not recording their statements promptly during investigation was not substantiated by any evidence. The learned trial court has also considered the application filed by PW Gyan Singh under section 540 Cr.P.C. but before it could be decided the said witness expired. Be that as it may, the learned trial court has appreciated the statement of PW Gyan Singh notwithstanding the fact that during cross-examination, he took a U-turn. The material contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses have also escaped the attention of the learned trial court. This court is of the considered view that it would not be safe and proper to convict the appellants on the basis of evidence of three eyewitnesses when their presence on spot has been found to be doubtful and they are related, interested and chance witnesses. The disclosure statement of the appellant Gurdev Singh as well as the evidence of the recovery also cannot be relied upon to convict the appellant Gurdev Singh for the reasons already discussed above. In “Ram Niwas v. State of Haryana, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1007”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled position of law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So far as the present case is concerned the appellants deserve to be granted benefit of doubt. 50. In “Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1038”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under : 18. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So far as the present case is concerned the appellants deserve to be granted benefit of doubt. 50. In “Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1038”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under : 18. On a deeper and fundamental level, when this Court is confronted with a situation where it has to ponder whether to lean with the Prosecution or the Defence, in the face of reasonable doubt as to the version put forth by the Prosecution, this Court will, as a matter of course and of choice, in line with judicial discretion, lean in favour of the Defence. We have borne in mind the cardinal principle that life and liberty are not matters to be trifled with, and a conviction can only be sustained in the absence of reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and insistence on the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt are not empty formalities. Rather, their origin is traceable to Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India. Of course, for certain offences, the law seeks to place a reverse onus on the accused to prove his/her innocence, but that does not impact adversely the innocent-till-proven-guilty rule for other criminal offences. Result: 51. For all what has been said and discussed above, the judgment of conviction in charge sheet titled “State vs. Gurdev Singh & Ors.” arising out of FIR No.160/2009 of P/S Satwari, along with order of sentence is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as such, the same is set aside along with the order of sentence. The charge-sheet shall stand dismissed. The bails bonds as well as the personal bonds of the appellants are discharged. 52. Confirmation is answered accordingly. 53. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith. 54. Before parting, this Court likes to observe that there were three eyewitnesses. The examination-in-chief of PW Gian Singh was recorded on 21st May, 2012 but his cross-examination was deferred on the request made by the defence counsel that the statements of other witnesses are yet to be recorded. Subsequently, he was cross-examined on 6th May, 2013. The chief examination of PW Mohinder Kour was recorded on 28.08.2012 and she was cross-examined on 11.08.2014 and 09.10.2014. Subsequently, he was cross-examined on 6th May, 2013. The chief examination of PW Mohinder Kour was recorded on 28.08.2012 and she was cross-examined on 11.08.2014 and 09.10.2014. Likewise, examination-in-chief of PW Paramjeet Kour was recorded on 11th July, 2013 but she was cross-examined on 20.02.2014 and 06.06.2014. The learned trial court has violated the mandate contained in Section 344 of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure (which is in pari materia with Section 309 of Central Cr. P. C) as once the witnesses were in attendance, no adjournment or postponement could have been granted without examining them except for special reasons to be recorded in writing. From the record we do not find any such reason. 55. The delay in cross-examination of PW Gian Singh led to his U-turn in his cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has time and again cautioned the trial courts not to adjourn criminal trials in a routine manner. Taking serious note of unnecessary adjournments granted during the course of trial, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Akil vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 125 , advised the High Courts to use their machinery in the respective State Judicial Academy to make the trial courts aware about the directions issued in State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others - (2001) 4 SCC 667 . Of late as in the year 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Doongar Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 3 SCC 741, has reiterated that the trial courts must carry the mandate of Section 309 of the Cr. P. C. It appears that the trial courts are not following the mandate of the directions issued in State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others (supra), Mohammad Khalid vs. State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 SCC 334 , and Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220 . 56. P. C. It appears that the trial courts are not following the mandate of the directions issued in State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others (supra), Mohammad Khalid vs. State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 SCC 334 , and Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220 . 56. In view of above, we request the Director, J&K Judicial Academy to circulate the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of State of U.P. vs. Shambhu Nath Singh and others - (2001) 4 SCC 667 , Mohammad Khalid vs. State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 SCC 334 , and Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220 , and Doongar Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 3 SCC 741, among all the courts exercising jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure.