Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab  INSC 505 (25 November 1993)
K. JAYACHANDRA (J) REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) VENKATACHALA N. (J) CITATION: 1994
SCC Supl. (1) 515 JT 1993 Supl. 1 1993 SCALE (4)529
Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.- These two
appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Singh, Bharpur Singh and Jagwinder Singh, original accused 2 to 4 are the
appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 1984. Mohinder Singh, original accused
I is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 1985. Gurcharan Singh, A-2
died during the pendency of the appeal. All these four accused were tried for
offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC for causing the death of Mander
Singh and Bhura Singh, sons of Sarwan Singh by shooting them and under 517
Sections 307/34 for attempted murder of one Gurjant Singh, PW 6. The trial
court convicted Mohinder Singh, A-1 under Section 304, Part I, IPC and
sentenced him to undergo seven years' RI and acquitted the others. The State
preferred an appeal. Mohinder Singh, A-1 also preferred an appeal challenging
his conviction under Section 304, Part I, IPC.
High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State and dismissed the appeal filed
by A-1. The High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted Mohinder
Singh, A-1 and Gurcharan Singh, A-2 under Section 302 IPC for committing the
murder of Mander Singh and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for
life and for the same offence Bharpur Singh, A-3 and Jagwinder Singh, A-4 were
convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life and also to pay a fine of Rs 5,000 each in default of payment of which to
further undergo six months' RI. For the murder of Bhura Singh, the High Court
convicted A-1 and A-2 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo
imprisonment for life and for the same offence A-3 and A-4 were convicted under
Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs 5,000 each in default of payment of which to further undergo six
months' RI. For murderous assault on Gurjant Singh, PW 6, Jagwinder Singh, A-4
was also convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years'
RI and for the same offence A-], A-2 and A-3 were also convicted under Section
307 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' RI. Each of the accused was
further sentenced to pay Rs 2,000 as fine failing which to undergo two months'
RI. Each of them was further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and
sentenced to undergo one year's RI. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently. Hence the present appeals have been filed by the convicted
accused under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate
Jurisdiction) Act read with Section 379 CrPC.
prosecution case is as follows : All the accused, the deceased and the material
witnesses belong to Village Mohalan. Pratap Singh, Bala Singh and Kirpal Singh
were real brothers. A-1 and one Govind Singh are the sons of Pratap Singh. A-2
and A-3 are the sons of Bala Singh. A-4 is the son of Gurcharan Singh, A-2.
About 30 to 35 years back, Pratap Singh, father of A-1 and Kirpal Singh, his
uncle were murdered. Sarwan Singh, father of Mander Singh, deceased 1 ('D-1'
for short) and Bhura Singh, deceased 2 ('D-2' for short) were prosecuted for
those murders. PW 7, Sham Kaur is the widow of Sarwan Singh and mother of
deceased 1 and 2. Ronak Singh, PW 5 is the son of Mander Singh, deceased 1 and Gurjant
Singh, PW 6 is his partner in cultivation. Bhura Singh, D-2 lived at Village Mohalan
and his brother D-1 and Jasdev Singh lived at Village Dhunika at a distance of
1 1/2 miles from Village Mohalan as they owned land there. PW 7, Sham Kaur and
PW 6 lived at Village Dhunika.
3. On February 24, 1979 at about 6.30 a.m. Bhura Singh, D- 2 was going on his tractor in
Village Mohalan. When he was near the Dharamshala of the village, Gobind Singh
s/o Partap Singh and Gurdev Singh s/o Gel Singh came out of the Dharamshala
armed with gandasa. Gurdev Singh flung a gandasa blow towards Bhura Singh, but
he ducked. He, however, got a minor injury near the ear. Govind Singh caused an
abrasion on the right side of his back. Bhura Singh jumped out of the tractor. Govind
Singh shouted that he would take revenge of his father on that day. Ronak
Singh, PW 5, nephew of Bhura Singh 518 raised alarm. At that stage, Nachhattar
Singh, came there and intervened. The two assailants while leaving threatened
that they would see the end of Bhura Singh some other time.
Singh went to the police station and made a report. This was said to be the
immediate motive for the occurrence.
Singh was sent for medical examination and the doctor found a lacerated wound near
the right ear. PW 12, ASI went to Village Mohalan for inquiring into that
incident and he arrested Gobind Singh and Gurdev Singh and locked them up in
the police station. PW 5 went to Village Dhunika and informed his father Mander
Singh, D-1 about the morning incident. Mander Singh, D-1, PW 5, Ronak Singh, PW
6, Gurjant Singh and PW 7, Sham Kaur came to Village Mohalan to enquire about
the health of Bhura Singh. At about 6.30 p.m.
that very day, they were going back to Village Dhunika from Village Mohalan on
the tractor driven by PW 5. Mander Singh, D-1 was sitting on the right side of
the mudguard of the tractor and PW 7 was sitting on the left side. Bhura Singh,
D-2 was standing and PW 6 was sitting in the trailer attached to that tractor
and was facing towards the driver's seat. When the tractor reached near the
house of Jagga Mistri, PW 5 and his companions saw A- 1 and A-2 standing
towards their right side armed with 12 bore D.B.B.L. guns.
armed with a 12 bore D.B.B.L. gun and A-3 armed with a pistol were standing on
the left side. The accused were standing at a higher elevation on both the
sides. A-3 fired a shot which hit the tyre of the tractor and the same got
deflated. A-2 fired a shot hitting Mander Singh, D- 1 on the neck who clumped down
over the tractor. A-2 fired another shot hitting Bhura Singh, D-2 in the
abdomen. A-1 fired a shot hitting Bhura Singh on the front side of the left
shoulder who fell down on the ground from the trailer.
fired another shot which hit Mander Singh on the back.
jumped from the trailer on the ground and A-4 fired towards PW 6 hitting him on
the right leg. PWs 5 and 7 jumped from the tractor and ran away. They reached
the house of Baldev Singh, PW 8, a member of the Gram Panchayat of Village Mohalan.
The accused kept firing and raising shouts. PW 6 narrated the incident to PW 8.
But meanwhile the firing was going on and when the same stopped PW 5 left the
house of PW 8 and reached the Police Station, Sangat and reported the matter to
SI, PW 15 who recorded the FIR and went to the scene of occurrence in the
morning of February 25,
1979. The SI inspected
the place of occurrence, got the same photographed and he found the dead body
of Mander Singh, D- 1 in front of the tractor and the dead body of Bhura Singh,
D-2 behind the trailer. Inquests were held and the dead bodies were sent for
postmortem. From near the dead body of Mander Singh, the SI picked up a Mauser
pistol and a holster containing 20 rounds. One 12 bore empty cartridge was also
recovered along with 12 wads, 9 lead pieces, and one brass empty cartridge. PW
6 was sent for medical examination. He was examined by PW 3 who found on him a
penetrating wound with inverted margins on the lateral aspect of the right
lower leg above the ankle joint and there was a corresponding injury. There was
another penetrating wound with inverted margins on the lateral aspect of the
right foot of PW 6. The doctor, PW 2, who conducted the postmortem on the dead
body of Bhura Singh, D- 2 found 10 injuries which could have been caused by a
firearm and which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. Likewise on the dead body of Mander Singh, D-1, another doctor, PW 1
found five gunshot injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death. On 519 February 27, 1979 Harnek Singh, SI, PW 13
arrested A-1 and A-3. A-1 produced 12 bore gun Ex. P-9 and A-3 produced his licenced
pistol Ex. P-10. The empty cartridges were sent to the ballastic expert who
after test firing gave the opinion that the empty cartridges were fired through
the gun belonging to A-1 and another shell was fired from the pistol of A-3.
The expert also gave the opinion that the metallic piece recovered from the
tube of the front tyre of the tractor was not a bullet but was a pellet. He
found that the empty cartridge shell has been fired through Mauser pistol Ex.
P-12. During the course of the investigation, however, the police did not send
A-2 and A-4 for trial. The learned committing Magistrate, however, did not
agree with the police and he committed all the four accused to the Sessions
prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs 5, 6 and 7, who figured as
eyewitnesses and out of them PW 6 was the injured witness. The accused pleaded
not guilty and stated that PW 6 was a lessee of Mander Singh, D-1 and PW 7
lived at Village Dhunika and they also stated that there was factionalism
between Gurcharan Singh and others and they were falsely implicated. They also
gave a history about the previous case. A-4 Jagwinder Singh also stated on the
same lines but added that on February 24, 1979
he had gone to Samrala to purchase a thrasher and he was at that place for
purchasing the same on that day thereby pleading alibi. A- ], however, stated
that on February 24,
1979, the day of
occurrence at about 9
a.m. he was sitting in
his house and he heard some lalkaras that he should be burnt down. Then he
looked over the courtyard wall and he was fired at by Mander Singh, D- 1 who
was equipped with a Mauser and also by Bhura Singh, D-2 who was carrying a gun
and some of the pellets hit the wall and to save himself he fired some shots
towards the side of the assailants and he did not know anything else and he was
arrested by the police. The accused in support of their defence examined DWs. 1
DW 1, Surjit
Singh, is the owner of a workshop at Samrala and he testified to the alibi of
A-4. DW 2, Ramesh Lal, a clerk of Rajinder Government College, Bhatinda, where PW 5 was studying, produced an attendance
register to show that he attended his college on that day. DW 3, Kulwinder
Singh, a Professor in the same college testified that he had taken the
Economics period on February
24, 1979 at 9.30 a.m. and Ronak Singh, PW 5 was present in that class
during that period. DW 4 Surinder Singh, Assistant Station Master spoke about
the departure of train No. 339 on February 24, 1979 from Sangat Railway Station
for Bhatinda at 7.15 p.m. DW 5, Hans Singh, a member of the Panchayat of
Village Kot Guru stated to have travelled on the day of occurrence at about 8
p.m. in the tractor driven by Mander Singh from Sangat Railway Crossing to
Village Kot Guru and Bhura Singh, D-2, Baldev Singh, PW 8 and Master Kaur Singh
were also travelling in that tractor. DW 6, Teja Singh, Sarpanch of Village Kot
Guru stated that he had seen Mander Singh, D- 1, Bhura Singh, D-2 and a few
others drinking at the house of Master Kaur Singh at Village Guru Ke on the
date of occurrence at about 8 p.m. DW 7, Darshan Singh styled himself as a
full-fledged eyewitness of the occurrence and stated that on the day of
occurrence he was at his baithak, when he saw the two deceased persons and
three/four other persons going on a tractor towards the house of the deceased.
Shortly thereafter he heard some gunshots from the side of the house of the
deceased. He saw that Mander Singh, D-1 had a pistol and Bhura Singh, D-2 had a
gun and the tractor proceeded towards the house of A-1 who was present 520 in
the courtyard of his house. The deceased fired towards the house of A-1. Some
gunshots were also fired from the house of A-1. At that time he went inside the
house. He also stated that PWs 5, 6 and 7 were not present. In other words he
supported the statement of A-1. The learned trial Judge found that PWs 5, 6 and
7, the eyewitnesses were chance witnesses and were interested in the deceased.
He also found that Ronak Singh, PW 5 had attended the college at Bhatinda on
that day and therefore he could not have been present in the village. He
further found D- 1 was armed with a pistol and the gunshots at the deceased
were fired from a higher level as opined by the medical evidence.
the version of the eyewitnesses does not tally and that also makes their
presence doubtful. The trial court also believed the evidence of alibi. He,
however, held that A- 1 had a right of private defence as per his own version
but exceeded the same and accordingly convicted him under Section 304, Part 1, IPC.
this stage it may be stated that the appeal filed by the State and the appeal filed
by A-1 were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court which remanded
the matter back to the trial court observing that the trial court should write
a fresh judgment after considering the entire evidence. The remand order was
challenged in the Supreme Court, which after setting aside the judgment
remanding the case, remitted the case to the High Court with the direction that
the High Court itself should dispose of the appeals.
the High Court after considering the evidence of the eyewitnesses as well as
the evidence of the defence witnesses and the reasoning of the trial Judge held
that the evidence of the eyewitnesses is believeable and convicted the
appellants as stated above.
A.N. Mulla and Shri R.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that the trial court has given good reasons for not believing the
evidence of PWs 5 to 7 namely that PW 5 could not have been present in view of
the evidence of DWs 2 and 3 which shows that he was in the college on that day
and that the version of the eyewitnesses is in conflict with the medical
evidence and that the recovery of pistol of Mander Singh, D-1 would show that
the deceased party was the aggressor. The further submission is that these
circumstances coupled with the fact that PWs 5 and 7 were not injured, would
show that they were not at the scene of occurrence and PW 6 and the two
deceased persons might have received the injuries when A-1 fired from his house
in self-defence and that the evidence of DW 1 which proves alibi of A-4, leads
to the conclusion that he was falsely implicated by the alleged eyewitnesses on
which ground also their evidence is liable to be rejected.
Suri, learned counsel appearing for the State and Shri Kohli, learned counsel
appearing for the complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the occurrence
as such is not in dispute and mere marking of attendance of PW 5 in the
register cannot be a conclusive proof that he was not present at the scene of
occurrence and that PW 5 was only a student and he gave the FIR and if he was
not present it is highly improbable that he would have been brought from the
college and made to give the earliest report and that the alibi evidence in favour
of A-4 is highly artificial and just by the track of injuries, the positions of
the accused at the time of shooting cannot strictly be inferred and that the
trial court on some surmises acquitted the accused.
have carefully gone through the judgment of the trial court. The learned trial
Judge after extracting the prosecution case proceeded to consider 521 the plea
taken by A- 1 and the evidence of the defence witnesses thereafter and also
considered the medical evidence and certain other circumstances like PWs 5 and
7 not having received injuries. The trial Judge thereafter accepted the alibi
evidence and also the evidence of the other defence witnesses to exclude the
presence of PW 5.
on such general grounds, he excluded the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 also. We do
not find any discussion on the evidence of the eyewitnesses. Therefore the High
Court was right in saying that the judgment of the trial court is not based on
evidence and legitimate inferences deducible from the evidence on record. The
High Court also observed that reasoning of the trial court was erroneous and
perverse. As noted above, it is for these reasons that on an earlier occasion,
the High Court even remanded the matter to the trial court to write a proper
judgment after discussing the evidence but the Supreme Court, however, set
aside the remand order and asked the High Court to consider the evidence and
dispose of the appeals. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court and
we find that the entire evidence has been discussed in great detail. However,
since this is a regular appeal, we shall also consider the evidence of the
eyewitnesses and other aspects to the extent necessary.
5 was a student studying B.A. in Rajinder Government College, Bhatinda, which is stated to be about 25 miles away from
the place of occurrence. He is the son of Mander Singh, D- 1 and nephew of Bhura
Singh, D2. PW 5 deposed about the morning incident during which Bhura Singh,
D-2 was injured and a report was also given and PW 5 was also shown as a
witness to that incident. Therefore he must have been in the village. PW 5
thereafter gave all the above mentioned details about the evening occurrence.
He deposed that along with him PWs 6 and 7 were also present in the tractor and
he also deposed as to how his father Mander Singh, D- 1 and his uncle Bhura
Singh, D-2 were shot dead by the accused. He also deposed about A-4 shooting at
PW 6. He was cross-examined at length but we do not find anything significant
which affects his veracity. PW 5 asserted that two of the accused persons were
on the left side and the other two were on the right side and they were on a
higher level. PW 5 denied that the ground was even. Learned counsel relied on
the evidence of PW 4 who prepared the rough sketch of the place of occurrence
and in the cross- examination he stated that the ground was even. Any way, we
will advert to this aspect namely the track of the injuries at a later stage.
PW 5 consistently deposed that he was in the village itself and that he was not
in the college and that he did not attend the college on that day. Much of the
cross examination was with reference to his earlier statement and some details
and omissions. We have carefully gone through the cross-examination and we do
not find any material discrepancy. It may be that some of the details were not
mentioned in the FIR or in his statement under Section 161 CrPC but they do not
affect his veracity. We are satisfied that he was in the village itself on that
day, otherwise he could not have figured as an eyewitness to the morning incident
and that at any rate unless he was present in the village and witnessed the
occurrence, he could not have given the earliest report on that very night in
which all the details of the occurrence were mentioned in the most natural way.
PW 6 is the next important witness who was also injured. In his chief
examination he has given all the details of the occurrence. He is not related
to the deceased and he was only a partner of Mander Singh, D-1 in cultivation.
The presence of gunshot injuries on him confirms his presence at the scene of
522 occurrence. Therefore his evidence is entitled to a great weight. He was
also cross-examined at length much of which was about whether he was actually
standing, and whether he was facing the driver's seat or not with a view to
show that the injuries found on him could not have been received if he was
facing the driver's seat. It must be remembered that when such an incident took
place, one cannot expect him to sit in a stationary position. There is every
possibility of his turning around and a vague submission is made that he was
not present at the scene of occurrence. PW 7 is an old lady aged about 65 years
and mother of the two deceased persons. She has given all the above-mentioned
details of the occurrence. The main criticism against her evidence is that as
an old lady she could not have been sitting in the tractor in the manner stated
by her. We do not find any impossibility of an old lady travelling in a tractor
in that manner namely sitting on the mudguard since it is a common thing in the
villages. Her cross-examination is very brief and the general suggestion is
that she was not present.
The presence of the eyewitnesses is mentioned in the FIR and their evidence is
sought to be challenged only on some general grounds. So far as PW 5 is
concerned, the submission is that he must have attended the college and in this
context much reliance has been placed on the evidence of DWs 2 and 3. DW 2 was
a clerk in Rajinder Government College, Bhatinda of which admittedly PW 5 was a
produced the attendance register relating to February 24, 1979 and he deposed
that DW 3, the Professor has marked presence against Roll No. 1102 of Ronak
Singh. In the cross-examination he admitted that he did not know how many
sections were there in the class and he admitted that attendance of Roll No.
1102 appears to have been marked with an ink of deeper shade than the rest of
the entries and that he could not say whether the entries in the columns have
been erased and that the register has been handed over to him by the Professor.
DW 3 deposed that he used to teach Economics to B.A. Part-1 students and that
PW 5 was his student with Roll No. 1 102 and on that day the roll call of the
students was taken by him by calling the roll numbers or their names and if the
student was present, the mark of presence is made in the register. Having seen
the register he deposed that he maintained the register on that day and he also
delivered the lecture in the classroom and Ronak Singh, appearing at Roll No.
1102 was marked as present. He was cross examined by the prosecution and he
admitted that the register was with him till yesterday i.e. till a day before
when he gave the evidence. He also admitted that the attendance entry
pertaining to this particular roll number is in deeper shade as compared to the
other entries and tried to explain it away by saying that it must be due to
some casual circumstances such as ink in the pen having been exhausted and then
the pen having been dipped in ink again.
further admitted that he was not aware of this feature till he deposited this
register in the office a day before.
suggested to him that this entry was manipulated later but he denied. We think
we need not go into further detailed discussion of the evidence of these two
are some suspicious features about the entry. Even otherwise, the mere marking
of such attendance by itself is not a conclusive proof of the presence of Ronak
Singh, PW 5 in the college. Somebody else having answered for him or some
mistake being committed cannot be ruled out. DWs 2 and 3 do not say that they
have seen PW 5 being present in the classroom. That being the position, the
presence of PW 5 in the 523 village on that day cannot be doubted in view of
other strong circumstances which are conclusive. Further we may point out that
PW 5 was not confronted with this so-called entry in the register when he was
in the witness box. Now coming to the evidence of DW 1 who spoke about the
alibi of A-4, we are of the view that the same has been rightly rejected by the
High Court. DW 1 deposed that he is a resident of Samrala and he manufactures
thrashers at his workshop and he knew A-4 who ordered manufacture of a thrasher
and that A-4 approached him 10 to 15 days prior to February 24, 1979 and placed
an order and he made an entry in the notebook and he delivered the same to A-4
on the evening of February 24, 1979 and has given the details of the price etc.
In the cross-examination he admitted that most of the pages preceding to the
page on which the relevant entry has been found in the notebook, were vacant
and this particular entry was made at page No. 180 and that page No. 179 was
vacant. He also admitted that he did not issue any receipt to A-4 for the
advance made by him. From the cross-examination it appears that this notebook
cannot be treated as one maintained during the regular course of business and
it has been rightly suggested to him that this entry has been manipulated. DW 4
is the Assistant Station Master who spoke about the train timing from Bhatinda.
He was examined only to show that the train was in the evening time and if PW 5
has come to the village, it should have been only later in the night. This
evidence is not very helpful to the defence in view of above discussion in
respect of evidence of PW 5. DW 5 is a member of the Panchayat who deposed that
he saw a tractor coming from the side of Sangat mandi in which the deceased and
one Master Kaur Singh of Kot
Guru Village were travelling. Likewise DW 6 is the
Sarpanch of Village Kot Guru. He deposed that he saw the deceased and others
coming in a tractor and then taking liquor. These two witnesses are examined to
show that the deceased party could have been the aggressor. DW 7, a resident of
the same Village Mohalan deposed that on that night at about 9 p.m. when he was at his house, he saw the two deceased persons
and four others coming in a tractor being driven by Mander Singh, D- 1 and he
was having a pistol and they were shouting lalkaras and some firing took place.
He was examined to support the version of A-1. In the cross-examination he
admitted that he did not go to anyone to give information about the occurrence
and he did not go out of the house. His evidence is vague and the
cross-examination shows that he is not a truthful witness.
the SHO spoke about the murder of one Durga Singh of Kot Guru Village and lie
was examined to show that there was enmity and factionalism between Gurcharan
Singh and his brothers on one side and Master Kaur Singh, Baldev Singh ztnd
others on the other side.
can thus be seen that the evidence adduced by DWs 1 to 8 does not in any manner
render the evidence of the eyewitnesses unacceptable. Now, we shall consider
some of the general submissions. Learned Counsel placed considerable reliance
on the evidence of the doctors who conducted the postmortem. PW 1 Dr Ved Bhushan
conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Mander Singh, D-1 and he found
five gunshot injuries. In the cross-examination he stated that the injury Nos.
4 and 5 could have been caused if the assailant was standing at a higher level
compared to the victim and that if the victim had been sitting on the tractor
and the assailant was standing on the ground, the injuries could not have been
caused by the shots fired by the assailants. This is only an 524 opinion
evidence and it cannot be imagined that the victims could have been just
sitting and could not have stood up or moved this way or the other. It is also
possible that the pellets having hit the bone could have deflected. The whole
basis for this argument is that PW 4 who prepared the site plan stated that the
ground was even but we cannot give much importance to this submission. The
undisputed fact is that the two deceased were shot at by firearms and the same
is established by the medical evidence. When that is the position the manner in
which the assailants shot at and how they took their positions while shooting
and in what positions the injured persons were sitting or standing, cannot be
fixed in a mechanical manner. There are any number of possibilities and such
medical opinion does not in any manner conflict with the oral evidence. The
doctor, who conducted the postmortem, found some partly digested food in the
stomach of Mander Singh, D-1. Relying on this, it is submitted that the
occurrence must have taken place late in the night. We see no force in this
submission. The deceased having eaten something earlier cannot be ruled out.
same lines, reliance is placed on the evidence of PW 2, another doctor who
conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Bhura Singh, D-2 and for the same reasons,
we do not find any merit in this submission.
Now coming to the case of A-1, as mentioned above, he stated that at about 9-10
p.m. he was in his courtyard and heard some lalkaras and when he just raised
his head, he saw Mander Singh, D- 1 and Bhura Singh, D-2 firing and to save
himself he fired some shots in self-defence. It is rather curious that he did
not receive any injury. The counsel, however, submitted that there is evidence
to show that the deceased was having a pistol with him which was recovered from
the scene of occurrence and this shows that he must have fired at A-1. It looks
as though in this village the people carry with them these firearms in a normal
manner but on that alone it cannot be said that he shot at A-1. It must be
remembered that two persons were killed by gunshot injures and there is no
scope of plea of right of self- defence. The plea of A- 1 that he fired five
shots without knowing where he was firing and at whom he was firing is highly
artificial and should be rejected outright.
Having given our earnest consideration, we find that the view taken by the High
Court is the most reasonable one and the only view possible. Therefore we see
no merits in these appeals. In the result the appeals stand abated so far as Gurcharan
Singh, A-2 is concerned and dismissed so far as A-1, A-3 and A-4 are concerned.