Singh & Anr Vs. State of Punjab 
INSC 256 (29 April 1998)
Nanavati, S.P. Kurdukar Nanavati, J.
29TH DAY OF APRIL, 1998 Present:
Mr.Justice G.T.Nanavati Hon'ble Mr.justice S.P.Kurdukar Mr. U.R. Lalit, Sr.Advocate
and Ms.Indra Sawhney, Advocate with him for the appellants. Mr. R.S.Sodhi,
Advocate for the respondent.
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 452 and
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC by the court of the Additional Sessions
Judge, Firozepur in Sessions Case No. 54/88 (Sessions Trial No.56/90). Their
conviction has been upheld by the High Court.
the courts below have accepted the evidence of eye-witnesses - PWs 5,6 and 9
after careful scrutiny thereof. It was however submitted by the learned counsel
for the appellants that as the eye-witnesses were interested witnesses and
there were material inconsistencies between the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 on the
one and PW 9 on the there hand, their evidence should not have been accepted.
He also submitted that though the guns stated to have been used by the two
appellants were seized by the police and forwarded to the Ballastic expert for
examination, no report of the Ballastic Expert was produced to show whether
they were used or not. He also submitted that the circumstances that both the
gun injuries on the person of the deceased were possible by one shot, that
there were no pellet marks on the walls or other parts of the Haveli and no
blood was found on the ground inside the Haveli create a doubt regarding the
manner in which the incident had really happened.
the inconsistencies pointed out by the learned counsel is with respect to the
nature of weapons which the two co-accused carried with them. PWs 5 and 6 have
stated that were carrying guns whereas PW 9 has stated that one of them was
carrying gun and the other was having a dang (a thick stick). The other
inconsistency pointed out is regarding the part of the body on which the shot
fired by Ratan singh had caused injuries to the deceased. In fact, this is not
an inconsistency at all. PW 5 has not stated on which side of the chest the
injuries were caused. PWs 6 and 9 have stated that the shot had hit the deceased
on the left side of his chest. These are the only inconsistencies in the
evidence of the eye-witnesses. One more inconsistency pointed out by the
learned counsel is between the evidence of PW 9 and the Investigating Officer.
PW 9 has stated that he had seen one pellet in the mouth of the deceased. The
Investigating Officer has denied to have seen any pellet in the mouth of
deceased. Blood had collected in the mouth of the deceased. It is quite
possible that PW 9 mistook something in the moth of the deceased as a pellet or
the Investigating Officer missed to notice it. It is a minor inconsistency and
can have no effect on the credibility of the eye-witnesses.
find tat the evidence of PW 5 and 6 is quite consistent and it clearly
establishes. that both the appellants had fired one each at the deceased and
caused injuries to him. The medical evidence shows that one injury was on the
forehead and one the chest of the deceased. As regards absence of pellet marks
on the walls of the Haveli, we do not think that it is a valid ground for
disbelieving the eye-witness account. It was nobody's case that pellets from
any of those shots had hit the walls. The incident had happended in the outer
part of the Haveli. No blood had fallen on the ground as explained by the
witnesses. They have stated that immediately after the deceased was hit by the
two shots, they had placed him on a cot. Both the courts below have considered
these aspects and given good reasons in support of the findings recorded by
them. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by
two guns which were seized by the police did not belong to the appellants. They
were of the other accused who were tried with the appellants but acquitted by
the trial court. The witnesses have not stated that shots were fired from those
two guns. Therefore, non production of the report of the ballastic Expert is of
also submitted by the learned counsel that only Rattan Singh was alleged to
have causes the death of the deceased and there was no independent charge of
causing death against Gajjan Singh. He has been convicted under Section 302
read with Section 34. The evidence clearly establishes that both the appellants
had gone together to the Haveli and had fired shots at the deceased. Gajjan
Singh was charged with an offence punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 149 IPC. Therefore, the court below have not committed any illegality
or impropriety in conviction him under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34.
find no substance in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants
this appeal is dismissed.
appellants were released on bail during the pendency of the appeal, their bail
is cancelled. They are directed to surrender to custody immediately to serve
out the remaining part of the sentence.