Amar Singh vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 1172 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

RESERVED
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2357 of 2014
 
Petitioner :- Amar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. 
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar, R.P. Singh, Rajeev Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate, Jitendra Pal Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajiv Kumar and Sri Muktesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant (through video conference) and Sri Ankit Shrivastava, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Amar Singh, against the judgment and order dated 26.03.2014 passed by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi, Special Judge, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.5, Etah, in Gangster Session Trial No. 260 of 2007. By that judgement and order, the present appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine Rs. 5,000/-. He is to suffer a further imprisonment of one month in the event of his failure to pay that fine. Also, he has been convicted for offence under Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959 and awarded punishment of imprisonment of one year. Punishments for both offences are to run concurrently.

3(i). According to the prosecution case the First Information Report (Exhibit Ka-20), hereinafter referred to as the FIR, came to be lodged in Case Crime No. 521 of 2007, on 30.07.2007, at 09:30 p.m., at Police Station - Nidhauli Kalan, District- Etah, by Chadami Lal (PW-2), son of Chiraunji Lal, upon a written application submitted by him in the handwriting of his son Diwari Lal. The FIR disclosed that the present appellant Amar Singh along with Subhash reached the house of the deceased Ram Singh (brother of PW-2), at 06:30 p.m., on 30.07.2007. Inside the verandah of that house, the appellant Amar Singh then hurled verbal abuses at Ram Singh for not giving up his fair-price-shop license, despite being earlier warned. For that reason, the accused persons threatened to kill Ram Singh. Upon the exhortation offered by Subhash, Amar Singh fired a shot at Ram Singh from his country made pistol. The bullet hit Ram Singh on his chest, near his neck. Ram Singh died on the spot. Then, Amar Singh and Subhash fled towards the village, firing aerial shots from their country made pistols, holding out threat of similar fate to anyone who may speak against them. The occurrence is stated to have been witnessed by Chadami Lal/informant (PW-2) as also his sons Mahavir and Beni Ram and also by one Saudan Singh (PW-1), son of Shri Ram.

3(ii). The ''Panchayatnama' (Exhibit Ka-7) of the dead body is stated to have been prepared on 30.07.2007, from 22.30 hours to 24.00 hours. It bears the date and time of the FIR being lodged at 9:30 p.m., on 30.07.2007. Amongst others, it records that the body of the deceased was lying in front of the informant's house, in the veranda, on a ''charpai'/cot. The ''Panchayatnama' records Narsingh Pal (brother of the appellant Amar Singh), Dharam Singh, Satya Ram, Kamal Singh and Jai Pal as the ''panch' witnesses. Two recovery memos, both dated 30.07.2007, are also stated to have been drawn at that time, disclosing recovery of blood stained earth (Exhibit Ka-5) and of one bullet (Exhibit Ka-6) - described as the ammunition used in the assault. It had passed through the body of the deceased and was found lying at the place of incident.

3(iii). Thereafter, the accused persons Ram Singh and Subhash appear to have surrendered on 06.08.2007. Further, according to the prosecution version, while in custody, both Amar Singh and Subhash made similar confessions to the S.H.O. Hari Shanker Misra (PW-7), on 07.08.2007 and offered to get recovered the weapons used in the occurrence. Upon an order passed by the Magistrate on 18.08.2007, it is claimed, they pointed out and thus got recovered two country made pistols found buried at two separate spots, both to the south of the agricultural field of Subhash. The weapon disclosed to have been recovered at the pointing out of the present appellant Amar Singh contained an empty cartridge case in its barrel along with a live bullet. A common recovery memo is stated to have been drawn. That recovery memo is marked as Exhibit Ka-14. Two separate First Information Reports, alleging commission of offences under Sections 25/27 Arms Act, being Case Crime No. 534 of 2007, against Amar Singh and Case Crime No. 535 of 2007 against Subhash were registered.

3(iv). The prosecution further claims postmortem conducted on the dead body of Ram Singh by Dr. Sayeed Mohd (PW-4), on 31.07.2007, at 12:30 p.m. It's report is Exhibit Ka-2. It records that the deceased Ram Singh (aged about 38 years) suffered :-

"1. Firearm wound of entrance 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm through and through on suprasternal fossa, margins inverted, food contents coming out through wound, Blackening Tattooing around the wound.

2. 7 cm x 9 cm direction oblique downward wound of exit - 2 cm x 2 cm through and through on back of chest, just right to vertebral compartment T3 level, margins inverted". It also records presence of rigor mortis on both extremities and estimate of the time of death, about ¾ day/18 hours prior to conduct of the postmortem. The cause of death is mentioned as shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injury.

3(v). A report of the Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, dated 19.10.2007, with respect to blood soaked earth (recovered from the place of occurrence), an undergarment and a finger ring of the deceased is stated to have been proved (Exhibit Ka-19).

3(vi). Undisputedly, during the investigation, statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer S.H.O. Hari Shanker Misra (PW-7), who is also disclosed to have made recoveries of blood stained earth; bullet and assault weapon used in the commission of the crime and who had also conducted the ''Inquest proceeding'.

3(vii). Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and the co-accused Subhash. Thereupon, charges were framed alleging commission of offence under Section 302 IPC; under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and; under Section 25/27 Arms Act, 1959. To that the appellant pleaded not guilty and thus, the trial commenced.

4. At the trial, the following witnesses were examined by the prosecution:

1. Saudan Singh (P.W-1) - a witness of fact;

2. Chadami Lal/informant (PW-2) - a witness of fact;

3. Beni Ram (PW-3) - a witness of fact;

4. Dr. Sayeed Mohd. (PW-4) - the doctor who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased;

5. Ram Baran Singh (PW-5) - the Constable, who had been entrusted the dead body of the deceased to get the postmortem done;

6. Tahsildar Singh (PW-6) - the Head Clerk, who had recorded the First Information Report in Case Crime Nos. 534 and 535 of 2007 under the Arms Act;

7. Hari Shankar Mishra (PW-7) - the Investigating Officer of Case Crime No. 521 of 2007;

8. Sopali Singh (PW-8) - the Head Moharrir (retired), who had prepared the chik report no. 126 of 2007 with reference to Case Crime No. 521 of 2007 and;

9. Ishwar Singh (PW-9) - the Sub-Inspector (retired), who was the Investigating Officer of Case Crime Nos. 534 of 2007 and 535 of 2007. Three site plans, one each with respect to Case Crime Nos. 521 of 2007, 534 of 2007 and 535 of 2007 were marked as Exhibits Ka-11, 15 and 21 respectively.

5. During the trial, the co-accused Subhash died, which fact was proved by court witness Prem Shankar Saraswat. Thereupon the trial against Subhash abated.

6(i). Chadami Lal (PW-2), first proved the place and time of occurrence - at 06:30 p.m., on 30.07.2007, in the veranda, in front of his house. He further proved the manner of commission of the offence as described in the FIR (Exhibit Ka-20) i.e. one gunshot fired by Amar Singh/appellant, from his country made pistol, at very close distance, at the chest of Ram Singh that hit him near his neck. During his cross examination (by the co-accused person Subhash), PW-2/Chadami Lal claimed to have seen the accused persons as they entered the veranda of the house and that he had witnessed the entire incident - standing about 2-3 feet away from the actual place of occurrence. During his cross examination by the present appellant Amar Singh, he confirmed the presence of the latter as also that of Saudan Singh (PW-1), at the place and time of the occurrence, at 6:30 p.m. No doubt emerged as to any part of his testimony - regarding the manner of the occurrence or to the presence of Beni Ram (PW-3) at that time and place.

6(ii). During his examination in chief, Chadami Lal (PW-2) had made further statement attributing animus borne by Amar Singh and Subhash, as the motive behind the crime. In that regard he had first stated the deceased had got revived his fair price shop license that had earlier been cancelled at the behest of Amar Singh. However, it may be noted, during his cross examination Chadami Lal (PW-2) could not adduce any evidence to establish either the occurrence of any prior incident involving the assailants and the deceased or to establish that the appellant Amar Singh had earlier got cancelled, the fair price shop license of the deceased. At the same time, he did specify that, the fair price shop license of Ram Singh (deceased) was for 5 villages and it was not run by the deceased from his residence. He also stated, earlier Amar Singh bore animus towards him but there was no animus between the parties at the time of incident. As to the location of that fair price shop, initially, during his cross-examination on 01.12.2010 (at the end), he stated, it was at the residence of the ''dabang aadmi' namely, Narsingh Pal yet, later, during his cross-examination that continued on 05.01.2011, he first stated that on the date of the incident, the fair price shop of the deceased was not being run from the residence of Narsingh Pal, but yet again, in the very next sentence, he stated that the said shop was being run from the residence of Narsingh Pal - the elder brother of the appellant. Still later, he specified in no uncertain terms that the said fair price shop was actually being run by Narsingh Pal in the name of the deceased Ram Singh and in lieu thereof Narsingh Pal paid to the deceased Ram Singh Rs. 500/- per month and also provided four kilograms of sugar, on festivals, etc. Last, he did state that the appellant Amar Singh and his brother Narsingh Pal were inimical towards each other.

6(iii). To a specific suggestion, Chadami Lal (PW-2) appears to have denied having picked up the deceased from the spot and placed him on the cot. A little later, he stated that the police had picked up the dead body of Ram Singh. He also appears to have stated that the dead body of Ram Singh was first taken to the police station and then to the hospital. Also, Ram Singh was described to have died 10 to 12 minutes after being assaulted. Upon questioning, he also generally stated that the police had drawn up their writings on papers in his presence and that he had affixed his thumb impression on the documents thus prepared.

6(iv). During his cross examination, by the appellant Amar Singh, Chadami Lal (PW-2) described Narsingh Pal (real brother of the appellant Amar Singh) as a ''dabang' person. He categorically denied a suggestion that Narsingh Pal and his brother Amar Singh were men of good character. He stated, earlier, both brothers had murdered a person, described as "a Yadav", in another village which offence had been witnessed, amongst others, by PW-2, though he was not a witness examined in court, in that case. They were however acquitted. For that reason, the villagers were afraid of the appellant and his brother Narsingh Pal. He also stated that the accused persons had an abusive tongue ("gaali galauch karte they") and that out of fear, no earlier complaint had been lodged by them (i.e. Chadami Lal and others).

6(v). As to the arrival of the police, during cross-examination dated 01.12.2010, Chadami Lal (PW-2) stated that the police arrived at the spot half an hour after the occurrence, which would be at about 7:00 p.m., however, during his cross-examination, on 05.01.2011, he appears to have stated that the police arrived about one and half hour after the occurrence. Further, in both statements, he maintained that the police prepared documents at the spot. He also stated that it was only after the police visited the spot that the FIR was lodged.

7(i). Beni Ram (PW-3), the son of the first-informant Chadami Lal (PW-2), during his examination-in-chief stated, that on 30.07.2007, at 6:30 p.m., he along with his father Chadami Lal (PW-2) and Mahavir-another son of Chadami Lal (not examined) were sitting at the 'chabutra' outside the veranda of their house, talking among themselves, while the deceased Ram Singh was standing at the southern corner of the veranda preparing to go to sleep near the ''mandir'. Then the accused persons entered the veranda, hurled expletives as they asked for Ram Singh. On Ram Singh inquiring from the accused as to the matter, Amar Singh verbally abused him and told the deceased that he would be killed for not giving up his fair price shop, despite being warned earlier. At this juncture, upon the exhortation by Subhash, Amar Singh shot at the deceased. Thereafter, both accused fled from the spot, firing one shot each in the air holding out threat of same fate being meted to anyone who may speak of the incident. He further stated that the deceased died on the spot, and that the police report was registered by Chadami Lal at the police station. Thereafter, the police visited the spot and prepared the ''Panchayatnama', and still later the dead body was sent for post mortem.

7(ii). Though, he was also subjected to lengthy cross examination yet, no doubt emerged in his statement as regards the time and manner of occurrence. He clearly denied suggestions that neither he nor the other witnesses had seen the occurrence.

7(iii). As to the time of the FIR being lodged, during his cross-examination conducted on 27.06.2011, the said PW-3 specified the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence as 5 kms; he claimed to have left for the police station on foot, immediately after the death of Ram Singh. Later, during his cross examination conducted on 04.07.2011 he stated that the dead body of Ram Singh was transported to the police station on a tractor and that he had also travelled to the Police Station on that tractor. He further stated that he along with his brother Diwari Lal, father Chadami Lal (PW-2) and 4-6 villagers were present at the police station, when the FIR was lodged. It was registered on the complaint written at the police station, by his brother Diwari Lal, in the presence of the Police Inspector. However, Narsingh Pal was stated to be not present there, at that time. He further stated that the informant party reached the police station during daytime, though he could not recall the exact time.

7(iv). He further deposed that other persons had also witnessed the crime and that an empty cartridge as also the bullet used in the assault had been recovered, about two feet away from the spot. As to the location of the fair price shop of the deceased, he specifically stated that the same was run from the house of Narsingh Pal (brother of the appellant) and that the deceased did not himself run the shop in question. He also stated that the accused Amar Singh and Narsingh Pal were ''dabang' persons and that the deceased used to live with Narsingh Pal.

8. Saudan Singh (PW-1) s/o Shree Ram described himself as a paternal cousin of the deceased Ram Singh. He turned hostile during his examination in chief, on 21.04.2010 when he stated that the murder was committed by 2-3 persons other than the accused Amar Singh and Subhash. At the same time, earlier, on 20.05.2009 he had categorically stated that the incident had taken place at 6:30 p.m. Upon being declared hostile, he was permitted to be cross examined by the prosecution and thereafter by the accused as well. During his cross examination on 21.04.2010, he specifically stated that the deceased Ram Singh had been shot in his presence; the place of occurrence was not visible from the spot from where he was sitting at the time of occurrence, yet he had learnt of the death of Ram Singh as soon as it occurred; he along with Chadami Lal (PW-2) and his son Diwari Lal and others visited the police station after the incident. He further stated that the first information report had been written in the veranda of the house of PW-2. He confirmed that the said first information report had been lodged by Chadami Lal (PW-2).

9. Dr. Sayeed Mohd. (PW-4) proved the postmortem report and confirmed the ante-mortem gunshot injury as the cause of death of Ram Singh. He further opined that the death occurred 18 hours before the autopsy was conducted. To the suggestion that the deceased could not have been shot at while he was standing (in view of the fact that the exit wound was at the back of the deceased, slanting downwards - with reference to the entry wound on the neck region), he opined no definite opinion could be given as to the same.

10. Constable Ram Baran Singh (PW-5), proved the facts that he along with Constable Rajendra Singh had been entrusted the dead body of Ram Singh to get the autopsy done. He further stated that the dead body was transported on the vehicle of the ex-Pradhan; the postmortem was conducted on 31.07.2007 whereafter the dead body was handed over to the family of the deceased. Though offered, he was not cross examined, to any extent.

11. Constable Clerk, Tahsildar Singh (PW-6) proved the preparation of the ''Chik' report in Case Crime Nos. 534 of 2007 and 535 of 2007, under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, arising from the recovery two country made firearms used in the assault. During his cross-examination, he stated, copy of the recovery memo was not found on the person of the accused when they were lodged in jail, after the recovery of the two firearms, on 19.08.2007.

12(i). Investigating Officer Hari Shanker Misra (PW-7), first proved that he took up the investigation and visited the place of occurrence after the FIR had been lodged on 30.07.2007; he recovered blood soaked earth as also the bullet used in the assault and that he had prepared the ''Panchayatnama' at the spot as also prepared other police documents such as the letter written to the C.M.O.; ''Photo Lash' and; the site plan, besides recording the statements of Leelawati, Potiram and Narsingh Pal. With respect to the dead body, it was stated that he handed over the sealed dead body of Ram Singh to Constables Ram Baran Singh and Rajendra Singh for autopsy. He also proved various stages and steps (taken by him) of the investigation and the statements recorded during investigation conducted by him. He also proved the recovery of the two country made pistols, on 19.08.2007, at the pointing out of the accused persons.

12(ii). As to his reaching the place of occurrence and first steps into the investigation, during his cross examination dated 18.08.2012, he stated that the informant may have stayed at the police station for 15-20 minutes, after obtaining a copy of the F.I.R. and that the informant did not accompany him to the place of occurrence. He left the police station at 9:30 p.m., and reached the place of occurrence 20-25 minutes later (which would be at about 10:00 p.m.), whereafter the proceedings of ''Panchayatnama'; recovery memo - of bullet, blood soaked earth etc. as also; recording of statements, took place.

12(iii). As to the reason why the body of the deceased was found lying on a cot/''charpai', Hari Shanker Misra (PW-7) stated that the dead body may have been placed on the cot after the occurrence, as a mark of respect to the deceased. However, he did clarify that there was no item of bedding found on the cot. He then stated that dead body was dispatched for autopsy at about 12:30 AM on 31.07.2007, for Etah - about 23 kms away. The dead body was stated to have been transported on a tractor/trolly. He specifically denied the suggestion that the body had been first sealed and brought to the police station, and thereafter, sent for autopsy, from there. As to the reason for not obtaining a ballistic report, he only stated that the same was not considered necessary in view of clear ocular evidence available.

13. Head Moharir (retired) - Sopali Singh (PW-8) had prepared the ''Chik' report no.126/2007 at 9:30 p.m. on 30.07.2007. He stated during his cross examination, that the said report had been prepared on the basis of a written application received at the police station. He also stated that the informant had left the police station after 20-25 minutes, with the Investigating Officer. On being questioned, he explained the special report as mandated by the U.P. Police Regulations had not been dispatched, because the intimation of the occurrence had been shared on the radio/R.T. set. Also, he stated that Column 6 (Ga), in the FIR form was left blank.

14. Last, Sub-Inspector (retired) Ishwar Singh (PW-9), the Investigating Officer in Case Crime Nos. 534/07 and 535/07 proved the facts pertaining to the investigation carried out in those cases. During his cross examination he could not recall where the dead body of Ram Singh was lying and when the ''Panchayatnama' was drawn, though he was also present at that time as was also proved by other prosecution witness.

15. All the incriminating circumstances borne out from the prosecution evidence were put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied his involvement in the occurrence and stated that the FIR contained false allegations. He also disputed the correctness of the police investigation. He further claimed that the FIR was ante-timed and that the appellant had been falsely implicated on account of ''partybandi' and animosity. Resultantly, false allegations had been made against him, at the instance of his brother Narsingh Pal. At the same time, the defense did not lead any evidence.

16. The learned trial court, after examining the evidence and hearing the parties, acquitted the appellant on the charge of offence under Sections 2/3 UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. However, it held the appellant guilty of offences committed under Section 302 I.P.C., 1860 and Sections-25/27 of the Arms Act, 1949. Accordingly, it convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment for offence committed under Section 302 IPC together with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. He is to suffer further imprisonment of one year for default in payment of the fine. For the offence committed under Sections-25/27 Arms Act, the trial court has convicted the appellant to one-year imprisonment with both punishments to run concurrently.

17. According to learned Senior Advocate for the appellant: -

(1) The FIR itself was ante timed. It has been urged:-

(a) contrary to the deposition of Chadami Lal (PW-2) that he reached the police station all alone - concealing and hiding himself on way, and lodged the FIR against an application written in the hand writing of his son Diwari Lal, the General Diary entry no. 34 (Ex-Ka 18), clearly established that the said witness (PW-2) was accompanied by Kamal Singh, Ajay Singh and Saudan Singh only. It is corroborated by the statement of Beni Ram (PW-3).

(b) While Chadami Lal (PW-2) deposed that Diwari Lal (not examined at the trial) had written the above mentioned complaint in the veranda of Chadami Lal (PW-2), his son Beni Ram (PW-3) contradicted that statement and deposed that the said application was written at the police station, in the presence of the police inspector.

(c) The deposition made by Chadami Lal (PW-2) that the scribe of the FIR namely Diwari Lal visited the police station to lodge the FIR, is plainly false on the record as the General Diary clearly mentions the names of all the persons who visited the police station at that time, but it does not mention the name of Diwari Lal as one of those persons.

(d) Absence of preparation and dispatch of Special Report as prescribed by Regulation 100 & 101A of the U.P. Police Regulation, clearly proves that the FIR was not in existence at the relevant time.

(e) Relying on the statement made by Beni Ram (PW-3) that he reached the police station during daytime, it has been further submitted, it clearly suggests that the incident took place late in the night, on 30.07.2007 which is corroborated by the fact that according to Constable Ram Baran (PW-7), the dead body of Ram Singh reached the mortuary at 8.30 a.m. on 31.07.2007 though it is claimed to have been handed over after completion of ''Panchayatnama' proceeding, on 30.07.2020 at 22.30 hrs and the postmortem report records food particles were oozing out of the entry wound.

(2). The place of occurrence has been doubted on the basis of a contradiction in the prosecution evidence. Whereas Chadami Lal (PW-2) stated that the dead body of Ram Singh had been placed on the cot by the police, the Investigating Officer, Hari Shankar Misra (PW-7) stated that the dead body had been placed on the cot by the relatives of the deceased, probably as a mark of respect, to the dead. This is stated to be wholly contrary to the well-recognised and common Hindu custom in favour of placing the dead body on the ground, immediately upon the death occurring. It indicates, the actual incident took place elsewhere and later, the dead body of Ram Singh had been carried to the veranda outside the house of Chadami Lal, on a cot. The prosecution has thereafter cooked up a false case. Here, the statements of the Sub-Inspector (retired) Ishwar Singh (PW-9) has been relied who was also present during the ''Panchayatnama' proceedings, yet, he did not remember or recall the place where the dead body of Ram Singh was found lying at that time. Also, reference has been made to the statement of Chadami Lal (PW-2) who at the end of his cross examination stated that the deceased Ram Singh used to live with Narsingh Pal, the brother of the appellant Amar Singh. Reading that with the statement of Beni Ram (PW-3) that the deceased Ram Singh used to sleep near the ''mandir'/temple adjoining the house of the first informant, and also the discrepancies in the prosecution evidence as to the time when the first informant reached the police station and the time when the police reached the house of Chadami Lal (PW-2), it has been strongly urged that the deceased was done to death at some other place by unknown assailants and that the present appellant has been falsely implicated solely at the instance of his brother Narsingh Pal who was inimical towards him and who wielded considerable influence over the family of the first informant.

(3) In that context, it has been submitted that the injury as noted in the post-mortem report could not have been sustained by the deceased while standing. The entry wound being on the neck region with inverted margins and the exit wound on the victim's back, slanting downwards, it is apparent that the deceased was shot at from close range while he was sleeping or lying on his back. In the context of the evidence led by the prosecution, it has been submitted, it could well be that the deceased was sleeping on the cot near the ''mandir' when he was shot at from close distance. Again, referring to the post-mortem report that records food particles were found oozing out of the entry wound, the incident is claimed to have taken place much later than 6:30 p.m. on 30.07.2007. The deceased had probably gone off to sleep on the cot, after dinner, when he came to be assaulted, in sleep, by unknown assailants.

(4) It has also been submitted, there was absolutely no motive with the appellant to have caused the incident involving such a heinous crime. According to him, the prosecution has miserably failed to lead any evidence to establish any plausible motive as may have existed with the appellant. The prosecution witnesses of fact, namely Chadami Lal (PW-2) and Beni Ram (PW-3) did not prove or establish such motive. In fact, their depositions read in entirety, prove otherwise.

(5) Last, the conviction under the Arms Act has been assailed on ground of completely made up recovery. Neither any ''Panch' witness was examined nor copy of the recovery memo was prepared as claimed nor the allegedly recovered firearm was examined for ballistics nor is their recovery otherwise credible.

18. The learned AGA has vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted - insofar as the motive for the offence alleged is concerned, the same would remain insignificant in face of categorical and reliable ocular evidence - of the appellant alone having deliberately and knowingly caused the fatal injury to the deceased. In any case, the motive would remain a double-edged submission as in any case, the prosecution witness had no reason to falsely implicate the accused and to shield the real culprit. Relying strongly on the ocular evidence of Chadami Lal (PW-2) and Beni Ram (PW-3), the two natural witnesses, as also the autopsy report, he would submit that the learned trial court has made no error in convicting the appellant. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction and punishment awarded are just. They do not call for interference by this Court.

19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the first thing to be examined in light of the submission advanced by learned Senior Advocate for the appellant is whether the FIR was lodged at the time and manner in which it has been disclosed by the prosecution. Specific to the plea of ante-timed FIR, in Meharaj Singh Vs State of U.P. (L/NK) (1994) 5 SCC 188, two external tests had been relied to decide that plea. Following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, the first external test is the report made to the Magistrate under Section 157 Cr.P.C. and the second test is the copy of the FIR sent with the dead body and its reference on the inquest report required to be prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C.

20. Applying those tests to the facts of the present case, it is seen the FIR clearly bears the date and time of it being lodged on 30.07.2007, at 9:30 p.m. Then, the Investigating Officer Sri Hari Shanker Misra (PW-7) was subjected to extensive cross examination, yet not a single suggestion or question was thrown at him to doubt the timely submission of the report under Section 157 Cr.P.C to the Magistrate. At the same time though column 16 of the FIR was left blank yet there exists an endorsement on the FIR (made by the CJM Etah), dated 01.08.2007. It reads "seen". Therefore, in absence of any cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, on that point, there is nothing to doubt the fact that the necessary report had been promptly sent to the CJM Etah, as required by the Section 157 Cr.P.C. Second as to the requirement of copy of the FIR being sent with the dead body and its reference on the ''Panchyatnama', again no doubt emerged during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer Sri Hari Shanker Misra (PW-7), as to that fact. The ''Panchayatnama' was duly proven. It categorically records the date and time of the FIR lodged as 30.07.2007, at 9:30 p.m. Thus, insofar as the trustworthy external tests are concerned, they are found fully satisfied in favour of the prosecution version of the FIR being lodged on 30.07.2007 at 9:30 p.m.

21(i). Also, the date and the time of the FIR being lodged was proven by the Head Moharrir Sopali Singh (PW-8) who prepared the relevant ''Chik' report. The same was also corroborated by the Investigating Officer Hari Shanker Misra (PW-7). He proved the relevant G.D. entry ''Ka-18' and further stated that he had recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. - of Kamal Singh and Diwari Lal upon reaching the place of occurrence on 30.07.2007 after the FIR came to be lodged. In any case, nothing came out during the cross examination of those witnesses, to doubt those depositions made that the FIR was lodged on the date and/or the time as disclosed on its face, being 30.07.2007 at 9:30 p.m. Therefore, the fact that Column 6(c) of the FIR form was left blank and thus it had not been specified that the said FIR was registered against a written application, is of not of much or decisive consequence. It otherwise stands proven both on the strength of the external tests applied and also by the first informant and the police witnesses that the FIR had, in fact, been registered at 9:30 p.m. on 30.07.2007. First, as held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs Kishore, (1996) 8 SCC 217, an irregularity or even an illegality during investigation would not cast doubt on the otherwise trustworthy and reliable evidence. Then, in Rajesh Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 4 SCC 426, mere omission to mention the number of FIR and name of complainant on the inquest panchnama was not found enough to hold the FIR to be ante-timed, in the facts of that case. Similarly here, since all other evidence, as discussed above, clearly establishes that the FIR was lodged on 30.07.2007 at 9:30 p.m., this mistake or oversight by the police official while filling up the FIR form is found to be inconsequential or not material.

21(ii). Next, coming to the submissions advanced by learned Senior Advocate, that there is wide discrepancy in the statement of the informant Chadami Lal (PW-2) and the G.D. entry i.e. according to that witness he had reached the police station alone whereas according to the G.D. entry, Kamal Singh, Ajay Singh and Saudan Singh (PW-1) had accompanied him, the same is not of corroborative relevance or material relevance as to his conduct or of other consequence, either. In the first place during his (first informant's) entire cross examination, recorded in Hindi, Chadami Lal (PW-2) never stated that he had reached the police station alone. During his cross-examination, he was not asked any specific question and no suggestion was thrown at him in that regard. On the contrary, he appears to have used the Hindi word ''hum' to describe the person/s who went to the police station to lodge the FIR. Often, ''hum' is used as a plural noun. Since he was not cross examined, to any extent on that aspect, nothing can be read into his statement to infer that he alone had gone to the police station, or to doubt the truthfulness of his deposition. On the contrary, during his examination-in-chief, he used the word ''mai' (that clearly is used in singular sense) to state that he had reached the police station, concealing and hiding himself, on the way. The witness appears to have spoken of two different things at two different places. First (during his examination-in-chief), he spoke about his own state of mind and how he reached the police station. Later, during his cross examination he stated that he could not recall the time when 'hum' i.e. the informant and others reached the police station. Similarly, the statement of Beni Ram (PW-3) recalling the presence of certain other four to six persons/villagers at the police station, at the time of the FIR being lodged neither contradicts nor it in any way, materially dilutes or varies or otherwise render doubtful the date and time when the FIR came to be lodged. Looked at in entirety, there is no material contradiction or inconsistency in the deposition made by the first informant Chadami Lal (PW-2) as to the manner and time of the FIR being lodged.

21(iii). Then, as to the alleged discrepancy in the statements of Chadami Lal (PW-2) and Beni Ram (PW-3), it is factually incorrect that Chadami Lal (PW-2) had stated that the FIR was lodged against the complaint - hand written by his son Diwari Lal in the veranda of his house. According to the record, that statement was made by Saudan Singh (PW -1) i.e. by the hostile witness, during his cross-examination, by the prosecution. According to Beni Ram (PW-3), that complaint was written by Diwari Lal at the police station in the presence of the police inspector. Chadami Lal (PW-2) only stated that the police inspector drew up his writings at the site. No other or further question was thrown at him on that count as may create any doubt that the complaint was written by Diwari Lal at that place and time. Saudan Singh (PW-1) having been declared hostile, no undue weight may be given to that inconsistent statement made by him that the complaint was written in the verandah of the house, in face of otherwise consistent evidence that the F.I.R. was registered on 30.07.2007 at 9:30 p.m. at Police Station-Nidhauli Kalan. Then, we observe, upon a plain reading of the contents of the FIR, clearly, the said handwritten complaint would have been prepared by Diwari Lal only after the informant reached the police station. It is so because the FIR itself narrates that the first informant reached the police station - hiding and concealing himself on his way thereto. If the complaint had been written in the veranda of the house of Chadami Lal (PW-2) and therefore necessarily at an earlier point in time, there would have been no occasion for that fact statement to have been recorded in the FIR.

21(iv). Then, as to the next submission, it is seen there is no dispute to the fact that the written complaint had been submitted in the writing of Diwari Lal, and it being clear (as discussed above) that it was prepared after he reached the police station, it also becomes clear that the latter had accompanied the first informant to the police station to lodge the FIR, where he prepared the written complaint on which the FIR was registered. As to the variance in the statement of the first informant and the GD entry, while Chadami Lal (PW-2) stated that his son Diwari Lal was present at the police station at the time of the FIR being lodged yet, according to the General Diary (GD) entry, names of Kamal Singh, Ajay Singh and Saudan Singh (PW -1) are found recorded therein. Insofar as the GD entry records the name of the first informant along with certain other persons but not Diwari Lal, it would remain a minor or insignificant or inconsequential variance. It is not the law that a person may not be believed to have been present at a police station unless his name is found recorded in the GD. In a happening of the gravity described by the prosecution, it is possible that name/s of one or the other person may have remained from being recorded either because Diwari Lal may have entered the police station separately, or because of any other reason/s that the Court is not obliged to examine.

21(v). Also, no reliance can be placed on Regulation 101 read with Regulation 101-A of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations to assert that the FIR had been ante timed. First, both on the strength of the other two external tests and also otherwise, the prosecution has proved that the FIR was lodged on 30.07.2007 at 9:30 p.m. Then, the procedures for registration of an FIR; investigation by the police and inquiry and trial by the Courts, are all governed completely, by the provisions of the Cr.P.C. That being the complete governing law, in absence of any enabling law, The U.P. Police Regulations though statutory, cannot be read to supplant the provisions of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, so long as the provisions of the Cr.P.C. are shown to have been duly complied, non-compliance of the supplementary requirements though prescribed by Regulation nos. 101 & 101A of the U.P. Police Regulations may not, in absence of a strong reason or proven fact, itself be sufficient to establish that the FIR was not lodged as disclosed. In the instant case, besides the absence of Special Report, all other requirements of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and the U.P. Police Regulations, regarding registration of the FIR, commencement of investigation and preparation of other documents and reports are shown to have been satisfied. No contradictory fact or circumstance has emerged at the trial to reasonably doubt the registration of the FIR on 30.07.2007 at 9:30 p.m. Yet, it may be observed, it would have been in the better interest of the police functioning that the Special Report may have been dispatched as required by The Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations as that requirement would remain in the nature of an external test.

21(vi). The next limb of the first submission advanced by learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that the FIR was ante timed is based on the statement of Beni Ram (PW-3) that it was daytime when the informant party reached the police station to lodge the FIR. It clearly suggests that the occurrence was of the night and the FIR was ante timed. During his cross examination, Beni Ram (PW-3) was not questioned or doubted as to his deposition that the occurrence was of 30.07.2007, at 6:30 p.m. and he also does not appear to have been asked as to the exact time when he reached the police station. Though later he stated to have reached the police station during daytime, yet, it cannot be overlooked that earlier, he had specifically stated that he along with others had left for the police station as soon as Ram Singh died which would be after 6:30 p.m. on 30.07.2007, at time well past day time. Accordingly, we find the alleged discrepancy relied upon by the appellant is not material but a minor discrepancy or inconsistency of no material consequence or relevance to the fact whether, the FIR was ante timed. Thus, applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhagwanbhai Dulabhai Jadhav Vs. State of Maharastra, (1963) 3 SCR 386 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752, the minor discrepancies or unexplained variances in the prosecution evidence do not put to doubt either "the inherent quality" of the prosecution evidence nor they are such as may be categorized as "material discrepancies". Rather they are of nature, "normal discrepancies" that may be ignored.

21(vii). Also, there is a complete absence of any cross examination of Dr. Sayeed Mohd, on the aspect of the autopsy report wherein it was recorded food contents found oozing out from the entry wound. In face of undisputed fact that the postmortem was conducted at 12:30 p.m. on 31.07.2007 and according to the opinion of the said expert witness, death occurred 18 hours or 3/4 day earlier, as is also corroborated by the undisputed presence of rigor mortis on both extremities, there is no room to entertain any reasonable doubt that the FIR was lodged at 9:30 p.m. on 30.07.2007. The said expert was not questioned on these aspects. Thus, the submission being now advanced is largely based on a non-existant factual assumption and not on proven facts.

21(viii). Then, as to other aspects relating to the arrival of the police on the scene and lodging of the FIR, Beni Ram (PW-3) stated that the informant party had left for the police station as soon as Ram Singh died, however, Chadami Lal (PW-2) during his cross examination dated 01.12.2010, stated that the police had reached the place of occurrence half hour after the incident which would be about 7:00 p.m. In his cross-examination statement recorded on 05.01.2011, he stated having reached the police station one hour and fifteen minutes after the incident, which would be at about 7:45 p.m. Last, he stated the police arrived at the place of incident about one hour and thirty minutes which would be about 8:00 p.m., after the incident and that the FIR was registered thereafter. With respect to the ''Panchayatnama', the said witness appears to have stated that the same was prepared in his presence and that he had also affixed his thumb impression on certain papers prepared by the police. None of these statements, suggest that the FIR was lodged later than disclosed. It is not the empirical exactness with which each aspect or part of the prosecution evidence has to be tested in these proceedings but the rule of strict proof has to be applied to test the core of the prosecution evidence. The occurrence has been consistently described, to have taken place at 6:30 p.m. at the residence of Chadami Lal (PW-2), about 5 kms from the police station Nidhauli Kalan. The FIR came to be registered within three hours from the occurrence. Thus, there was enough time for the FIR to be registered, as disclosed. Other than the minor variance in the statement of Chadami Lal (PW-2) there is no circumstance, conduct or other fact proved as may give rise to a reasonable doubt of the FIR being lodged later than disclosed. The minor discrepancies relied upon by learned Senior Advocate for the appellant are thus being ignored. The Supreme Court in Rammi alias Rameshwar Vs State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649 admitted of a real possibility of discrepancies arising as a result of lengthy cross-examination. It considered such an occurrence to be natural and therefore to be ignored by Courts unless so incompatible with the credibility of the prosecution version that the Court may jettison such evidence.

22(i). Coming to the second submission advanced on behalf of the appellant to doubt the place of occurrence, it may first be borne in mind that Chadami Lal (PW-2) and Beni Ram (PW-3) consistently stated, the incident took place at 6:30 p.m. on 30.07.2007 in the veranda outside the house of Chadami Lal, at village Nagla Sujan. The appellant along with Subhash reached the place of occurrence and called out Ram Singh. Upon Ram Singh inquiring from the appellant as to the matter, the latter first hurled expletives at him for reason of his not giving up the fair price shop and then, upon the exhortation offered by Subhash, the appellant shot the deceased with his country made pistol. The shot was fired at the chest of the deceased and it hit him in the neck region. To that fatal injury, the deceased succumbed within 10 to 12 minutes. Thereafter, the appellant and the other assailant fled from the spot firing two shots in the air and holding out threats of same fate being meted out to anyone who may speak against the assailants. This part of the testimony has remained unshaken and no inconsistency has emerged, despite lengthy cross examination of both witnesses, in two parts each. Thus the core of the prosecution case was duly proven, without any inconsistency, variance or doubt.

22(ii). It is seen that the deceased Ram Singh was a bachelor and the real brother of the informant Chadami Lal (PW-2) and uncle of Beni Ram (PW-3). The incident itself is stated to have taken place in the veranda outside the house of the first informant. Then, during his testimony, Beni Ram had specifically stated that he was talking to his father and brother about their farming activities when the appellant reached the place of incident and committed the offence, in his presence. In the first place, the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 is wholly natural being close relatives of the deceased with whom he was residing in the house where the incident took place. Again, in face of otherwise consistent depositions of the natural eyewitnesses, one stray statement appearing at end of his lengthy cross examination that the deceased lived with Narsingh Pal cannot result in otherwise trustworthy testimony of that witness being discredited, as to the place of occurrence. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505 amongst others, opined against giving undue credence to minor discrepancies or adopting hyper technical approach by taking sentences turn out of context here or there from the evidence.

22(iii). Being evening time, it was again very natural for the witnesses to be present at their house after finishing their day's work. Then, as to the actual occurrence, both witness of fact have categorically stated that they saw the appellant firing one shot on the chest region of the deceased after verbally abusing and reprimanding him for not giving up his fair price shop license. Both witnesses had specified their exact location at the scene of crime, at the time of its occurrence. They were standing barely 2-3 feets away from the deceased and the assailant. In absence of any inconsistency brought out during their cross-examination, their testimony cannot be discredited, merely because they were closely related to the deceased. In Rameshwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54, close relationship of the witness with the victim (in that case a mother) was held to be not relevant to the independent character of her deposition. Then in Dalip Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364, close relationship of the witness to the victim was considered to be normally "a sure guarantee of truth" unless tainted with enmity with the accused etc. No such factor exists in this case.

22(iv). It may further be noted that besides the aforesaid ocular evidence, the third witness of fact produced by the prosecution, namely, Saudan Singh (PW-1), though turned hostile, supported the prosecution case as to the time and place of occurrence. In fact, after he turned hostile (upon his denial as to the present appellant Amar Singh and Subhash being the actual assailants), the said witness was subjected to cross examination by the prosecution and thereafter by the defense. During his examination in chief, Saudan Singh (PW-1) had stated that the incident took place near the ''Chabutra' at about 6:30 p.m. and the incident took place in his presence. During his cross examination by the prosecution, he also claimed to have accompanied the informant party to the police station to lodge the FIR. More crucially, during his cross examination by the defense, he further specified that the place of occurrence at a distance of 25 meters from where he was seated. At the same time, though the site plan (Exhibit Ka-11) does not mention any measurement of distances, yet, seen in light of the statement of Saudan Singh(PW-1), noted above, the place of occurrence as disclosed by the prosecution (as per the undisputed site plan) wholly corroborates that part of the testimony of the hostile witness Saudan Singh (PW-1). In the site plan the house of Saudan Singh (PW-1) is seen adjoining another house of Chadami Lal (PW-2) with its eastern wall being common to both houses. The incident is disclosed to have taken place in the other house of Chadami Lal, situate on the opposite/North side of the village road. Relying on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana; (1976) 1 SCC 389, part of the evidence of the hostile witness Saudan Singh (PW-1) as to date, time and place of occurrence is wholly corroborated by the other prosecution evidence, (discussed here). Accordingly, the consistent eye witness account places the occurrence at the house of Chadami Lal (PW-2) at about 6:30 p.m. on 30.07.2007. The submission to doubt the same is based on nothing but conjectures.

22(v). Then, to doubt the place of occurrence in veranda in front of the house of Chadami Lal (PW-2), reliance has been placed on the conflict existing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as to how the dead body of Ram Singh came to be placed on a cot; the deposition of Beni Ram (PW-3) that the deceased was preparing to go to sleep near the ''mandir' adjoining the house of Chadami Lal (PW-2) and; the nature of injury-being a fire arm injury slanting downwards-from the entry wound towards the wound of exit, with inverted margins and blackening & tattooing, around the entry wound. It is thus submitted - clearly, the deceased was shot at while he was lying or sleeping on his cot, near the ''mandir', with his face up and not while he may have been standing in the veranda of the house. In any case, his body had been brought to the veranda of the house of Chadami Lal (PW-2) on the cot.

22(vi). According to the prosecution story, the deceased Ram Singh was shot at while standing in the veranda outside the house of Chadami Lal (PW-2). At no stage it was asserted that upon being thus shot, Ram Singh fell on the cot on which his body was found lying at the time of the ''Panchayatnama'. Further, undoubtedly the deposition of the eyewitness, Chadami Lal (PW-2) as to of how the dead body of Ram Singh came to be placed on the cot, is not reconciled with the deposition of the Investigating Officer, Hari Shankar Misra (PW-7). Yet, upon query made during his cross examination, the said Hari Shankar Misra (PW-7), clearly denied presence of any bedding material on the cot on which the dead body of Ram Singh was found lying. Similar doubt or question was not thrown at the two eye-witnesses Chadami Lal (PW-2) and Beni Ram (PW-3) as may give rise to any reasonable doubt to the prosecution version of that event. Then, it may also not be forgotten that according to Chadami Lal (PW-2), Ram Singh was alive for about 10-12 minutes upon being shot. No cross examination was carried out as to the events that may have transpired during that time when Ram Singh was still alive. Further, there is nothing to doubt the recovery of blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and also Dr. Sayeed Mohd. did not rule out the possibility of the deceased Ram Singh having been shot at while standing.

22(vii). Thus, the prosecution evidence is consistent and convincing in all material parts. Read in entirety, it has the requisite unbroken and strong "ring of truth". An unexplained discrepancy exists in that evidence - as to how the dead body of Ram Singh was found on the cot. Yet, it does not give rise to a reasonable doubt that the place of occurrence was not the veranda outside the house of Chadami Lal (PW-2). The plea set up by the appellant, based on the deposition made by the Sub-Inspector (Retired) Ishwar Singh (PW-9), is equally misconceived. Merely because, he could not recall the place where the body of Ram Singh was lying when he reached the place of occurrence does not give rise to any material contradiction or inconsistency and no reasonable doubt arises in the prosecution story, on that count, especially when he was not confronted with the 'Panchayatnama' or its contents.

22(viii). The burden to prove the prosecution case must be discharged applying the strict proof test. Yet, simple doubts arising from minor variance, inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses who are rustic men besides being illiterate, cannot be equated with reasonable doubts to discredit their otherwise trustworthy and credible evidence. It also cannot be lost sight, that the incident is of the year 2007 whereas depositions came to be recorded four years thereafter in the year 2011-12. Some margin has to be given for inaccuracies that are bound to exist and arise both on account of general limitations and failings of human faculty to comprehend, register and memorize and recall facts and events after a long period of time as also on account of special limitation that may get attracted arising from shock suffered by the witness at the time of occurrence.

22(ix). Therefore, in absence of a patent contradiction or a patent lie or apparent falsity of the prosecution claim there is no warrant to doubt the prosecution case based on minor normal or natural discrepancies that may have remained unexplained or unreconciled. Such discrepancies, as noted above cannot and they do not break the strong 'ring of truth' that has otherwise arisen as to the truthfulness of the prosecution story, on strength of testimony of most natural witnesses.

23. Insofar as the motive of the offence is concerned, the same also fades into insignificance considering the direct and trustworthy evidence to establish the complicity of the present appellant in the commission of the heinous offence of murder. Then, it may be true that the prosecution could not prove the fact that the appellant had got cancelled the licence of the fair price shop of the deceased. At the same time, it has to be accepted on the strength of evidence led by the informant that the fair price shop licence was in the name of the deceased Ram Singh and that the same was being actually run by Narsingh Pal with only a petty amount of Rs. 500/- per month being paid to the deceased by way of compensation by Narsingh Pal and small quantities of sugar being given to the deceased on certain festivals, etc. Also, the said prosecution witness very categorically stated that the relations between Narsingh Pal and his brother Amar Singh were bad (which fact is also admitted to the appellant), and he described both, Narsingh Pal and Amar Singh as ''dabang' who had committed murder of another person in an adjoining village. During the entire cross-examination of Chadami Lal (PW-2), nothing came out and no suggestion was thrown at him as may create any doubt to his claim that Narsingh Pal was running the fair price shop of the deceased, to his sole advantage or that relations between Narsingh Pal and his brother Amar Singh were bad. In such facts, the submission advanced as to lack of motive does not merit acceptance by this Court. Also, it cannot be said that there was no motive present with the appellant to commit the offence. That issue is left undermined.

24. As to the charge of offence under Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959, reasonable doubts exist as to the prosecution version. In the first place, the appellant surrendered on 06.08.2007. Then, according to the prosecution story he and the other accused confessed as to the place where the weapons used in the assault had been hidden. Yet, with a delay of 10 days, permission was obtained from the concerned Magistrate and the alleged recoveries made. Even then, the weapon recovered at the pointing out of the appellant contained an empty cartridge case and also a live bullet. The spent/used bullet had also been recovered from the place of occurrence. Then, during his cross-examination the Constable Clerk, Tahsildar Singh (PW-6) clearly stated that no recovery memo was found on the person of the accused when they came to be lodged in jail after recovery of the two firearms made on 19.08.2007, though the recovery memo states otherwise. Taken collectively, the prosecution evidence is woefully short of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the firearm that is claimed to have been recovered by the police almost 20 days after the incident and 13 days after the alleged confession made by the appellant, was the murder weapon. Thus, in absence of testimony of any of the panch witnesses, the recovery thus claimed by the prosecution is rendered highly doubtful in absence of any testimony of recovery witnesses and also on account of inordinate and completely unexplained delay in recovery of the assault weapon. Accordingly, it is found that the charge of offence under Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959, framed against the appellant, is not proved.

25(i). Conclusions: Based on the above discussion it is concluded (i) that the prosecution led evidence beyond reasonable doubt to establish that the appellant caused the murder of Ram Singh at about 6:30 p.m. on 30.07.2007 when he entered the house of Chadami Lal (PW-2) and shot at Ram Singh on his chest. The gunshot hit the deceased Ram Singh in the neck region to which he succumbed later. Doubts, if any, as to other peripheral facts, as may exist, have no material bearing on the charge levelled against the appellant. That charge is found proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has been rightly convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine Rs. 5,000/-. The judgement and order of the trial court, on that count is upheld.

25(ii). The charge of offence under Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959, as discussed above, is found not proved. The appellant is acquitted on that charge. The judgement and order of the trial court, on that count is set aside.

26. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

January 20, 2021

Shubham/Abhilash/Prakhar