Manoj vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 3236 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 46
 

 
									Reserved on: 08.02.2022
 
									Delivered on:18.05.2022						
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2540 of 2005
 

 
Appellant :- Manoj
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- A.N. Srivastava,A.C.Srivastava,A.K. Singh,Amit Mishra,J.B.Singh,Kaushlesh Tripathi,Manish Kumar Tripathi,N.K. Srivastava,Noor Mohammad,P.K. Srivastava,V.K. Singh,V.K.Srivastava,Vivek Dhaka
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.)

1. Heard Sri Amit Mishra learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Roopak Chaubey learned AGA for the State respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.5.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.10, Meerut in Sessions Trial no.745 of 1993 arising out of Case Crime no.118 of 1993 under Section 302 IPC Police Station-Khekra, Meerut, (current District Baghpat), whereby the appellant Manoj has been convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced for imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-. The default punishment is one year simple imprisonment.

3. The prosecution story starts with the first information report lodged on 9.6.1993 at about 13.00 hours based on a written report given by Babu Khan (P.W-4) father of deceased Gayur. The date and time of the incident as indicated in the Check FIR is 09.06.1993 at about 12.00 noon. The Case Crime no.118 of 1993 was registered under Section 302 IPC, the report of which was lodged on the information given by P.W-4, the first informant. As per the written report, deceased Gayur s/o Babu khan was aged about 22 years on the date of the incident and was running a shop of Purchun and Cycle repair in his house. On 09.06.1993, while the deceased was in his shop and the first informant, his younger son Kayum, Yaseen s/o Jamalu, Khurshid s/o Nizamuddin and Shamsher s/o Rahmatulla, the residents of the village were also sitting there, accused appellant Manoj s/o Ved Singh Jat came to the shop at about 12.00 noon. Manoj asked deceased Gayur to come with him for some work to which Gayur refused and said that he could not go with him as he was sitting on the shop. Hearing this, the appellant Manoj got angry and wielded his country made pistol and shouted that in case Gayur did not go to the work, he would be killed and would not be spared that day. Hearing that, his son Gayur ran for his life while shouting, in the lane. The appellant Manoj chased Gayur, the first informant and other witnesses ran behind them and at that time in front of the house of Harswaroop Jat, Manoj fired at the back of deceased Gayur. Getting hit, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. The first informant stated that he and the witnesses tried to catch hold of the accused but he ran away wielding his country made pistol.

4. P.W-7, Matin Ahmad, Constable clerk as also P.W-6, the Investigating Officer posted at the Police Station Khekra, on the date of the incident proved preparation of the Check FIR and GD entry on the basis of the written report given by Babu Khan, the first informant. The Check FIR and GD entry of the same day prepared in the handwriting and signature of P.W-7, carbon copy of which was filed on record, were proved as Exhibit Ka-'5' and Ka-'6'; respectively. P.W-7 stated that the original GD had been weeded out. The weeding out report was filed by P.W-7 and proved as Exhibit Ka-8. P.W-7, in cross, stated that the report was lodged at the time shown in the Check FIR and the suggestion of the report being Ante-time was categorically denied.

5. Dr. D.R. Agarwal, P.W-5 proved the post mortem report as Exhibit Ka-'2' being in his handwriting and signature. The injuries found on the person of the deceased as indicated in the post mortem report are:-

1. Wound of entry size 1 cm x 1 cm, back of chest, about 10 cm below the root of the neck. Blackening over area 7 x 5 cm around.

2. Wound of exit size 1 cm x 1.5 cm front of chest, about 6 cm below super sternal notch & pellet entangled in the wound. Injury nos.1 and 2 are through and through.

3. Contusion 1 cm x 2.5 cm back of chest about 2 cm below medial to injury no.1.

4. Contusion size 2 x 1.5 cm back of chest and abdomen about 1.5 cm below injury no.3.

One yellow coloured pellet found in the exit wound no.2 was sealed and handed over to Constables Surendra Singh and Manoj Kumar P.S Khakera.

Internal examination

Lungs and heart were punctured, Stomach was filled, Bladder was half filled. Stiffness was present on the whole body.

Proximate time of death was one day."

6. The external appearance of the body as indicated in the post mortem report shows that rigour mortis was present all over the body. The proximate time of death was one day and as per the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to the injuries noted in the report. In cross, P.W-5, the doctor stated that the injuries caused by fire arm were sufficient to cause death. The injury nos.1 and 2 were assigned to firearm and injury no.1 was stated as sufficient to cause immediate death.

7. The inquest of the body was conducted on 09.06.1993, commenced at 13.45 hours and ended at 15.30 hours. The post mortem was conducted on 10.06.1993 at about 4.00 pm. The recovered articles such as the clothes of the deceased and one bullet was sent to the FSL and as per the report of FSL large amount of blood was found on all the articles; on the clothes of the deceased human blood was present and on all other articles blood was disintegrated. Material Exhibit-'1' and '2' plain and blood stained earth were also sent in a sealed box to the FSL.

8. P.W-6, the Investigating Officer, proved that the investigation was received by him on 10.06.1993. He recorded statements of all the witnesses and accused in the district jail. He stated that the recovered articles, (case property) were sent to the FSL and the report of FSL was exhibited at his instance as Exhibit Ka-3. The chargesheet was submitted by P.W-6 on completion of the investigation on 02.07.1993 which was proved as Exhibit Ka-'4'.

9. P.W-6 also proved the writing and signature of constable clerk Matin Ahmad (P.W-7) on the Check FIR Exhibit Ka-'5' and the copy of GD no.24 dated 09.06.1993 filed with his signature as Exhibit Ka-'7'. In cross, P.W-6, in cross stated that he recorded statements of the witnesses and then stated that he was not present in the police station at the time when the information of the incident was received on that day, R. P. Singh (Ram Phal Singh) went to make the investigation and the statement of the first informant was recorded by him but the statements of other witnesses were not recorded by Mr. Singh. P.W-6 had denied the suggestion that the report was lodged on 10.06.1993 in his presence and that he did not record statement of any witness.

10. P.W-8 Dharampal Singh is the police officer who was posted between 1993 to 1995 at the Police Station Khekra. He stated that Sub Inspector Ramphal Singh was posted with him who had died one year prior to his deposition and proved the signature and writing of Ramphal Singh on the site plan dated 9.6.1993, which was exhibited as Exhibit Ka-'6'. The recovery memo of blood stained and plain clothes, the inquest report as also other related papers to the inquest as Chitthi CMO, photo nash and chalan nash etc prepared in the handwriting and signature of Sri Ramphal were also proved as Exhibit Ka-'7', Exhibit Ka-8, Exhibit Ka-9 to Ka-12. P.W-8, Dharampal Singh, in cross, stated that the investigation of the case was made by the Sub inspector, Ramphal Singh but what was done by him could only be stated on the basis of the papers brought on record. He, further stated that he, could not clarify as to whether the statements of the eye witnesses were recorded by Sub Inspector, Ramphal Singh on the spot as he did not accompany him during the investigation.

11. We may record at this juncture, that the statements of formal witnesses were recorded with considerable delay, inasmuch as, the statement of P.W-5, the doctor had commenced in the year 2004 and rest of the formal witnesses were examined uptil March 2005.

12. Amongst the witnesses of fact, out of four, three had turned hostile. P.W-1, Shamsher Ali, P.W-2-Khurshid, P.W-3 Yasin did not support the case of the prosecution at all and denied their previous statements recorded by the Investigating Officer. Their testimony is a complete denial and do not support the prosecution case at all.

13. Only witness remains is the first informant P.W-4 Babu Khan, father of the deceased whose examination in chief commenced on 05.06.1996. In the examination-in-chief, P.W-4 Babu Khan reiterated his version in the written report and proved the same being in his handwriting and signature as Exhibit Ka-'1'. He stated that he was an eye witness of the incident and gave his report in the police station Khekra. The cross examination of P.W-4 was deferred on the application of the accused and the record indicates that his cross examination could commence only on 05.10.2004, when it was noticed by the Court that the accused was pressurising the witness (P.W-4) to change his statement and was not cooperating in the cross examination though P.W-4, the first informant, appeared on previous eighteen dates regularly. The plea taken by the accused that an Advocate from legal aid be provided to him was rejected as there was a private lawyer appearing on behalf of the accused appellant and the Court has also recorded that the record indicated that the accused appellant had sufficient means to engage a lawyer.

14. On 05.10.2004, the opportunity to cross examine PW-4 was closed, on account of non-cooperation of the appellant and the cross-examination of P.W-4 could resume only on 11.02.2005, when on oath P.W-4 stated that he had studied uptil Class-8th and apart from working with his son for fixing punctures, he was also rearing buffaloes. His deceased son had a shop in their house of fixing punture which he used to open after sunrise. P.W-4 stated that, on the fateful day, his son opened the shop at about 5.00 a.m and had his breakfast around 6.00-6.30 am. The deceased, however, did not have lunch on the date of the incident. The first informant was at home and did not go to do the labour work. He stated that other witnesses namely Shamsher, Khurshid and Yasin were present in the shop as they came to get puncture of their cycles fixed. The suggestion that these witnesses were not present on the spot was denied. He further stated that accused-appellant Manoj used to take his son (deceased) for labour work and apart from working for Manoj, his son was doing labour work randomly. It was denied that his son, the deceased, was not doing cycle repair work in the shop but was only a labour. The incident was narrated by P.W-4, the first informant, saying that when accused appellant Manoj came to the shop of his son at around 12.00 noon, some arguments took place between them for about five minutes but no marpeet was made by the accused who took out his country made pistol in a rage and his son Gayur ran for his life. Gayur was shot by Manoj from a distance of about 8-10 paces and within five minutes, Gayur had died. They could reach near the deceased only after he had died. The report was written by him at his house and it took around 45 minutes in writing the report. The distance of the police station from his house was stated as 3 kms and P.W-4 stated that he went to the police station by bicycle which took him around 20 minutes. After registration of the report, the police came with him. He reached to the police station at about 1.00 pm where it took about one hours to complete the formalities of lodging of the report and they then moved to the place of incident at about 2.00 pm. It took about 15-20 minutes to reach at the place of incident and four hours to complete all the formalities by the police. The dead body was taken to Baghpat and he did not accompany the police station as he stayed at home to pacify his children. After postmortem, he went to bring the dead body. The suggestion that he was not present on the spot was categorically denied by P.W-4.

15. In defence, a witness named Harswaroop son of Ram Singh, resident of P.S-Khekra, District Baghpat was produced, who stated that on the date of the incident he was taking rest in his room upstairs. On hearing sounds of fire, he came down and saw that the son of the first informant Babu Khan was groaning. He could not remember the name of the deceased and stated that he did not see anyone firing at him. There were a lot of crowd and Shamsher also reached at that place. The father of the deceased namely Babu Khan reached after ten minutes and took his son to his house. Police reached at about 5.00 p.m and his statement was recorded. D.W-1 stated that he gave statement to the police as to how the incident had occured and the statements of other people were also recorded. D.W-1 had denied having seen appellant Manoj causing murder of the deceased. In cross, D.W-1 admitted that he and Manoj were belonging to the same caste as they were 'Jat' and the accused appellant Manoj was his grand son in relation. It was admitted that Babu Khan had one small shop of Purchun and 'Cycle repair'. It was also admitted by D.W-1 that there were only 100-150 Muslims in the village and the main population of the village was of 'Jat' community. He clearly stated that the village was predominantly of 'Jats'. He stated that he saw one wound of fire arm which was bleeding. It was also admitted by D.W-1 that the father of the deceased had left the village after the incident.

16. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per own case of the first informant only one shot was fired which cause the death of Gayyur (deceased). The post mortem examination also shows that only one fire arm wound of entry was present on the person of the deceased. Amongst four eye witnesses, three had turned hostile and the hostile witnesses categorically stated that they did not know as to who killed the deceased and that the incident did not occur in their presence and also that the accused Manoj did not fire at the deceased. An eye witness namely Kayum, younger brother of the deceased, son of the first informant, was not examined. The first informant did not even mention the name of Kayum as an eyewitness as his examination in chief recorded on 05.06.1996. There are material contradictions in the statement of P.W-4 (sole eye-witness) from his version in the FIR. Moreover, even from the statement of P.W-4, it is evident that the murder was caused in an outrage during the course of an oral altercation. The trial court had committed illegality in convicting the appellant for the offence of murder and sentencing him for imprisonment for life.

17. Placing the statement of D.W-1, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that he did not see the appellant accused (Manoj) at the place of the incident when he reached there hearing the sounds of fire. There is no recovery of weapon and the motive assigned for committing the crime is very weak. The appellant Manoj has been lodged in jail for more than 17½ years. In this circumstance, the judgment for conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court cannot be sustained.

18. Learned A.G.A, in rebuttal, argued that the first report of the incident was prompt. It was a day light incident and the site plan clearly describes the place of the occurence. Even three hostile witnesses did not deny their presence at the shop of deceased Gayur and from the statement of the DW-1 itself, the place of occurence is proved which was described by the prosecution being in front of the house of Harswaroop 'Jat', as narrated in the FIR, site plan and the statement of P.W-4. D.W-1, in his testimony, had only tried to change the time of occurence slightly. It was admitted by D.W-1 that the first informant (P.W-4) had left the village after the occurence and the fact that the first informant (P.W-4) was being pressurised to change his testimony is evident from the notings made by the Court in the statement of P.W-4 recorded on 05.10.2004. Even the statement of D.W-1 corroborates the version of the first informant P.W-4, father of the deceased, who remained consistent through out. The medical evidence supports the prosecution story and two minor injuries namely injury nos.3 and 4, can be explained from the position of the dead body as indicated in the inquest, as it has come in evidence that the deceased fell down after being hit by the bullet opened by the accused appellant. One bullet found on the exit wound was sent to FSL and human blood was found there, but since the blood was disintegrated, no definite opinion could be formed about the blood group. Even otherwise, two injuries namely injury nos. 3 and 4 are minor injuries, even if it is accepted for a moment that the prosecution could not explain them, it would not make any difference as no alternative theory or hypothesis can be formed on the basis of the said injuries.

19. It is argued by the learned AGA that P.W-4 though is a related witness but is not inimical. No enmity of P.W-4, the first informant with the accused- appellant Manoj has been suggested by the defence so as to draw an inference of motive for false implication of the accused appellant. In all possibility, the related witness would not leave the real assailant go scot free so as to falsely implicate the appellant, with whom there is not even a suggestion of enmity of the deceased or the first informant.

20. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

21. At the outset, we may note that it is established from the record that the witnesses of the instant case were being pressurised at the instance of the accused appellant who belong to the 'Jat community.' The village was predominantly inhabited by the people of 'Jat community' and the population of 'Muslims' was in miniscule. It is proved by the defence witness (D.W-1) that the first informant P.W-4 had left the village after the incident. It is established on the record that even the examination in chief of P.W-4, the first informant started after three years of the incident and the accused appellant did not cross examine him for about 8 years and avoided 18 dates on which the witness (P.W-4) was present before taking the plea that he needed services of legal aid whereas he had already engaged a private counsel. The opportunity to cross examine the P.W-4 was closed on 05.10.2004 but after about 4-5 months on 11.02.2005, P.W-4 again entered in the witness box and only then he was cross examined. No inconsistency or any contrary fact could be culled from the cross examination of P.W-4 who was consistent throughout about the date, place, time of the incident and the manner in which the murder was caused by the accused appellant. The statement of P.W-4 is consistent with regard to the place where the deceased was shot which is also corroborated from the testimony of the defence witness (D.W-1). The oral testimony of P.W-4 is further corroborated by the medical evidence which prove that one fire was shot at the back of the chest of the deceased wherein blackening was found. The exit wound was at the front and one bullet was locked in the wound. As described by the doctor; injury nos.1 and 2 were through and through; heart and lungs both were punctured. This injury was sufficient to cause immediate death of the deceased which is consistent with the version of P.W-4. From the entire testimony of P.W-4, nothing contrary could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants which would be relevant to be recorded by us.

22. The only question before us is as to whether the conviction can be sustained on the testimony of solitary witness who is related to the deceased being his father. On the question of conviction about appreciation of the testimony of solitary witness, the law is that Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act has categorically laid down that "no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for proof of any fact". It was noted by the Apex Court in case of Vadivelu Thevar vs State of Madras reported in 1957 AIR SC 614 that the legislature presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons laid down that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact, to call any particular number of witnesses. The Section enshrines the well recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted". Indian Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence.

23. It was noted in paragraph-'11' of the said decision that :-

"If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well- established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for, proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

24. The legal position about appreciation of testimony of solitary witness is that the Court has to weigh the testimony of solitary witness carefully and if it is satisfied that the evidence is wholly reliable, it can act upon the testimony of such a witness as he is the only reliable witness in support of the prosecution. This principle has received consistent approval from time and again and in all the later decisions on the issue. For the sake of brevity, we need not think it proper to burden this judgment with the subsequent decisions reiterating the same legal principle.

25. As regards the status of a witness related to the deceased and the weight of his testimony, the law is that a close relative of the deceased does not per se become an interested witness. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing the conviction of the person out of vengeance or enmity or due to dispute and deposes before the Court only with that intention and not to further the cause of justice. [Reference: Raju @ Balachandran vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012) 12 SCC 701]

26. In case of Kartik Malhar vs State of Bihar reported in (1996) 1 SCC 614, the Apex Court has held that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term "interested" postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animus or for some other reason.

27. It was held in Himanshu @ Chintu vs State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2011) 2 SCC 36 that relationship does not disqualify the witness. The witness who are related to the victim are as competent to depose the fact as any other witness. Only rule of caution is that such evidence is required to be carefully scrutinized and appreciated before reaching at a conclusion on the conviction of the accused in a given case.

28. The Court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witness but the Court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the Court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim. The law related to appreciation of evidence of an interested witness is well settled, according to which the version of an interested witness cannot be thrown over board, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same. [Reference: Jayabalan vs U.T of Pondicherry reported in (2010) 1 SCC 199.]

29. Keeping in mind the above principles, we are required to appreciate the testimony of sole eye witness namely P.W-, father of the deceased.

30. As noted above, three eye witnesses, whose names were mentioned in the first information report had been declared hostile. They all were belonging to the Muslim community. The record indicates that there was a lot of pressure on P.W-4, also to change his testimony and, for this reason, his cross examination was prolonged for about nine years. Being father, he remained consistent and did not succumb to the pressure exerted at the instance of the accused-appellant though P.W-4 had to leave the village. It has come in the testimony of D.W-1, the defence witness, that P.W-1, Shamsher also was present on the spot where the deceased was hit by the fire opened in front of his house and the first informant also reached there. Though D.W-1 had tried to shift the time for the presence of PW-4 saying that he reached after ten minutes.

31. The incident had started from the shop of the deceased existing in the house of P.W-4 which has been clearly indicated in the site plan, prepared on the date of incident itself, ie on 09.06.1993 by Sri R.P. Singh, the Sub Inspector of the Police station Khekra Bhagpat. It has been shown in the site plan that the deceased ran for his life from place (A) and reached at place (C) which was in front of the house of Harswaroop. The distance between the place (A) to (C) as noted therein is 70 paces. Place (B) indicated therein is the place where the first informant and witnesses had reached while running behind the deceased and the accused. The distance of place (B) from place (C) has been shown as 25 paces. Place (C) is at the distance of 15 paces from the house of Harswaroop. The road from place (A) to (B) and (C) is a straight road.

32. The first information report of the incident was a prompt report which had been lodged by the first informant, P.W-4 within one hour of the incident. P.W-4 stated that after the incident he went to his house, wrote the report himself and then went to the police station by cycle, (which was at a distance of 3 kms) to lodge the first information report. It has been proved by P.W-7 that the first information report was registered on the written report given by P.W-4. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on the same day, ie 9.6.1993 about 13.45 hours which means that the police had reached at the spot within 45 minutes of lodging of the report which is consistent with the statement of P.W-4 the first informant. The inquest report show that the dead body was lying on the road in flat position in front of the house of Harswaroop (D.W-1). There were a lot of blood on the chest and clothes of the deceased. From the oral and documentary evidence on record, no doubt can be raised to the first place (shop of the deceased) where P.W-4 was present at the beginning of the incident. The presence of the deceased in his shop and that of P.W-4 his father, cannot be doubted. It is proved that the deceased was chased from his house, i.e from place (A) to place (C) and he was then shot by the accused, while witnesses including P.W-4 watched the incident from place (B). Though the hostile witnesses did not support the prosecution story with regard to the incident but none of them had categorically denied their presence in the shop of deceased Gayur. They (P.W-1, 2 and 3) only stated that the murder did not occur in their presence and the accused appellant did not fire at the deceased Gayur.

33. From the above evidence on record, we have no reason to refuse to the act upon the testimony of the sole witness (P.W-4) who is the only reliable witness in support of the prosecution. We have no hesitation to hold that the testimony of the solitary witness (P.W-4) would fall in the category of a witness who is wholly reliable. There is no reason for the Court to circumspect the version of P.W-4. As an abundant caution, we even looked for corroboration of his testimony in the material particulars. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that all circumstances put together such as the first information report, the inquest and relevant papers prepared by the police, the testimony of formal witnesses, even the version of defence witness (D.W-1); the version of P.W-4 the solitary eye witness stands corroborated. The presence of P.W-4, father of the deceased, being natural at the place of the occurence, his version has to be given due credence. The minor inconsistency pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the post mortem report about injury nos.3 and 4 which were 'Contusions' found at the back of the deceased near his chest around the wound no.1 and 3, stand explained from the position of the body lying on the spot and the fact that the deceased fell down on his back on the road as his body was found in that position by the Investigating Officer as recorded in the inquest reported on 09.06.1993. No contrary suggestion had been given to the Investigating Officer in this regard.

34. For the above material on record, we do not find any error in the judgment of the trial court in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as per own version of the first informant, the murder was caused in a rage and hence the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC is not made out, we may record that the accused appellant chased the deceased for about a distance of 70 paces and then fired on the chest of the deceased. The intention to cause murder of the deceased is evident from the said fact itself. The act of the accused appellant clearly falls within the category of murder under Section 300 IPC and the minimum punishment for the same under Section 302 IPC is imprisonment for life.

35. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court. The judgment and order dated 7.5.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.10, Meerut in Sessions Trial no.745 of 1993 arising out of Case Crime no.118 of 1993 under Section 302 IPC Police Station-Khekra District Meerut, (current district Baghpat) is hereby affirmed.

36. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

37. The appellant is in jail.

38. The office is directed to transmit back the lower court record along with a certified copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance.

39. The trial court record be sent back immediately.

Order Date :-18.05.2022/Harshita