1990 PLP 1323 (MLD)

4. P.W.1, Dr. B.K. Goyal who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Jagjit Singh found three gunshot injuries and he opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the said injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further stated that injury No. 1 was individually sufficient to cause death. P.W.2, Dr. Anoop Sood examined Bikkar Singh, accused on March 29, 1981 and found multiple blisters and swellings and contusions on the left side of chest.

5. The accused was examined under 5.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he denied prosecution allegations. Sikandar Singh pleaded alibi. Accused Bikkar Singh in reply to question No. l6 pleaded as follows:‑‑ "Jagjit Singh, deceased alone came to my liquor vend. He quarrelled with me and he fired two shots at me while I was standing in the liquor vend and I was injured. In self‑defence I took my licensed gun and fired two shots one after the other at Jagjit Singh and he ran away. Sikandar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were not present there nor the P.Ws. I was admitted that very evening in the Civil Hospital. My injuries were examined. I was X‑rayed for my injuries. The police influenced the doctors, after my bail application was argued and they came to know of my defence."

6. The Sessions Judge after considering the evidence of eye‑witnesses, P.Ws. 3 and 4 and the evidence of the doctors. P.Ws. 1 and 2 disbelieved the defence story that the accused fired two shots in self‑defence and convicted the accused under section 302, I.P.C. for murder of Jagjit Singh and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The Sessions Court further convicted the accused under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused, Sikandar Singh was acquitted.

7. Against this judgment and order the accused Bikkar Singh preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 1981 in the High Court, Punjab and Haryana. High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. High Court held that:‑ "As is inevitable in a case of the present kind, the ocular account is the core of the prosecution case, Jugraj Singh and Mela Singh P.Ws. have given an account thereof which is remarkable in its consistency . ??It is borne out from the record that Mela Singh had accompanied the deceased to the liquor vend, the appellant to purchase a bottle of liquor and in the meanwhile Jugraj Singh, P.W. also reached there. In the circumstances, the presence of these two eye‑witnesses at the alleged time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted. The circumstances of the lodging of the first information report with promptitude and mentioning therein the names of the appellant and his two associates, the eye‑witnesses and the rest of the incriminating circumstances that have been deposed to at the trial by the witnesses lend guarantee to the truthfulness of the version deposed to by the witness. The medical evidence also lends necessary assurance to the conclusion that‑it was the appellant who perpetrated the crime."

8. The High Court also considered the evidence of P.W.2., Dr. Anoop Sood who opined that the injuries on the appellant could not be caused by a firearm A but the same could be the result of some blunt weapon and held that the defence version that the accused fired two shots in self‑defence appeared to be a cock and bull story.

9. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence on record and we do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order of the High Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Z.S./257/F.C ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.