Ashish @ Banti Sen vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the CrPC has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.10.2000

passed by Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS), Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.190/1997, whereby appellant No.1-Sarman Singh has

been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the IPC for causing murder of Jagjeet Singh for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- with

default stipulation, under Section 307 of the IPC in reference to injured Santosh Singh to undergo five years RI with a fine of Rs.1000/- with default

stipulation; under Section 307/34 of the IPC in relation to injured Ajab Singh to undergo five years RI with a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation;

and, appellant No.2-Lakkha Singh has been convicted under Section 30 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergone period (five days) with a fine of

Rs.500/- with default stipulation. It was directed that all the jail sentence of the appellant No.1-Sarman Singh shall run concurrently. Â

It would be significant to mention here that coaccused of the main offence Major Singh S/o Sarman Singh was separately tried before the trial

Court, hence Criminal Appeal No. 182/2010 against the judgment dated 16.2.2010 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior is being decided

by separate judgment.

Prosecution's case in short is that on 12th May, 1997 at 17.00 hrs. Satnam Singh gave telephonic intimation at Police Station Maharajpura that his

cousin brothers Santosh Singh, Jagjeet Singh and Ajab Singh, residents of village Chakbehta have received firearm injuries caused by Sarman and his

son Major and Satnam Singh was giving telephonic intimation from Morar, Gwalior. On the same date of incident, entry (Ex.P/8) regarding receiving

of the above mentioned telephonic intimation was recorded in Sahna No. 387 of Rojnamcha. Thereafter, SHO Bhanwar Singh Jadon (PW-9) after

recording his departure in the Rojnamcha with police force by police vehicle reached to Police Help Centre, situated at Square No.7, Morar. On 12th

May, 1997 at 17=30 hrs. at the above mentioned Police Help Centre SHO Bhanwar Singh Jadon recorded Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/7) on intimation given

by injured Santosh Singh (PW-5) to the effect that in his village when boys of his family were grazing buffaloes, then Major S/o Sarman gave beating

to his nephew Jarman Singh (PW-6). Thereafter Gurupreet came to his house and informed, then from house he with his Uncle Ajab Singh went to

the spot and they instructed Major Singh and Jarman Singh (PW-6) not to quarrel. Thereafter, Major Singh went to his house.

When complainant Santosh (PW-5) and his uncle Ajab Singh (PW-4) were returning from Gyan Singh's agricultural land to their house, in the

meanwhile complainant's another uncle Jagjeet Singh (since deceased) also came out in the field from his nearby situated house. By the time

Jagjeet Singh could reach near  complainant, Sarman and Major Singh came from their house each having aÂ

12 bore gun separately and asked the complainant and his companion to stop. Thereafter, Sarman and MajorÂ

Singh started firing shots from their separate guns. Pellets of shot fired by Sarman caused injury on neck of Santosh. The pellets spread over from the

second shot caused by Sarman hit on the neck, chest and abdomen of Jagjeet Singh and Jagjeet Singh immediately fell down. Thereafter Major Singh

fired shot from his gun, whose pellets caused injuries on waist, chest and left hand of Ajab Singh (PW-4) and Ajab Singh also fell down. By that time

Satnam Singh had reached on spot by motorcycle, who took complainant Santosh (PW-5) to above mentioned Police Help Centre by his motor bike.

Other injured Ajab Singh and Jaswant Singh were being taken to the hospital by complainant's other family members through a tractor. The incident

was also witnessed by complainant's aunt and Gurumeet Kaur (PW-7), wife of Jagjeet Singh.

After recording Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/7), it was sent from above mentioned centre to Police Station Maharajpura by a Constable Chandrabhushan

and on the same date on the basis of Dehati Nalishi, FIR (Ex.P/12) was registered at 18=12 hrs on the same day. Jagjeet Singh succumbed to the

injuries till his reaching to JA Hospital, Gwalior. On the date of incident other injured witnesses complainant Santosh Singh (PW-5) and Ajab Singh

(PW-4) were examined by Dr. A.K.Jain (PW-1), who recorded their separate MLCs. After completing formalities, the post-mortem of the dead body

of Jagjeet Singh was conducted by Dr. Madhup Kumar (PW-2) on 13th May, 1997, who recorded post-mortem report (Ex.P/4). Â

Investigating Officer Bhanwar Singh Jadon (PW-9) on 13th May, 1997 at the instance of eyewitness Satnam Singh, prepared spot map (Ex.P/15)

and on the same date, i.e., 13th May, 1997 bloodstained soil and separately simple soil and four empty cartridges of 12 bore gun and two empty

cartridges of .315 bore were seized by Investigating Officer vide seizure memo (Ex. P/16). Sarman and Major were arrested on 15th May, 1997 by

common arrest memo (Ex.P/7). On 15th May, 1997, on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.P/19), on production of a 12 bore single barrel gun from

the house of Lakkha Singh in his presence by Major, above mentioned gun and its licence issued in favour of Lakkha Singh were seized vide seizure

memo (Ex.P/20). On 15th May, 1997 a double barrel 12 bore gun with its arm licence issued in favour of Sarman Singh were seized vide seizure

memo (Ex.P/18) on production by appellant Sarnam. Both seized sealed guns and other material were sent to FSL Sagar vide memo dated 28th June,

1997 of Superintendent of Police Gwalior, whose report (Ex.P/23) received lateron. After completing investigation, the charge sheet against

the present appellants was filed stating that separate charge sheet would be filed against co-accused Major Singh before Juvenile Justice

Board. The Trial Judge after recording the evidence convicted and sentenced each appellant.

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence, the instant appeal is preferred by both the appellants.

Shri Ravindra Dixit, learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that it was clear from the evidence of Investigating Officer Bhanwar Singh

Jadon (PW-9) that Gurubaksha Singh, father of complainant Santosh Singh (PW-5) was having a . 315 bore licencee mouser gun and two empty

cartridges of .315 bore were also seized by the above Investigating Officer. Learned trial Court has committed a grave error in convicting the present

appellants. It was further argued that Investigating Officer Bhanwar Singh Jadon (PW-9) clearly admitted in his cross-examination (para 17) that in

Gwalior Hospital Satnam Singh told him secretly that he was wishing that facts be introduced in prosecution story that the gun was provided by

Sarman Singh's wife and Lakkha Singh has also fired shots at the time of incident and he was ready to pay bribe for it to the Investigating Officer, but

he refused the offer given by Satnam Singh and he also made entry on 13th May, 1997 in the case diary regarding above mentioned offer given by

Satnam Singh to him. It was also argued that injured Ajab Singh (PW-4) on the date of incident, i.e., 12th May, 1997 in his dying declaration (Ex.D/4)

recorded by Dr. Atul Kumar Agarwal in Gwalior Hospital stated that in total five persons have fired on him at his agricultural land after a quarrel and

in total three shots from guns were fired on him. Giving much emphasis on alleged contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the injured

prosecution witnesses and their close relatives it is argued that the possibility of false implication of the appellants could not be ruled out, as the above

mentioned Investigating Officer also admitted in his cross-examination that during investigation he received information that complainant party was

desirous that the accused persons after selling their lands left the village and in this regard a caste panchayat was organised. It is submitted by the

learned counsel that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the present appellants beyond reasonable doubt, hence finding of their guilt

is erroneous, which deserves to be set aside and the appellants are entitled to acquittal.

On the other hand, Shri Vivek Jain, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment, finding

and sentence mainly contending that the prosecution has established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellants, hence it does not

call for any interference.

We have heard rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Before the trial Court 11 prosecution witnesses

were examined. The accused persons abjured their guilt, however, they did not chose to examine any witnesses in their defence.

It is clear from the evidence of Dr. Madhup Kumar (PW-2) and his post-mortem report (Ex.P/4) that on 13th May, 1997 at Gwalior Hospital at

11=00 am, at the time of starting of post-mortem of deceased Jagjeet Singh, tried blood-stains were found on the body of the deceased at some places

and at that time rigor mortis was present and worn baniyan and underwear were also having tried blood-stains and he found following injuries:- Â

“Multiple lacerated wounds on left tympanum, left side of neck, anterior aspect of neck, shoulders, left arm, chest and abdomen 55 cms x 31 cms

area was involved and few of the above mentioned wounds were communicating with the thoracic or abdominal cavity, but single wound was on

tympanum and only two wounds were found on left side of neck.†13. On dissection of the dead body it was found that skin of scalp, muscles of

diaphragm of chest, membrane of lungs, muscles of neck, membranes of both lungs and heart and diaphragm of abdominal cavity and the membrane

of intestine were lacerated, beneath the respective internal injuries and in the abdominal cavity about 750 ml and in thoracic cavity 500 ml blood was

found. Dr. Madhup Kumar opined that death of Jagjeet Singh had occurred due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple pellet injuries caused

by firearm and these pellet injuries were caused by a shot gun fired from distant range and the deceased had died within 24 hours from the post-

mortem examination. Therefore, it is clear from the medical examination and other evidence available on record that the death of deceased Jagjeet

Singh was homicidal.

It is clear from the evidence of Dr. A.K.Jain (PW-1) and his MLC (Ex.P/1) that on the date of incident, i.e., 12th May, 1997 in medical

examination of injured Ajab Singh (PW-4), following injuries were found on his body:-

“Multiple abrasions with laceration of varying size 0.3 cm to 0.5 cm in diameter with charring of margins of wound present on each of the following

site :(i) Left thigh lateral aspect;

(ii) Left groin area inguinal region of thigh;

(iii) Left buttock lateral outer quadrant;

(iv) Left lateral iliac crest (waist);

(v) Left side of back lumber region;

(vi) Left side of chest pactoral area;

(vii) Left calvicular area;

(viii) Left arm outer aspect;

(ix) Left forearm mid portion;

(x) Left elbow.

Dr. A.K.Jain (PW-1) also advised for x-ray examination of above mentioned organs and also referred Ajab Singh to Surgical Specialist and he

found that at the time of his examination general condition of Ajab Singh was poor and the above mentioned external injuries were caused by firearm

within six hours from his examination.

It is also clear from the evidence of Dr. A.K.Jain (PW-1) and his MLC (Ex.P/2) that on the date of incident, i.e., 12th May, 1997 at 6=40 pm, he

found following injuries on the body of injured Santosh Singh S/o Gurubaksha Singh :-

(i) An abrasion with charring of margins of wound, size 0.5 cm. in diameter, placed over left mastoid region behind ear (pinna);

(ii) an abrasion and laceration with charring of margins of wound, size 0.5 cm in diameter placed on anterior aspect of neck epiglottis region and

second wound of same size was placed 3 cm below the previous wound.Â

(iii) An abrasion with charring of margins of wound placed on right forearm, 8 cm below elbow.

Dr. Jain opined that above mentioned injuries were caused to Santosh Singh (PW-5) by firearm within six hours from his examination and he has

also advised for x-ray examination and specialist's opinion and Santosh was admitted in ENT Department.

It is clear from the medical evidence that both the injured prosecution witnesses complainant Santosh Singh (PW-5) and Ajab Singh (PW-4) have

also received pellet injuries from the fire shots by firearms.

Complainant Santosh Singh (PW-5) and other injured Ajab Singh (PW-4) and Gurumeet Kaur (PW-7), wife of deceased Jagjeet Singh, have

deposed before the trial Court as eye-witnesses demonstrating the role of appellant No.1-Sarman Singh and Major Singh regarding firing by each of

them from their separate gun. The evidence of Jarman Singh (PW-6), son of Ajab Singh is relating to the cause of quarrel. Arms Clerk of ADM

Office Gwalior, Raj Bahadur Agarwal (PW-3) has proved the written sanction (Ex.P/5) granted by the-then ADM after inspecting the case diary, in

relation to arm licensee Lakkha Singh (appellant No.2) in reference to the alleged contravention of conditions of arms licence and sanction (Ex.P/6)

regarding prosecution of co-accused Major Singh in relating offences punishable under the Arms Act.

Head Constable Bhanwar Singh (PW-8) proved the relating Rojnamcha entry (Ex.P/8) on the date of incident at 7=00 hours after receiving

telephonic intimation given by Satnam Singh from Morar.

Constable Jevendra Singh Bhadoriya (PW-10) deposed that on 12th May, 1997 at Police Station Maharajpura he had given counterfoil of FIR for

sending it to the Court of CJM Gwalior and at the time of recording of his evidence he had brought the dispatch register of relating police station.

The evidence of Narendra Singh Chowdhary (PW-11), Senior Scientific Officer, FSL Sagar, is relating to his report (Ex.P/23).

Jarman Singh (PW-6) S/o Ajab Singh deposed that on the date of incident in the agricultural land of Gyan Singh at 3-4 pm when he with his

brother Gurumeet Singh was grazing buffaloes, a quarrel occurred with Major Singh in relation to bamboo wood and in that quarrel Major Singh had

snatched his bamboo wood and had twisted his arm, then his brother Gurumeet Singh went to his house to inform the family members about theÂ

incident, thereafter his father Ajab Singh had come to Gyan Singh's field with Satnam Singh and scolded to him and Major Singh and has pacified the

quarrel but at that time Major Singh ran away from the spot towards his house and thereafter his father with Gurumeet and Satnam proceeded

towards their house and he continued with grazing of cattle and thereafter hearing the sound of firing of shot from gun on reaching the spot he found

that Jagjeet, elder brother of his father Ajab Singh (PW-4) and Santosh Singh (PW-5) were injured by fired shots and his father Ajab Singh was lying

in the agricultural land of complainant Santosh Singh (PW-5) whereas Jagjeet Singh was lying in his father's (Ajab Singh) land and after sometime his

injured father Ajab Singh and Jagjeet Singh were lifted by Gurubaksha Singh, elder brother of his father. Â

Complainant Santosh Singh (PW-5) and Ajab Singh (PW-4) have deposed that on the date of incident at 3-4 pm after receiving the intimation

regarding quarrel occurred between Major Singh and Jarman Singh at their house by Gurupreet Singh they had gone to the field of Gyan Singh and

scolded Jarman Singh and Major Singh and thereafter they were proceeding towards their house. Complainant Santosh Singh deposed that the

agricultural lands of his father Gurubaksha Singh and Ajab Singh are adjacent. Ajab Singh (PW-4) deposed that in between the field of Gyan Singh

and house of his brother Jagjeet Singh, there exists a canal which had fallen in their way, when they were returning from the field of Gyan Singh and

they were slowly returning but Major Singh crossed the canal after running towards his house. These witnesses deposed that at the same time Jagjeet

Singh came out from his house and proceeded towards them, at the same time Sarman Singh and Major Singh each having separate gun in his hand

came on the spot and appellant No.1-Sarman Singh firstly fired a shot from his gun at Santosh Singh (PW-5) and Santosh Singh received injuries,

thereafter Sarman fired second shot from his gun, which caused injuries to Jagjeet Singh, who fell down and thereafter Major Singh fired a shot from

his gun, then Ajab Singh (PW-4) received injuries. Ajab Singh (PW-4) deposed that after receiving injuries he himself and Jagjeet Singh got

unconscious and fell down on the spot and he gained senses on next date in hospital then he was informed that is brother Jagjeet Singh had expired

and at the time of incident Major Singh was having Lakkha Singh's gun.

Complainant Santosh Singh (PW-5) deposed that at the time of incident his aunt Gurumeet Kaur (PW-7) had also come on spot, but this fact is not

deposed by Ajab Singh (PW-4). Santosh Singh deposed that just after receiving firearm injuries by Ajab Singh, his cousin brother Satnam Singh

reached on spot, who brought him by his bike to No.7 Square, Morar, where at Police Help Centre, SHO Bhanwar Singh Jadon (PW-9) recorded his

Dehati Nalishi report (Ex.P/7), which is bearing his signature.

Much emphasis has been given by the appearing counsel for the appellants on alleged contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of various

prosecution witnesses as complainant Santosh Singh (PW-5) deposed in his crossexamination that marked 'F' to 'F' portion of his police statement

(Ex.D/2) and marked 'A' to 'A' portion of his Dehati Nalishi report (Ex.P/7) are wrong and the fact relating to cause of the dispute over bamboo wood

between Jarman Singh and Major Singh is not disclosed in his Dehati Nalishi report, but this contradiction appears to be trivial in nature. It is well

established that such minor contradictions and discrepancies do not affect the core evidence of eye-witnesses. On this point, in the case of Bharwada

Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1983 SC 753), in last line of para 5 of judgment, the Apex Court has observed as follows:-

“5. …... Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious:-

(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is

replayed on the mental screen.

(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an

element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.

(3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image

on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.

(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall

the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.

(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the

moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on

the timesense of individuals which varies from person to person.

(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span.

A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.

(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by counsel and out of

nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious

mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and

honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him-Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment.

(8) Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue

importance. More so when the all important ""probabilities-factor"" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses.â€​

Similarly much emphasis has been given on the fact that injured Ajab Singh and his family members were trying to rope in so many persons of the

appellants' family, hence the evidence of Ajab Singh (PW-4) and his other family members is not trustworthy.

Ajab Singh (PW-4) has denied the relating portion of his dying declaration (Ex.D/4). It appears from the record of the trial Court that during

crossexamination of Ajab Singh (PW-4), above mentioned dying declaration (Ex.D/4) was called from the J.A. Hospital and this dying declaration was

not filed by the prosecution along with the charge sheet. It is clear from the other documents filed with the charge sheet that prior to Dehati Nalishi

(Ex.P/7) of complainant Santosh Singh (PW-5), sent telephonic information by his close relative Satnam Singh was recorded in the Sahna No.387 of

Rojnamcha of Police Station Maharajpura that his cousin brother Santosh Singh, Jagjeet Singh and Ajab Singh have been injured by firing of shots by

Sarnam and his son Major of the same village. Hence, it is clear that before lodging of Dehati Nalishi by Santosh Singh, telephonic intimation has

reached to the Police Station Maharajpura that only appellants Sarman and his son Major have shot fire from their firearms over these three injured

persons. Hence, the attempt of Ajab Singh or his other family members regarding attempt to rope in other family members of the appellants' family

could not make the prosecution's case against Sarman and Major doubtful as the incident had occurred at 16.00 hrs. and its telephonic information has

reached to Police Station Maharajpura at 17.00 hrs. and thereafter relating police officers came into motion.

Much emphasis has been given by the appellants' learned counsel on the facts mentioned in the spot map (Ex.P/15) prepared by the Investigating

Officer Bhanwar Singh Jadon (PW-9). According to facts and outline diagram embodied in spot map (Ex.P/16), it is clear that on northern side of

agricultural land of Gurubaksha Singh (father of complainant Santosh Singh) a Nala is situated and on southern side adjacent agricultural land of

injured Ajab Singh is situated and on eastern side of Gurubaksha Singh's agricultural land the house of deceased Jagjeet Singh is mentioned and on

southern side of Jagjeet Singh's house in Khalihan of deceased three mounds were shown and these mounds are mentioned in eastern side of

agricultural lands of Gurubaksha Singh and Ajab Singh. It has been suggested to prosecution's witnesses by defence counsel in their crossexamination

that each mound is having more height than any person and firing was made by unknown persons from behind these mounds, but relating suggestions

were specifically denied by relating prosecution witnesses and eye-witnesses have deposed that appellant Sarman Singh and Major Singh were in the

land of Gurubaksha Singh, when they were firing towards Jagjeet Singh, Ajab Singh and Santosh Singh. It is also mentioned in spot map that

Gurubaksha Singh's house is also situated in his above mentioned agricultural land and the place is also shown in Gurubaksha Singh's land wherefrom

four empty cartridges of 12 bore were seized and later on sent to FSL Sagar. Recovery of empty cartridges from Gurubaksha Singh's land clearly

demonstrates that fires were not made from behind the above mentioned mounds but from the land of Gurubaksha Singh. It is mentioned in spot map

that after getting injury, Jagjeet Singh fell in the land of Ajab Singh, wherefrom places of collecting of bloodstained soil and simple soil are also

mentioned in the spot map itself vide separate seizure memo (Ex.P/18).

Much emphasis has been given by the appellants' learned counsel on the fact that in spot map (Ex.P/15) the place is also shown as four mounds of

fodder in the field of Gurubaksha Singh, wherefrom two empty cartridges of .315 bore were also recovered vide same seizure memo but these empty

cartridges of .315 bore were not sent to the FSL though complainant Santosh Singh (PW-5) deposed in his cross-examination that his father

Gurubaksha Singh is having a licensee mouser gun.

It is to be remembered that it was not the defence of appellant Sarman Singh in his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC that at the time of

incident complainant party also fired on him or his companion, hence above mentioned argument advanced by the appellants' counsel appears to be

totally futile and meaningless. There is no material contradiction or inconsistency in the evidence of eye-witnesses regarding the fact that on spot shots

were fired by appellant Sarman Singh and his son Major Singh by separate guns. Deceased Jagjeet Singh's house is adjacent to Gurubaksha Singh's

agricultural land. Hence, the presence of his wife Gurumeet Kaur (PW-7) at the time of incident could not be doubted. The evidence of complainant

Santosh Singh (PW-5) is materially corroborated by his signed Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/7) and by the evidence of other eye-witnesses Ajab Singh (PW-4)

and Gurumeet Kaur (PW-7) and by above mentioned medical evidence regarding injuries of the deceased Jagjeet Singh and injured complainant

Santosh Singh and Ajab Singh. Hence, the evidence of above mentioned eye-witnesses relating to role of appellant Sarman Singh and his son Major

Singh appears to be totally trustworthy.

Regarding circumstantial evidence of the case, Investigating Officer Bhanwar Singh Jadon (PW-9) deposed that he had searched for appellant

Sarman and his son Major on 13th May, 1997 in their village, but they were not available and appellant Sarman and his son Major were arrested on

15th May, 1997 and a double barrel 12 bore gun, its cartridges and its arm licence were seized by him from Sarman vide seizure memo (Ex.P/18) and

on disclosure statement (Ex.P/19) at the instance of Major Singh from the house of appellant No.2-Lakkha Singh on production of Major Singh a 12

bore single barrel gun with its licence were seized by him vide seizure memo (Ex.P/20). Though the panch witnesses of these seizure memos and

disclosure statement were not examined before the trial Court, but it is clear from the evidence of Narendra Singh Chowdhary (PW-11), Senior

Scientific Officer of FSL Sagar that he had examined at FSL Sagar sent both seized guns and found them in working condition and after making test

fires in the laboratory from both the guns and by microscopic comparison of marking of firing pin on relating test fired cartridges and sent four seized

empty cartridges of 12 bore by the Investigating Officer it was found that two out of these four empty cartridges were fired from the gun allegedly

seized from Major Singh and one of the above mentioned seized cartridges from spot by Investigation Officer was found fired from right barrel of

double barrel seized licensee gun of appellant Sarman Singh. Hence, the evidence of above mentioned expert Narendra Singh Chowdhary (PW-11)

and his report (Ex.P/23) also confirms the use of these both seized firearms during the investigation on the spot by the relating accused. This FSL

report and relating circumstantial evidence regarding seizure of both these guns and four empty cartridges of 12 bore from the spot beyond any

reasonable doubt connects the use of these seized firearms and empty cartridges with the appellant Sarman Singh and his son Major Singh.

Arms Clerk Raj Bahadur Agarwal (PW-3) has proved the prosecution sanction (Ex.P/5) granted by Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior

against the appellant No.2-Lakkha Singh. It is clear from the seizure memo that relating single barrel 12 bore gun was Lakkha Singh's licensee gun.

Hence, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the licensee gun of appellant No.-Lakkha Sigh was used in the incident in contravention of terms

of his arm licence.

In the aforesaid state of evidence available on record, in considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has considered the material evidence on

record in its entirety and on proper and legal appreciation and analysis of evidence has recorded finding of conviction of each appellant. The trial

Court's finding does not suffer from any illegality, manifest error or perversity. Hence, no interference by this Court with the impugned judgment is

warranted regarding conviction of each appellant in relation to above mentioned charged offence. The awarded sentence by the trial Court to each

appellant also appears to be just, proper and balanced.

Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed and conviction and sentence of each appellant as recorded by the above mentioned

trial Court is hereby affirmed.

The appellant No.2-Lakkha Singh has been sentenced by the trial Court to the period (five days) already undergone by him. The appellant

No.1Sarman's jail sentence has been suspended by this Court and he is released on bail. He is directed to immediately surrender before the trial Court

without any delay so that he may be sent to jail for execution of remaining part of his jail sentence. The order regarding disposal of seized property

passed by the trial Court is also affirmed.

 A copy of the judgment along with the record be immediately sent back to the trial Court for Sarman Singh and another vs. State of MP information

and compliance.