GAJJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 452 and Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Firozepur in Sessions Case No. 54/88 (Sessions Trial No. 56/90). Their conviction has been upheld by the High Court.

(2.) Both the Courts below have accepted the evidence of eye-witnesses - PWs 5, 6 and 9 after careful scrutiny thereof. It was however submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that as the eye-witnesses were interested witnesses and there were material inconsistencies between the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 on the one hand and PW 9 on the other hand, their evidence should not have been accepted. He also submitted that though the guns stated to have been used by the two appellants were seized by the police and forwarded to the Ballistic Expert for examination, no report of the Ballistic Expert was produced to show whether they were used or not. He also submitted that the circumstances that both the gun injuries on the person of the deceased were possible by one shot, that there were no pellet marks on the walls or other parts of the Haveli and no blood was found on the ground inside the Haveli create a doubt regarding the manner in which the incident had really happened.

(3.) One of the inconsistencies pointed out by the learned counsel is with respect to the nature of weapons which the two co-accused carried with them. PWs 5 and 6 have stated that they were carrying guns whereas PW 9 has stated that one of them was carrying gun and the other was having a dang (a thick stick). The other inconsistency pointed out is regarding the part of the body on which the shot fired by Rattan Singh had caused injuries to the deceased. In fact, this is not an inconsistency at all. PW-5 has not stated on which side of the chest the injuries were caused. PWs 6 and 9 have stated that the shot had hit the deceased on the left side of his chest. These are the only inconsistencies in the evidence of the eye-witnesses. One more inconsistency pointed out by the learned counsel is between the evidence of PW 9 and the Investigating Officer. PW 9 has stated that he had seen one pellet in the mouth of the deceased. The Investigating Officer has denied to have seen any pellet in the mouth of deceased. Blood had collected in the mouth of the deceased. It is quite possible that PW 9 mistook something in the mouth of the deceased as a pellet or the Investigating Officer missed to notice it. It is a minor inconsistency and can have no effect on the credibility of the eye-witnesses.