Uttarakhand High Court
Kulwant Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 2 September, 2022
Author: R.C. Khulbe
Bench: S.K. Mishra, R.C. Khulbe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2018
Kulwant Singh ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Present:
Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, the learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Dy. Advocate General along with Mr.
Rakesh Kumar Joshi, the learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. M.S. Pal, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.M.
Pingal, the learned counsel for the complainant.
Judgment reserved on: 21.06.2022
Judgement delivered on: 02.09.2022
Coram: Sri S.K. Mishra, J.
Sri R.C. Khulbe, J.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court made the following judgment: (Per: Sri S.K.Mishra, J.) Having been convicted of the offence under Sections 302, 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Penal Code for brevity), the appellant Kulwant Singh has assailed the judgment passed by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 2013, dated 10.10.2018. He was charged for the offence under Sections 302, 324, 504 of the Penal Code read with Section 30 of the Arms Act. He was convicted for the offences as mentioned above. He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 302 of the Penal Code, in default, he has to undergo further 1 year imprisonment; he is also sentenced to undergo 1 year imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- under 2 Section 324 of the Penal Code, in default, he has to undergo one month of simple imprisonment and is sentence to undergo 1 year imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 504 of the Penal Code, in default, he has to undergo one month simple imprisonment. All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that, the appellant Kulwant Singh happens to be a first cousin of the deceased Harjeet Singh and was residing near his house. There was some dispute between them because of the activities of the appellant of blowing horn of his car unnecessarily near the room of the deceased Harjeet Singh. In the night of the incident, at about 10:30 pm., the appellant came to his house by passing the house, especially the room of the deceased, and started blowing horn of his car without any reason as a result of which the deceased, who was watching TV in his room, came out and protested the same, on his protest the appellant told the deceased he thinks big of himself and that he will teach him a lesson and suddenly took out his licensed fire arm (pistol) and fired several rounds at the deceased as a result of the injuries the deceased fell down. The informant Nimrat Pal Singh and informant Kamaljeet Singh wanted to rescue the deceased and they also sustained gun shot injuries. As a result of such attack, by means of fire arm deceased Harjeet Singh sustained grievous injuries and while he was 3 being taken to the hospital, he breathed his last on the way, and therefore, his body was returned to their house. It is also the case of the prosecution that after firing several rounds, the appellant hide behind the compound wall separating their houses and either picked up something or left something on the ground. Since, there was hue and cry and lot of persons gathered in the house of the deceased and due to death, the FIR was not lodged on the same day but on the next day.
On lodging of the FIR, criminal case no. 275 of 2013 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302,307 and 504 of the Penal Code. Investigation was taken over by the police officer in- charge of the investigation. In course of investigation, the police officer held inquest on the dead body of the deceased, inspected the spot, collected blood stained earth, sample earth from the spot, dispatched the dead body for post mortem examination, recorded statements of the complainant and other witnesses, arrested the accused and seized the licensed revolver from his possession along with some empty cartridges. Investigating agency has also dispatched the material objects for chemical and forensic examination to the State Forensic and Science Laboratory, Dehradun. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offences stated above.
43. The defence in this case took plea of false accusation and that he has been implicated because of strained relationship between him and the deceased.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 15 witnesses in total. PW2 Nimrat Pal Singh is the informant in this case. He is also an eye witness being an injured, PW3 Kamaljeet Singh is the other injured eye witness, PW4 Smt. Ninder Kaur, widow of the deceased, PW5 Smt. Gurwinder Kaur, daughter of the deceased, PW6 Smt. Manjeet Kaur, another member of the family of the deceased, are also eye witness to the occurrence, PW11 Inderjeet Singh, common relationship of the deceased as well as the appellant, scribed the FIR on the instructions of PW2 Nimrat Pal Singh. PW1 Bhagwan Giri Goswami, PW10 Rajeev Kumar, PW12 Fakir Ram are police constables who have carried out instructions given to them by the investigating officer like assisting in the inquest and seizure, escorted dead body of the deceased to the mortuary and post mortem examination and carrying the sealed packet containing material objects to the FSL for chemical examination respectively.
PW8 Dr. Rahul Laspal and PW9 Dr. Devendra Singh Panchal are the two medical officers who have examined PW2 and PW3 the injured eye witnesses and conducted post mortem of the dead body of the deceased on police requisition, respectively.
In total three Sub Inspectors PW7 Rajendra Singh Bisht, PW13 Neeraj Bhakuni and PW14 Mohan Chandra 5 Pandey have taken part in the investigation of the case in different stages and also carried out certain important police functions like seizure of the material objects, arrest of the accused, examination of the witnesses etc. PW 15 Inspector Inder Singh Rana, has obtained sanction for prosecuting the appellant for the offence under the Arms Act and then submitted charge sheet against the appellant for the offence mentioned hereinabove.
5. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt on the ground that there is no motive to commit the alleged offence and that the appellant has not made any preparation for committing any such offence. He would further submits that there is few hours delay in lodging the FIR despite of the fact that reporting outpost is only 7 km away from the spot and the aforesaid criminal case has been initiated only due to bitter relationship between the family of the deceased and the appellant. He would further submit that the arrest has been shown on 18.05.2013 at 8:30 am., near Mehta Charitable Hospital, Rampur Road, Haldwani, which is a busy place but no public witness has been cited in the arrest memo and false recovery of licensee pistol of 0.32 bore has been shown from the appellant. Learned counsel would further submit that two bullets were collected from the body of the deceased under reference were stated to be of different 6 bore by the ballistic expert. In his report, the expert has reported that the bullets were of 0.30 inches and 7.62 mm bore, and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case, as reference licensed weapon of the appellant is 0.32 inches bore. He would further submit that evidences of the eye witnesses cannot be believed in view of the fact that PW8 Dr. Rahul Laspal did not find any gun shot injuries on the person of PW2 Nimrat Pal Singh and PW3 Kamaljeet Singh. He would further submit that Kripal Singh was the eye witness but he was not examined, therefore, the prosecution should be viewed with suspicion and the appellant should be acquitted of the offences for which he has been convicted.
Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Dy. Advocate General would submit that in this case the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in view of unimpeachable evidence of five eye witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. He would further submit that the evidence of the prosecution has definitely supported by the medical evidence in the sense that the deceased was found to have sustained a number of gun shot injuries which could have been caused by fire arm and that the ballistic report is not totally ruling out the case of the prosecution in view of the fact that the ballistic expert has reported that the fragmented bullets may be of 0.30 inches calibre. Moreover, the learned counsel for the State by referring to several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would submit that in cases when the arrest takes place 7 after substantial time of the actual incident then there may be statable probability that the accused has switched the weapon and in that case inconclusive ballistic report will not be taken as a weakness of the prosecution case. He further submitted that in case where eye witnesses are examined on behalf of the prosecution, whose evidence stands in a very high pedestal and supported by many attending evidence like medical report and also they being natural witness to the occurrence, the inconclusiveness of the ballistic report will not make the case of the prosecution suspect in any manner. He further pointed out that the learned counsel for the appellant made erroneous statement before the Court factually in view of the fact that PW8 Dr. Rahul Laspal, after examining the x-ray plate relating to PW3 Kamaljeet Singh that he could see the metallic shadow of oval shape present there which shows in all probability the slug or particles of a slug in the body of PW3 at the time of the x-ray which was found to be 5x2 mm in size. Therefore, the learned counsel for the State would submit that there is no merit in the criminal appeal and the appellant's conviction and sentence should be upheld by this Court.
The learned counsel for the complainant also supported the submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General. In a case where the prosecution alleges that the appellant has committed murder of the deceased by a fire arm then it is the duty of the Court to first assess the medical evidence available on record. If it is shown that the medical evidence is of sterling 8 quality and that the deceased has sustained fire arm injuries and has died because of that, then the Court should proceed to examine the other evidences available on record.
6. In this case it is not disputed by the defence that the dead body of the deceased Harjeet Singh was put to post mortem examination by PW9 Dr. Devendra Singh Panchal. His body was escorted by PW10 Constable Rajeev Kumar on being so commanded by the investigating officer. In course of post mortem examination held on 17.05.2013 at about 10 am., the Doctor found that the dead body of the deceased belong to a 45 years old male. He was also found rigor mortis on the dead body of the deceased. On further examination he found following injuries:-
(i) Entry wound oval shaped size 1.7x1.1 cm with averted colour radish brown colour present over the front side of the right side of chest 9dm below in the middle end of the clevical. The margin are inverted and perforating the track is directed to medially downward ad backward perforating the heart right aretrium fracture of streanum a foreign body in the form of distorted bullet recover at the 12th and 11th rib of left side.
(ii) Entry wound oval shaped size 1.8x1 cm radish brown colour in the medial aspect present at thesupra mammary area of the chest above the right nipple 3 cm diameter backward with the underline right lung lower lobe perforated and lacerated to the right 9 lobe of the lever and perforating to the intestine and metallic tan body with the form of distorted bullet recovered abdominal cavity near the vertebral column L2 and L3.
(iii) Entry wound .8cmx07cm circular shaped present at the lateral of the right arm 16 dm below the tip of the shoulder margins are averted and radish brown colour clotted blood present of the wound direction downward to inner aspect of the right arm.
(iv) Exit wound 3x2.5 cm oval shaped inner
aspect of the right arm 20 cm below the
shoulder margins are averted clotted blood present.
(v) Entry wound 1x.8 cm oblique shaped over the lateral aspect of the right arm 8 cm above the tip of the right elbow joint margins are inverted clotted blood present probing the track of wound formed the directed downward and madly coumuneted fracture of the both bone of forearm upper 1/3 multiple metallic residual of bullet recovered from the spot of safft of the right forearm.
(vi) Entry wound over shaped size 1x.8 cm radish brown colours dorso medial aspect of right hand 3.0 cm below the right of little finger. Margins are inverted aborted colour blood present in the entry.
(vii) Exit wound oval shaped size 2.5 x2 cm radish brown colour stalled shaped present at the lateral aspect of the right forearm 4.0 proximal to the wrist joint margins are averted clotted blood present coumuneted 10 fracture present below 1/3rd right forearm both bones.
7. He further stated on oath that all the seven injuries found caused by fire arm and could have been cause at about 10:30 pm., on 16.05.2013. He further opined that death of deceased is due to injury no. 1 and 2. He also found another injury of radish brown colour averted bruse size 1x1 cm present in the parastrenal area of the chest 5cm away from injury no.
1. He opined that said injury could have occasioned because of the fall of the deceased after receiving the bullet injuries. He has very specifically mentioned that death has been caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of perforating of heart and right lung and lacerated wound of no. 1 and 2. He proved post mortem report which has been marked d-30 (Ka 30). He has further opined that the injuries that were found on the dead body of the deceased could have caused by fire arm from a distance of 4 ft. or more. Thus, it is apparent from the evidence of this witness that there were in total five entry wounds on the dead body of the deceased and two exit wounds.
8. Though, emphasis has been put by Mr. Pundir, the learned counsel for the appellant to the fact that in case there are five entry wounds there should be five exit wounds, this Court is not impressed by such arguments. It is so because generally in a gun shot injury whether the bullet will pass through the body in its entirety would depend upon the calibre of the bullet, 11 the nature of the gun, whether it is long gun or short gun, and the portion to which the bullet hits. If after entry the bullet comes contact with a bony surface inside the body then in all probability a pistol bullet will not pass through the body in its entirety but in case of shot from a rifle the bullet would in most cases will pass through and there will be corresponding exit wound for every entry wound. However, in a case of side arm or hand gun such a situation is not always possible. Moreover, it is apparent from the record that Doctor has conducted post mortem examination, though he has been cross-examined at length but nothing substantial has been brought out from his mouth in the cross-examination that he has stated falsehood. Therefore, defence has not been able to dislodge the evidences of the Doctor that the deceased sustained five bullet wounds (excluding the two exit wounds) on his body and as a result of first two bullet wounds leading to shock haemorrhage because of the perforating of heart and right lung, he died, and, therefore, death of the deceased definitely was homicidal and it was caused by a fire arm.
9. As noted earlier, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the witnesses are not reliable mainly because of the fact they are relations of the deceased as well as there was strained relationship between deceased and the appellant. It is well settled principle of law merely because there is enmity between parties, i.e., deceased and the aggressor, the 12 evidences of eye witnesses cannot be thrown away. Indian Courts have always considered eye witness to be the best witness of occurrence that is alleged against the accused and unless there is very cogent reason to disbelieve evidences of these witnesses, these evidences should not be thrown away from consideration. Moreover, previous enmity or relationship of the witnesses with the deceased would not always mean their evidences have to be very carefully examined. True, in certain cases when there is group rivalry, there is tendency to implicate as many persons is possible in commission of the crime, a very careful scrutiny of the evidences of the witnesses who are in relationship of the deceased or injured is necessary but such is not the case here. In this case only one accused allegedly caused the death and all the eye witnesses, who deposed about the occurrence are natural witnesses of the occurrence, as they are resident of the house where occurrence took place. When the occurrence took place at late hour i.e. about 10:30 pm., in the night between two cousins whose houses are adjacent to each other it will be unreasonable on the part of the adjudicating court to insist on examination of independent witness as there could be no independent witness in such a place at late hour in the night. Moreover, Mr. Pundir, the learned counsel has not raised the question about the veracity of the witnesses examined as the eye witnesses by the prosecution in this case.
1310. PW2 Nimrat Pal Singh, who happens to be the informant in this case and also the injured eye witness has stated on oath that on 16.05.2013 at about 10:30 pm., the occurrence took place. At that time he and his cousin (ppsjs HkkbZ) Kamaljeet Singh were sitting in the courtyard on cot (pkjikbZ) his mother Smt. Ninder Kaur , aunt Smt. Manjeet Kaur and sister Gurvinder Kaur were preparing food in the kitchen. His uncle Kripal Singh was also present there. Deceased Harjeet Singh was watching TV in his room. He has further stated that the appellant was residing in the house which is adjacent to their house. There was a road behind the room of his father leading to the appellant house. On that day Kulwant Singh came in his car and started blowing horn near the window of the house of the deceased. On earlier occasion also the appellant has done so and for that there was altercation between them. On that day when the appellant started blowing horn near the window of the room of the deceased, the deceased came out and protested the same for which the appellant started abusing the deceased in a very filthy and obscene language. Thereafter deceased raised objection to the language used by the appellant and then the appellant took out his pistol like small arm and from the other side of the wall started firing on his father, as a result of such firing deceased sustained bleeding injuries and fell there. The complainant as well his nephew Kamaljeet Singh tried to save the deceased but they also sustained fire arm injury, thereafter, the appellant bent down to drop something or pickup 14 something from the ground and decamped from the spot.
The witness would further state on oath that after sustaining such injuries his father shifted for medical but on the way he died and brought back to the house. On the next day the matter was reported to the appellant and the police take up investigation of the case. d-9 (Ka 9) is the FIR which has been proved by PW2 and also PW11 who has scribed the same. This witness has also stated that the appellant could have fired upon his father from his licensee pistol or from illegal fire arm and the appellant also used to keep illegal weapon. This witness has been cross-examined and the defence has not pointed any material contradiction in the evidence of this witness with respect to his previous statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code.
11. We have carefully examined statement of PW2 Nimrat Pal Singh, PW3 Kamaljeet Singh, PW4 Smt. Ninder Kaur, PW5 Gurvinder Kaur and PW6 Smt. Manjeet Kaur. All of them happen to be relations of the deceased. There is no dispute regarding the same. These witnesses are the residents of the house where the occurrence took place. The occurrence took place at about 10:30 pm in the night so it is reasonably expected at that time inmates of the house will be present and it will be a pedantic approach to seek evidence of independent eye witness to the occurrence. It is also noted here that the evidence of these 15 witnesses have a ring of truth in it. There is no material contradiction in their evidences. Some minor or natural variations of facts are noticed in the evidences of these witnesses but such minor variations are natural. On the other hand if the evidences of all the witnesses were identical then the evidence would have become suspect to be made by rote. Natural or minor variations between the evidence of the witnesses are of no much consequence when substratum of the prosecution case is established beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution alleges that the appellant shot at the deceased from a close range i.e. about 4 ft., or little more distance and that the deceased sustained five bullet injuries stated to have been caused by fire arm which led to his death, in such a situation the prosecution case cannot be viewed with suspicion. True, it is admitted by the prosecution that there was some bitterness between the deceased and the appellant and for that reason the defence has suggested all these witnesses are deposed falsehood, implicating the appellant in the offence which he has not committed. Such argument is fallacious and is also against the tenor of natural conduct of persons whose near and dear has lost his life because of the offence committed against him. A close relation would never come to the Court and deposed falsehood and implicated a person in the commission of crime and thereby protecting the real offender from legitimate punishment. Bitterness in relationship may sometime lead to a false accusation but in many cases such 16 bitterness in relations also provide motive for commission of the crime.
In this case the appellant and deceased are first cousins. The appellant is the son of the maternal uncle of the deceased. There appears to be bitterness between them because of some petty quarrel regarding unnecessary blowing of horn near the window of the deceased. In totality, the entire evidence is scanned and, we find that all these witnesses are not only natural witnesses, they are also consistent in their version about the complicity of the appellant in commission of the crime and that their evidences does not suffer from any material and substantial contradiction and are also supported by the medical evidence available in the shape of evidence of PW9 Dr. Devendra Singh Panchapl and the contents of the post mortem examination i.e. d-30 (ka 30).
12. The other substantial question that has been raised in this case by the learned counsel for the appellant is the result of the forensic/ ballistic examination by the scientific officer which appears at page 64 of the paper book, which is part of Ex. Ka 41. He has stated that bullet pieces under reference seem to be parts of two bullets. On thorough examination and comparison with standard data he came to a conclusion that the bullets under reference may be of 0.30/7.62 mm bore. Firstly, it is noted that the bullets in whole was not recovered. The fragments of the bullets were recovered and secondly the ballistic expert 17 has stated that it may be of 0.30 inches/7.62 mm bore. He has not made definite opinion about the same. Thus, it cannot be said that the ballistic expert opinion rules out any possibility that fire arm seized from the appellant was not used in the commission of the offence. Moreover, in the case of Gulab vs. State of U.P., (2021)SCC online SC 1211 and Gurcharan vs. State of Punjab, (1963) 3 SCR 585, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ballistic report, if it is inconclusive will not make case of the prosecution disbelievable, when there is unimpeachable version of the witnesses of the occurrence.
14. Moreover, it is also apparent from the record that the occurrence took place in the night of 16.05.2013 and the appellant was arrested on 18.05.2013. The appellant was arrested after almost two days of the occurrence which would have enabled the appellant to switch his fire arm. Moreover, this view is supported by the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Mohan Rai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2017) 4 SCC 161 wherein dealing with the similar question, the Hon'ble Court has held as follows:-
"20. P.W. 6 made recovery of three khokha kartoos 0.32 bore in the presence of Bahadur and Krishna Kumar Singh. Evidently, there is no positive report from the ballistic expert and the report does not confirm that the shots were fired from the weapon that was recovered.
21. Apparently the police recovered a licensed gun from the accused Imran Afreen while he was boarding a train and the ballistic report showed that the licensed gun was not used for the killing. This means that the Police did not recover the actual 18 weapon used for the killing and the accused had ample time to dispose off the weapon. It is however not possible to reject the credible ocular evidence of the eyewitness who witnessed the shooting and who are found be truthful.
22. It is possible that the prosecution may not recover the actual weapon in some cases. However, this cannot have the effect of discrediting reliable ocular testimony as we have here that the accused shot and killed the deceased, particularly when the lead bullets have been recovered and are found belonging to a commonly used 7.65 m.m. caliber i.e. .32 bore weapon.
23. In Anvaruddin vs. Shakoor, (1990) 3 SCC 266, this Court considered the effect of obscure and oscillating evidence of the ballistic expert. The Court observed that: (SCC p. 273, para 10) "10.....In this nebulous state of the evidence of the ballistic expert we are of the view that the High Court was wholly wrong in doubting the direct evidence of the three eye- witnesses on this ground. Where the expert evidence is obscure and oscillating, it is not proper to discredit the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses on such uncertain evidence. In such a situation unless the evidence of the eye-witnesses is shaken by some glaring infirmities, it would not be proper to doubt the correctness of their statements...."
24. In the case of Brijpal Singh vs. State of M.P. (2003) 11 SCC 219, this Court observed that there was reliable ocular evidence of the accused having shot the deceased. However, the ballistic expert as in this case reported that though both the guns were found to have been discharged recently, the empty cartridges that were seized from the spot did not match the rifle that was recovered. This Court observed that normally, if the eyewitness's evidence is absolutely acceptable, then such evidence could be accepted even if there is some contradiction in the medical or ballistics reports. However, the oral evidence was not found acceptable in this case. In contrast, we find the oral evidence in the present case, particularly that of P.W. 1, to be completely acceptable and truthful. There is no iota of evidence on record which would suggest any motive on his part to falsely implicate the accused. We might add that there is no evidence as argued by 19 the learned counsel for the respondent, that the police conspired to frame the accused who was a congress leader and had protested against police high handedness.
25. In a different context, this Court in Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Ors (2013) 15 SCC 298, observed that in case there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence, the law is that though the ocular testimony of the eye witness has greater evidentiary value vis- à-vis medical evidence, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all the possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. In the present case, the expert evidence to the effect that the empty cartridges which were found on the spot were not fired from the weapon that was recovered, does not really create a contradiction with the ocular evidence of P.W. 1 that the accused fired at the deceased with a gun and killed him. It so happens that the gun recovered by the police, turns out to be the gun that was not used. This creates no contradiction between the evidence of P.W. 1 and the ballistics report though broadly it may amount to a contradiction in the prosecution case.
26. In this case, the ballistics report need not be rejected as untrue; it simply states that the empty cartridges found at the scene of the crime were not fired from the gun recovered from the accused. But this had no bearing on the credibility of the deposition of P.W. 1 that the accused shot the deceased with a gun, particularly as it is corroborated by the bullets in the body. In this case we find it safe to accept the evidence of Himanshu Mohan Rai and disregard the apparent contradictions. We might add that the fact that accused shot the deceased with a gun is also corroborated by the testimony of P.W. 2.
15. Another aspect regarding the use of fire arm and the calibre of the same also requires consideration i.e. PW7 S.I. Rajendra Singh Bisht on the first instance examined the spot and during his search he found near the house of the deceased, on the other side of the 20 fence, i.e., in the side of the appellant's premises an empty cartridge which was seized in the presence of the witnesses and the said cartridges was also forwarded to forensic examination which reveals that such empty cartridges was also found to be of 0.30 inches/7.60 mm bore which only supports the case of the prosecution. Moreover, in this case there is no dispute from the side of the defence that occurrence took place inside the residence of deceased where he and his family members were residing. The investigating agency has also objectively determined the spot.
15. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and, therefore, there is no need to set aside the conviction recorded by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge in this case. Though, there is no motive in this case specifically pleaded by the prosecution, it is clear that because of the bitter relationship the occurrence took place but it cannot be said that appellant has not committed offence of murder or that he has committed offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as he has fired at the deceased and the deceased was stuck with five bullets in his body leading to his death. Thus, we are of the opinion that this is a clear case of murder requiring no interference in any manner whatsoever.
2116. Thus in the result the appeal does not succeed and same is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
17. TCRs be sent back.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) (Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.) PV 22