Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar Sharma @ Guddu & Others vs State Of U.P. on 6 February, 2013
Author: Rakesh Tiwari
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari, Anil Kumar Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1074 of 2009
Ashok Kumar Sharma and three others............ ...Appellants
versus
State of Uttar Pradesh........................................ ...Respondent
Counsel for the appellants :- ...Sri Apul Mishra and Sri B.D. Sharma
Counsel for the respondent:- Sri R.Y. Pandey, A.G.A. assisted by Sri S.A. Murtaza, Brief Holder.
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.
( Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.) Heard Sri Apul Mishra, Sri B.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri R.Y. Pandey, learned AGA assisted by Sri S.A. Murtaza, Brief holder for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.2.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 6, Pilibhit in S.T. Nos. 457 of 2002, State Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma alias Guddu and others, 458 of 2002, State Vs. Navneet alias Bhurey and 459 of 2002, State Vs. Ashok Kumar alias Guddu, by which the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/ 34, 307/34 IPC and section 25, Arms Act and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- each under Section 302/34 IPC, ten years' RI with fine of Rs. 2000/- each under section 307/34 IPC with default stipulations and two years' RI with fine of Rs. 1000/- to appellants Navneet alias Bhurey and Ashok Kumar Sharma, under section 25, Arms Act with default stipulation. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
This criminal appeal has been preferred on the ground that conviction and sentence of the appellants is against the weight of evidence on record and law; that trial court has failed to give due weight to the circumstances that nature of the injuries render the use of rifle doubtful in this case; that charge under section 307 is doubtful and not sustainable in as much as no one had sustained any injury except the deceased ; that presence of the witnesses appears to be highly doubtful in the facts and circumstances of the case; that in the absence of the independent witnesses having been examined, no reliance should have been placed on the testimony of witnesses produced by the prosecution; that in any case, number of injuries found on the body of the deceased is inconsistent with the number of assailants having taken part in the incident and the appellants who are innocent, have been falsely implicated and that prosecution evidence is not consistent with the medical evidence , hence no reliance should have been placed on the statement of the witnesses and that sentence awarded to the appellants is too severe.
The prosecution story is that a written report was submitted by complainant Dinesh Kumar Sharma alias Dinnu son of Mewaram on 21.3.2000 at about at 7 P.M. at police station Diuaria Kalan, district Pilibhit, to the effect that a court case was pending between Ashok Kumar Sharma alias Guddu and others with his Bua Smt. Santosh, regarding agricultural land, in which father of the complainant had given evidence in favour of Smt. Santosh, due to which Ashok Kumar Sharma and his family bears enmity with them; that today i.e. on 21.3.2000 in the evening when complainant alongwith his cousin Ram Dev son of Sri Dev Dutt Sharma was in village Pakaria and wanted to listen a cassette of their choice in place of an obscene cassette being run at the instance of Chandra Prabhakar alias Sukanto, elder brother of Ashok Kumar Sharma, tension was created. Sudhakar Sharma, brother of Chandra Prabhakar alias Sukanto, who was also present there, went and complained to accused appellant Ashok Kumar Sharma about it, whereupon Ashok Kumar Sharma and others with common intention hid themselves near culvert. At about 6 P.M. when the complainant alongwith his brother Ram Deo was returning to their village and reached the culvert, they were met by Ashok Kumar Sharma armed with single barrel gun, his elder brother Rakesh Kumar alias Pappu armed with rifle, Sudhakar Sharma armed with double barrel licensed gun and their nephew Navneet son of Chandra Prabhakar armed with country made pistol. Then Sudhakar Sharma exhorted to surround them. Realising the danger, the complainant ran to save his life towards his house shouting for help and the aforesaid accused persons fired upon him with intention to kill but missed. On hearing report of the gun fire, Mewa Ram, father of the complainant alongwith elder brother Rajendra came towards the spot and were again fired upon by the aforesaid four assailants, as a result of which his father and Rajendra were seriously injured and fell down near the Pakar tree. Mewa Ram died on the spot. A shot grazing left side stomach of the complainant had exited from his clothes without causing any injury to him. The incident was said to have been witnessed by Rajendra Prasad son of Umashanker Sharma and Smt. Bhagwanna Devi wife of Mool Chandra, who were resident of the village.
On the basis of the written report, G.D. entry was made and first information report was registered at case crime no. 49 of 2000, under section 307/302 IPC against the appellants. The incident aforesaid took place on 21.3.2000 at about 6 P.M. and F.I.R. of the incident was lodged on the same day at about 7 P.M. in police station Deoria Kalan, district Pilibhit at serial no. 29/2000.
The investigation of the case was taken over by S.H.O. V.S. Rana, who recovered empty cartridges and Tikli, plain and blood stained earth from the place of incident. He also examined injured eye witness.
Raju aged about 20 years son of Sri Navin Kumar Sharma, resident of village Lalaula, P.S. Deoria Kalan, Pilibhit was also medically examined on 21.2.2000 at 11.55 P.M. He was brought by CP 399 Laxman Prasad of police station aforesaid alongwith "Chiththi Majrubi" for medical examination. He has sustained the following injuries :
^^ 1- vusdksa fNns gq, ?kko lhus ds cka;h o ihNs dh vksj] tks fd la[;k esa yxHkx 15 Fks vkSj 12 x 12 ls0eh0 ds {ks= esa QSys gq, FksA 2- vusdksa fNns gq, ?kko nkfguh Hkqtk esa ckgj dh rjQ la[;k esa 1-6 FksA 12 x 12 ls0eh0 ds {ks= esa QSys gq, FksA 3- ,d fNnk gqvk ?kko xnZu esa cka;h vksj uhps dh rjQA 4- ,d fNnk gqvk ?kko fupys gksaB esa chp esaA 5- rhu fNns gq, ?kko nka;h vksj ihV esa ihNs dh rjQA^^ Postmortem examination on the cadaver of deceased Mewa Ram was conducted on 22.3.2000 at 3.30 P.M.. Body of the deceased was brought in sealed cover by CP 75 Sri Ishwari Prasad and CP 429 Sri Vishnu Pal Singh. According to the postmortem report, the deceased was 62 years old and had died one day earlier. He was average built with muscularity , rigor mortis was present in both upper and lower extremities. The doctor reported ante mortem injuries on the body of deceased thus :
1. Firearm wound of entry 7 cm x 5 cm x bone deep present on dorsolateral aspect of left hand, wound oval in shape, margins lacerated and inverted underlying. I and IInd meta carpal bone fractured.
2. Firearm wound of entry 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep present on anti-medial aspect of left upper arm 3 cm above left elbow joint, wound margins lacerated and inverted. Above wound is surrounded by multiple small wounds in the area 6 cm x 4 cm. Maximum wound size 0.3 cm x 0.2 cm, minimum size 0.2 cm x 0.1 cm. One cork piece, one gatta piece and ten pellets recovered from the wound.
3. Multiple firearm wound of entry (pellets) present on left side of chest in the area 15 cm x 10 cm in size 8 cm below left clavicle as noted above, maximum size 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm, minimum size 0.2 cm x 0.1 cm, 4th and 5th rib fractured, five pellets recovered from heart and forehead. The pleura was found lacerated at multiple places.
In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries.
Recovery of SBBL gun was made by the police on 22.3.2000 from accused Ashok and country made pistol was recovered from personal search of accused Navneet. The DBBL gun alleged to have been used in the offence by Sudhakar Sharma was surrendered at the police station by Bhuvan Diwakar on 24.3.2000.
After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused appellants and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges under sections 307/34, 302/34 IPC and section 25, Arms Act, were framed against the accused appellants which they denied and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution in support of its case produced nine witnesses namely P.W.1 Dinesh Kumar Sharma, P.W. 2 K.P. Singh, P.W.3 Dr. P.K. Mishra, P.W.4 Rajendra Prasad, injured witness, P.W. 5 Member Singh, P.W.6 Dr. Shiv Singh, P.W. 7 Dr. K.N. Tiwari, P.W. 9 V.S. Rana and P.W. 9 P.L. Shakya.
P.W.-1 Dinesh Kumar Sharma is the first informant of the case, P.W.2 K.P. Singh has registered the case on the basis of written report of the complainant, P.W.3 Dr. P.K. Mishra had medically examined injured Raju alias Rajendra and proved the injury report. P.W.4 Raju alias Rajendra Prasad is the injured witness in this case. P.W.-5 Member Singh is the scribe of case under Arms Act against accused appellant Ashok Kumar Singh and Navneet Sharma. P.W. 6 Dr. Shiv Singh conducted the postmortem examination on the body of deceased Mewa Ram and he proved the postmortem report. P.W. 7 Dr. K.N. Tiwari had conducted X ray of the injuries of injured Raju. P.W. 8 V.S. Rana is the investigating officer of the case while P.W. 9 P.L. Shakya is the I.O of cases under the Arms Act, In their statement under section 313, Cr.P.C., the accused appellants stated that witnesses have given false evidence on account of enmity. They also produced D.W.-1 Mahendra, D.W.2 Rajendra, D.W. 3 Ram Deo and D.W. 4 Ram Asrey Pandey in support of their defence plea.
After consideration of the evidence and materials on record and hearing counsel for the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellants and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated earlier.
Sri Apul Mishra, counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment and order has submitted the following points for consideration:
(A) Even though P.W.-1 Dinesh Kumar, the first informant is alleged to have been fired upon yet he did not sustain even a single injury. In order to justify that he was fired upon he stated that gun shot fire did not actually hit him but grazing his body exited from his clothes and that although the incident is said to have taken place on 21.3.2000, the complainant had given his clothes to the investigating officer on 23.3.2000, through memo Ex. Ka-5. It is stated that it is apparent from perusal of recovery memo Ex. Ka-5 that blackening was found on the clothes, meaning thereby that shot must have been fired from very close range, yet the complainant did not sustain even a scratch. According to the counsel, the clothes had been planted later on with a view to create evidence.
(B) Motive suggested and disclosed by Dinesh Kumar P.W.1 is that a litigation between Ashok Kumar on one hand with his step Bua Smt. Santosh on the other over some land, was going on in which his father Mewa Ram had given evidence against the accused. But P.W. 1 has admitted in his cross examination that he had no enmity with the accused and the litigation about which he referred was going on for last 40 - 45 years. From this statement it will also appear that the complainant and his father had other enemies as well. Thus, motive in the present case was neither strong nor any reliable evidence has been led in support thereof. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of Dinesh Kumar P.W. 1, the first informant for the reason that immediate motive suggested by him is not corroborated by any evidence, on the other hand the defence witnesses have clearly contradicted his version.
(C) Once the presence of P.W. 1 Dinesh Kumar at the scene of occurrence who is also the first informant, becomes doubtful, it may reasonably be concluded that it cannot be said as to what was the real incident, how it happened and at what time? Particularly when only Raju alias Rajendra Prasad another son of the deceased, is the only other witness to support him. It is true that there is an injured witness in the present case i.e. Raju alias Rajendra Prasad P.W. 4 but mere presence of injury is proof of his presence and not necessarily of reliability.
(D) If testimony of Raju alias Rajendra Prasad P.W. 4 is examined, an important question would arise as to whether his injuries have really been proved in the present case. Since his medical took place at 11.55 P.M. on 21.3.2000 a reasonable probability cannot be ruled out that the incident took place much later than the time alleged.
(E) Injury of Raju alias Rajendra Prasad is alleged to have been proved by Dr. P.K. Mishra P.W. 3, who in his statement stated that injuries of the injured appeared to be of simple in nature. All the injuries appeared to have been fired from a distance of 20- 25 yards and they were gun shot pellet injuries. He admitted that he did not personally know the injured. Significantly the injured was not present in the court nor the doctor identified that he had examined P.W. 4 Raju alias Rajendra Prasad, thus legally injuries of P.W. 4 Rajendra Prasad have not been proved.
(F) The prosecution case also does not appear to be consistent with the medical evidence. In this connection, it is submitted that all the three gun shot injuries of deceased Mewa Ram appear to have been caused only by 12 bore weapon using gun shot pellets no rifle injury was found on his person. Furthermore all his injuries were found on the left side of the body suggesting that they were caused because of spread of pellets. In this connection according to the prosecution case vide statement of P.W. 4 Rajendra Prasad, the accused were firing from a distance of 3 or 4 paces. Moreover, wad and cork were recovered from the injuries by Dr. Shiv Singh P.W. 6 which suggests that firing must have been done from a close range and from the nature of injuries , following inferences can be drawn, (a) total absence of rifle injury on the person of the deceased, (b) considering the spread and firing from such a close range it is more probable that the injuries were caused by a single weapon, and (c) according to the report of ballistic expert all the 25 led pellets were of similar weight and size, so there is greater probability that the deceased sustained a solitary gun shot injury caused by a 12 bore weapon only.
(G) According to the prosecution case, most of the weapons carried by the accused were licensed weapons but empty cartridges of 12 bore weapon were recovered at the scene of occurrence. However as per report of the ballistic expert none of the empties recovered from the place of occurrence were fired with the weapons recovered from the accused persons and this also lends support to the defence case that the accused are innocent and the prosecution case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(H) The case of accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma is distinguishable from from the rest of accused persons. Appellants Ashok Kumar Sharma, Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Sudhakar Sharma are real brothers while accused Navneet alias Bhurey is their nephew. Thus, all the close relations have been implicated even though lesser number of accused may have participated and the prosecution case has been exaggerated. Appellant Rakesh Kumar Sharma is alleged to have been armed with licensed rifle of his father. There is complete absence of use of rifle in this incident inasmuchas neither the deceased nor the injured P.W. 3 Raju alias Rajendra Prasad sustained any rifle injury. Furthermore, no empty cartridge of rifle or any bullet was recovered at the scene of occurrence.
It is argued that even if the statement of P.W.-1 Dinesh Kumar Sharma alias Dinnu is accepted that he was fired at and instead of receiving injury on his body his clothes were torn by the shot, it will be noticed that in his statement he has stated that only Ashok Kumar Sharma fired at him on the instigation of Sudhakar Sharma and no allegation has been made that accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma opened fire, and moreover even if there may have been a common intention to assault P.W. 1 Dinesh Kumar while the deceased Mewa Ram and his son Raju alias Rajendra Prasad came later to intervene were fired upon by some accused which may be their individual action and that in the absence of the identity of that assailant being fixed, the accused can only be held guilty for offence under section 326/34 IPC and not 302/34 IPC.
Sri B.D. Sharma, appearing for the appellants alongwith Sri Apul Mishra, submits that there is contradiction in the statement of P.W.1. In this connection, he has placed the following portions of statement and that of cross examination of P.W.-1 and submits that it is contrary to each other:
"rc v'kksd us esjs Åij tku ls ekj nsus ds fy, Qk;j fd;k"
Cross examination :
"eSa viuh rgjhj esa eqyfteku us Qk;j fd;s fy[kk gS ysfdu Qk;j ,d gh gqvk Fkk lq/kkdj 'kekZ us fd;k Fkk! Qk;j ,d gksus okyh ckr lgh gS! rgjhj esa eSaus ;g fy[k dj fn;k fd lc yksxksa us Qk;j fd;k Fkk ysfdu lgh ;g gS fd Qk;j flQZ lq/kkdj us fd;k Fkk! iz'u& ;g ckr rgjhj esa xyr fy[kh gS fd lHkh mDr eqyfteku us esjs Åij tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls Qk;j fd;s] ftlls eSa cky&2 cp x;k!"
mRrj& esjs Åij Qk;j lq/kkdj us fd;k ! He further states that no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution. Rajendra Prasad and Bhagwanna Devi who have been named in the F.I.R. as witnesses have not been produced by the prosecution rather Rajendra has been produced by the defence as D.W.-2. The complainant P.W.1 in his cross examination has clearly stated that he does not want Ram Dev and Rajendra to give evidence on his behalf, and further that there are two witnesses by name of Rajendra in this case, one is his brother and the other is Rajendra alias Uma Shanker whom he does not want to produce. The counsel then states that it is apparent from examination in chief of P.W. 1 that blood stained Baniyan etc. were recovered by the I.O. after seven days. He has also referred to the evidence of D.W.-4 wherein Ram Asrey Pandey, D.W. 4, Joint Director, Forensic Lab, in his cross examination has stated that Tikli and pellets sent in his lab for examination appear to have been fired by 12 bore firearm.
Sri R.Y. Pandey, learned A.G.A. assisted by S.A. Mutaza, Brief Holder, submitted that time, place of the incident has been fixed by the FIR and is corroborated by the site plan. According to him, the F.I.R. is not ante timed as copy of it had been immediately given to the complainant which is evident from the statement.
It is submitted that it appears from the statement of P.W. 6 Dr. K.N. Tiwari that no question was put to him in the cross examination as to whether injury no. 1 could not have been caused by the rifle as alleged by the appellants' counsel. Motive in this case would not be relevant as there are eye witnesses to the incident who have deposed against the accused appellants narrating the manner in which the incident had taken place causing death of Mewa Ram. It is stated that inquest was conducted on the same day on which the incident had taken place at 8 P.M. and continued till 10 P.M. Sri S.A. Murtaza, Brief Holder, assisting the A.G.A. submitted that from the side of prosecution, nine witnesses were examined, all of them have stated the prosecution version, and the statement of those prosecution witnesses are not in conflict except minor inconsistencies which are not fatal for the prosecution. He further states that statement of the witnesses were recorded after six years of the incident, therefore, minor inconsistencies if any in the statements of the witnesses which are said to have crept in, are very much natural. The defence has examined four witnesses. D.W.-2 namely Rajendra was examined. In his cross examination he has admitted the time and place of the incident which is also evident and corroborated by the site plan prepared by the I.O and that as regards injury no. 1 found on the body of the deceased being attributed to be a rifle injury is concerned, the doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased was not cross examined by the defence on this point, and as such the argument of the counsel for the appellants cannot be considered at this stage.
It is next submitted by Sri Murtaza that motive and enmity between the parties is deep rooted in the heart and mind of the assailants. The civil/revenue case which is said to have been initiated about 45 years ago was pending on the date of the aforesaid incident. Moreover, on the date of the incident the altercation took place between the parties for running audio cassette of their choices. According to him, role of firing has been assigned to each of the accused in the prosecution evidence and all the incriminating materials were put before them in statement under section 313, Cr.P.C. but they have not led any satisfactory evidence to contradict it, hence the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that appellants were charged that on 21.3.2000 at 6 P.M. at village Lamauwa, P.S. Deoria Kalan, Pilibhit they armed with firearms in furtherance of and common intention fired at Dinesh Kumar Sharma alias Dinnu, his father Mewa Ram and elder brother Rajendra Prasad with an intention to kill them and thereby committed offence punishable under section 307/34 IPC. They were further charged that in furtherance of their common intention they committed murder of Mewa Ram thereby committed an offence under section 302/34 IPC. Appellant no. 1 Ashok Kumar Sharma alias Guddu and Navneet alias Bhurey were further charged of offence under section 25, Arms Act for being found in possession of unlicensed gun and country made pistol respectively. From the F.I.R. it appears that as a result of firing Mewa Ram died on the spot while Rajendra Prasad P.W. 4 sustained gun shot injuries. F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Dinesh Kumar P.W. 1 at police station Diuaria Kalan situated at a distance of two kilometer from the place of incident on 21.3.2000 at 7.00 P.M. After registration of the case, the police reached at the scene of incident on a jeep and carried injured Rajendra Prasad alias Raju P.W. 4 to P.H.C. Diuaria Kalan but there the doctor was not available hence he was referred to District Hospital, Pilibhit. Injuries of P.W.-4 Raju alias Rajendra Prasad were medically examined on 21.3.2000 at 11.55 P.M. by doctor P.K. Mishra P.W. 3, who found gun shot injury on his person. Dr. K.N. Tiwari P.W. 7 x- rayed the injuries of P.W.-4 Rajendra Prasad and found gun shot injury and confirmed raio opaque shadow of metallic density. Postmortem examination on the body of deceased Mewa Ram was conducted by Dr. Shiv Singh P.W. 6 on 22.3.2000 at 3.30 P.M. and gun shot injuries three in number consisting of multiple pellet injuries all on the left side of the body of the deceased, were found and on internal examination a cork, wad and 25 pellets were recovered.
The first and foremost question which arises in such cases is motive . It is settled that motive is locked in the heart and mind of the accused which had to be brought out by the prosecution by cogent evidence. However, there is exception to this which is that where there are eye witnesses to an incident, motive is irrelevant and pales into insignificance. In such type of cases, the incident is to be proved by the eye witnesses by their statement before the court and prosecution by its investigation, medical and documentary evidence. In the instant case, eye witnesses have proved the incident of murder of Mewa Ram and injuries to Raju, brother of the complainant who had been medically examined and whose injury report is also on record. The postmortem report of the deceased and injury report of injured P.W. 4 also prove that the incident in question had taken place in which Mewa Ram (since deceased) as well as injured Raju had received firearm injuries and thus the medical evidence supports the prosecution version.
In our opinion, the contradictions pointed out by the counsel for the appellants are not such which may be fatal to the prosecution case for the reason that ante mortem injuries, medical report and site plan, clearly establish the manner of assault by the accused persons on Mewa Ram, and his son who was injured when fire was opened upon them, as a result of which Mewa Ram died. They had come towards the place of occurrence on hearing the cry for help by Dinesh Kumar and were opened fire by the appellants. It may be due to enmity with regard to the litigation in the minds of the accused persons or they may be harboring some grudge on that or any other score. But the facts germane to this incident are that quarrel had started over an obscene cassette being run by the appellants which the complainant wanted to get changed by a cassette of his choice.
In our considered opinion, the testimony of P.W. 1 Dinesh Kumar, first informant is reliable as he has stood the test of cross examination unflinchingly. For application of section 307 IPC it is not at all necessary that injuries should be caused by a weapon and an attempt on life made is sufficient. From the FIR, the motive appears on surface that there was a litigation in which father of the deceased had been a witness against the accused appellants. Merely because the complainant had not received any injury would not be sufficient to say that the incident had not taken place at all particularly when father of the complainant died in the incident, his brother Raju sustained firearm injuries and a shot went through and through the clothes he was wearing. It is a misconceived argument of the learned counsel for appellant that there was no eye witness. In fact, apart from P.W. 1, Rajendra Prasad P.W. 4 was also an injured eye witness who has received gun shot injuries in the firing. The FIR lodged by Dinesh Kumar P.W. 1 has been proved by P.W. 2 SI K.P. Singh. Recovery of 12 cartridges and corresponding country made pistol has also been proved by P.W. 5 Constable Member Singh, for which case crime no. 51 and 52 of 2000, under section 25, Arms Act, were registered against Ashok Kumar Sharma and Navneet Sharma alias Bhurey respectively. P.W.8 IO V.S. Rana has also proved the recovery of empty cartridges near body of the deceased and preparation of recovery memo in presence of the witnesses. He also recovered TABAL ( axe) from near body of the deceased. P.W.9 P.L. Shakya has investigated the case under section 25, Arms Act and the remaining formal witnesses P.W. 6 Dr. Shiv Singh and P.W.7 Dr. K.N. Tiwari have proved the injuries on the body of injured Raju as well as on the cadaver of the deceased.
The decision rendered by the Apex Court in Jalpat Rai and others Vs. State of Haryana ( 2012) 3 SCC (Crl.)-1285, placed before us does not support the appellants. The judgment emphasis need for corroboration of evidence of interested/partisan witness from collateral or surrounding circumstances. It has also been held in the aforesaid case that there cannot be a rule of universal application that if the eye witnesses to the incident are interested and /or are deposed inimically towards the accused persons, there should be corroboration of their evidence. The evidence of eye witnesses irrespective of their interestedness, kinship, standing or enmity with the accused, if found credible and of such a calibre as to be regarded as wholly reliable, could be sufficient and enough to bring home the guilt of the accused.
As we have observed earlier that trial court in the present case has found the evidence of prosecution witnesses trustworthy which we also endorse in view of our findings recorded above, therefore, in our view the accused appellants have rightly been found guilty on the basis of reliable ocular evidence. Recovery of arms having been made from the accused and at their pointing out from their houses which is not accessible to all and sundry. The oral evidence finds full corroboration from the medical evidence and the attending circumstances which nail the guilt at the accused.
For all the reasons stated above, we uphold the judgment and order passed by the trial court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Let a certified copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned forthwith for its compliance which should be reported to this Court within two months.
.................Hon. Rakesh Tiwari, J.
.........................Hon. Anil Kumar Sharma,J.
Dated: February 6, 2013 SNT