IMPORTANT POINT
When prosecution relies upon the evidence of the eye witnesses to prove the incident, motive assumes a secondary role.

JUDGMENT

S. P. Kurdukar, J.-This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants (accused) challenging the legality and correctness of the order of conviction and sentence dated 12.4.1989 in Sessions Case No. 77 of 1986 passed by the Designated Court under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 6(1) of the Terrorist and Distruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (for short TADA ).

2. The prosecution case may be briefly summarised as under :-

On 7.7.1986 at about 7.00 a.m., Rajinder (PW 5) and his uncle Kishan Lal (PW 6) were coming out of the house of the latter in order to go to their fields. When they came out of the house, they noticed Jai Kishan (A-2) was armed with a gun and standing by the side of Panchayat Ghar. Rai Singh (A-3) was standing there with a 12 bore pistol. Bhagirath (A-1) was standing behind the bitora with a DBBL gun near the Panchayat Ghar. It is alleged by the prosecution that they gave lalkara to Rajinder (PW 5) and Kishan Lal (PW 6) to stop and they would teach a lesson for filing the criminal appeal against them. Immediately, thereafter all the accused stretched their weapons towards Rajinder (PW 5) and Kishan Lal (PW 6). They raised a shout whereupon Partap came out of his house. At that time, Jai Kishan (A-2) fired from his gun a shot hitting Rajinder (PW 5) on the front side of his right shoulder. Bhagirath (A-1) fired a shot from his gun at Kishan Lal (PW 6) hitting him on his right thigh. Rai Singh (A-3) also fired from his pistol. Due to gun shot injuries, Rajinder (PW 5) and Kishan Lal (PW 6) fell down in front of the door. Partap raised a raula upon which all the three accused fled away to their houses with their weapons. Partap also fired two shots in the air from the gun of Rajinder (PW 5) with a view to save the injured persons from further assault. The injured were then taken to Fatehabad hospital for medical treatment. A ruqqa Ex-PC was sent to the Police Station alongwith copies of M.L.R.s at about 10.00 a.m. Inspector Jai Narain, SHO (PW 8) attached to Fatehabad Police Station reached the hospital and after obtaining the opinion of Dr. R.S. Bishnoi (PW 1) about the condition of the injured persons recorded the statement of Rajinder (Ex.PH). Jai Narain, SHO (PW 8) forwarded the said statement to the Police Station on which formal FIR Ex.PH/1 was recorded in Police Station, Fatehabad. Statement of Kishan Lal (PW 6) was also recorded. Jai Narain, SHO (PW 8) then recorded the statements of various persons and seized the boold stain clothes of the injured. On 10.7.1986, Bhagirath (A-1) was arrested and the licenced DBBL gun (Ex.P5) was recorded from his possession with two live cartridges. His arms licence (Ex.P4) was also recovered. After completing the necessary investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against all the appellants for offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act and also under Section 6(1) of TADA. The Designated Court found that a prima facie case was made out against the appellants under Section 307/34 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act and also under Section 6(1) of TADA.

3. The appellants denied the charge and claimed that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They further stated that the complainant party bore a grudge and enmity against them and, therefore, they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. They prayed that they be acquitted.

4. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of two injured persons, namely, Rajinder (PW 5) and Kishan Lal (PW 6) in addition to the evidence of Dr. R.S. Bishnoi (PW 1) who issued the injury certificates in respect of injuries to these two injured persons.

5. The Trial Court after examining the materials on record and after careful perusal of the evidence of Rajinder (PW 5) and Kishan Lal (PW 6) found the appellants guilty of offences for which they wer