JUDGMENT

S.P. Kurdukar, J.-Two separate trials arising out of an incident which took place during the intervening night between 6/7th April, 1986 ended in convictions and sentences against the appellant-accused under Sections 307 and 393 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. The impugned judgments and orders dated 15th April, 1987 and 9th February, 1989 respectively are passed by Designated Court, Faridabad at Gurgaon in case Nos. 80 and 81. Although, the Designated Court has given two separate judgments, however, these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The prosecution case, in brief is as under :-

At about 3.30/4.00 a.m.on 7th April, 1986, Padam Singh-the complainant (PW 4) was in his room. An electric light was on. He noticed a person running by the side of his room whom he recognised as Rehmat, the brother-in-law of Ashraf resident of village Bichhor. The complainant suspected some mischief having been done by Rehmat and, therefore, he chased him for about three killas. Rehmat realising that he would be caught by the complainant, turned back and opened a fire from his country made pistol which caused an injury on complainant s right leg. The complainant grappled with the appellant. In the meantime, Vijay Singh, Hari Singh and Fateh Ram (Sarpanch) reached at the spot and apprehended the appellant alongwith a country made pistol of 12 bore with a belt having six cartridges. The complainant further alleged that a few hours before the incident he had seen Jumma and Suraj alongwith the appellant in the locality where his house is situated. It is alleged that while overpowering the appellant, he had received injuries. The complainant was then removed to Primary Health Centre, Punhana, where he was medically examined. A ruqqa was sent to the Police Station for appropriate action. Nafe Singh, S.I. reached at the hospital and recorded his statement (Ex.PD). A formal FIR (Ex.PG/4) came to be registered. Nafe Singh, S.I. then went to the place of occurrence at Bichhor where the appellant was produced by Fateh Ram (Sarpanch) and Hari Singh with the pistol and a belt containing six live cartridges. The appellant was then shown arrested. The weapon and the cartridges were seized under the Panchnamas and were separately sealed. He was sent to PHC, Punhana for medical examination. On completion of the investigation, a challan was filed in the Court and the appellant was put up for trial in two separate cases as mentioned above before the Designated Court.

3. The appellant denied the charges and pleaded that he was falsely implicated in this crime. He stated that Ashraf son of Ramzani is related to him and the father of the complainant and Ashraf were having a dispute over the canal water as their lands adjoin to each other. The relations between complainant s father (Padam Singh) and Ashraf were strained and since he is related to Ashraf, he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that he was assaulted by the complainant party and had sustained injuries. He also pleaded the right of self defence as he was assaulted by the complainant with a danda which was lying near the tubewell of Ashraf. The election rivalary was also a cause for involving him in this crime. He denied that he was having any weapon or cartridges and stated that the recovery shown is false and concocted. The whole prosecution case is false, he is innocent and be acquitted.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Dr. D.P. Gupta (PW 1), Het Ram, draftsman (PW 2), Abdul Sattar, patwari (PW 3), Padam Singh (PW 4), Narain Singh, ASI (PW 5), Fateh Ram (PW 6), Randhir Singh (PW 7), Nafe Singh, Inspector (PW 8) and tendered in evidence the report of F.S.L. (Ex. PN/1 to Ex. PN/3). The appellant also examined D.P. Jain (DW 1), Record Keeper of the Sessions Court, Gurgaon.

5. We may first deal with