Judgment

Nanavati, J.-Both the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 452 and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC 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-P.Ws. 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 P.Ws. 5 and 6 on the one hand and P.W. 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 Ballastic expert for examination, no report of the Ballastic 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 grou