JUDGMENT

P. N. SHINGHAL, J.:— These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated September 21, 1973, dismissing the appeal of all the ten appellants against their conviction for offices under S. 148 and S. 302/149, I. P. C. on two counts, for the murder of Gurbax Singh and his wife Smt. Pal Kaur, and under S. 307/149 I. P. C. on two counts for inflicting gun shot injuries on Chanan Singh (P. W. 4) and Harvinder Kaur (P. W. 14). The appellants have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment including the sentence for imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offences under S. 302/149, I. P. C.

2. The deceased Gurbax Singh and his wife Smt. Pal Kaur used to live in their house in village Ayalki, at a distance of some 5 1/2 miles from police station Fatehabad, in the Hissar district. Smt. Pal Kaurs father Chanan Singh (P. W. 4) also used to live with them. He and Gurbax Singh had licenced guns of their own, and so also Charanjit Singh (P. W. 17) who was their partner in cultivation, as Gurbax Singh apprehended danger to his life.

3. It is alleged that Gurbax Singh and Smt. Pal Kaur were lying in the court-yard of their house on June 3, 1971, at about 3.30 p.m., under the shade of a tree. All of a sudden gun shots were fired from the side of the wall of the courtyard of the house of Gujar Singh which was adjoining to the house of Gurbax Singh. Several shots hit Gurbax Singh. His wife Pal Kaur tried to pacify the attackers, and then ran towards her kotha in the opposite direction. She also received gun shot injuries. Meanwhile her father Chanan Singh (P. W. 4), who has his own licensed rifle as aforesaid and was sitting with his grand-children Harvinder Kaur (P. W. 14) and Satnam Singh (P. W. 16 ) inside the kotha, opened fire at the assailants in self-defence. He also received gun-shot injuries. The appellants ran away after killing Gurbax Singh and Smt. Pal Kaur because of Chanan Singhs. firing. Chanan Singh went and lodged the first information report at 6.15 p.m. He narrated the incident in that report, named all the ten appellants as the accused, as also their respective weapons. He also stated that the incident was seen by him, his grand daughter Harvinder Kaur (P. W. 14), his grandson Satnam Singh (P. W. 16) and his siri Charanjit Singh (P. W. 17).

4. Investigation of the case was taken up by the Police, and the trial court and the High Court have made a mention of irregularities and the peculiar features of that investigation. It would be sufficient to say that the police challaned only five accused. Of these, Kartar Singh and Gurdip Singh son of Shinghara Singh were two of the ten accused who were named in the first information report while the three others, namely, Tara Singh, Jeet Singh and Kashmir Singh, were introduced by the Police as the other co-accused on the basis of their own investigation. The Police in fact went to the extent of releasing appellant Rattan Singh on bail of its own accord, without even arresting him. He was neither challaned, nor shown in column No. 2 of the report under S. 173, Cr. P. C. The remaining appellants, Chanan Singh, Harinder Singh, Balbir Singh alias Raghubir Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Karam Singh and Girdhari Lal were stated to be innocent, and a prayer was made for the discharge of appellant Gurdip Singh son of Wazir Singh on the ground that he was innocent. Chanan Singh (P. W. 4) thereupon filed a complaint against the eight appellants who were left off by the Police. The committing magistrate consolidated the challan and the complaint, and committed all the ten appellants, and the three others who were charge-sheeted by the Police, to the Court of Session. As Tara Singh, Jeet Singh and Kashmir Singh were not named in the first information report which was lodged by an eye-witness, and as they were not named as the assailants by any of the four eye witnesses, it was only natural that they should have been acquitted