Judgment

THAKKAR, J. : - Reluctant as this Court ordinarily is to disturb an acquittal recorded by the High Court, it becomes its duty to do so, inter alia, when incriminating evidence of a satisfactory character is ignored or overlooked, resulting in an unwarranted acquittal, in order to redeem the course of justice. The present is one of such cases.

2. One Gurbachan Singh was shot dead at about sun-set time on April 23, 1973 at village Tajoke. Five respondents were charged with having caused his death by gun-fire. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, who found them guilty for various offences. For the offences under S. 302, IPC and S. 302 read with 149, all of them were sentenced to imprisonment for life. For the offence under S. 148, IPC, a sentence of two years R.I. was imposed against each of them. For the offence under S. 27 of the Arms Act, each of them was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year. The High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and set aside the order of conviction and sentence. The State of Punjab has preferred this appeal by special leave and has, contended that the learned Sessions Judge was right in finding the respondent guilty of the various offences and in convicting and sentencing them. And that the High Court had overlooked some important incriminating evidence and circumstances in reversing the order of conviction and sentence rendered by him. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, who, according to the prosecution, were eye-witnesses to the murderous assault being in the company of the deceased at the time of his assasination. Their evidence on its own strength appears to, be sufficient to warrant a finding of guilt. The High Court seems to have resorted to unwarranted hair-splitting and has disregarded their testimony by making a somewhat casual and irrational approach. In any view of the matter, what places the matter beyond the clouds of reasonable doubt is circumstantial evidence of unimpeachable character which clinches the guilt of three of them viz. Bhura Singh, Chand Singh and Dasaundha Singh. If the totality of the evidence - direct and circumstantial - is taken into account, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Sessions Court was absolutely right in recording the finding of guilt as against them. And the High Court was altogether unjustified in interfering with the order of conviction and sentence which was unassailable on merits in so far as it concerned them. The following facts have been firmly established :-

(1) The aforesaid three respondents were persons who held a licence under the Arms Act.

(2) Each of them owned and possessed gun under the authority of the said licence.

(3) Admittedly the licensed gun belonging to each of these three respondents has been used in the commission of the offence of murder of deceased Gurbachan Singh.

(4) The evidence of the Forensic Expert (P. W. 5) clearly establishes that the empty shells of cartridges which were found from the scene of offence soon after the Police arrived and made a search and seizure, were fired from the gun belonging to the respective respondents.

(5) Each of the gun belonging to each of them had been recently used. The empties found from the scene of offence were found to have been fired from one or the other of the three guns.

(6) Each of the accused had produced the recently fired gun along with the respective licence before the investigating officer in the presence of witnesses.

(7) All the three guns belonging to the three respondents have been used in the commission of the crime.

3. The implication of these circumstances may now he spelled out. Since each of the guns used in the commission of the crime was a licensed gun belonging to each of the respective respondents, the possibility of the weapon having been planted was altogether excluded. The respondents have not explained under what circumstances the licensed guns belonging to them w