Judgment

THAKKAR, J. :- The trial court held and the High Court concurred, that appellants were the culprits who had fired at and injured Gurdarshan Singh (who succumbed to his injuries) as also his father, brother and mother (injured eye-witnesses PWs. 8, 9 and 10). The appellants have assailed the said finding and the order of conviction and sentence for the murder of Gurdarshan Singh and the attempt to commit the murder of PWs. 8, 9 and 10.*1

* 1.For the former offence appellants are convicted under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

For the latter they have been convicted under S. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for 4 years.

2. The occurrence took place on Oct. 13, 1972 at about 7.00 p.m. near the haveli of the victims and near the house of appellant No. 1 Gurnek Singh which adjoins the said haveli. The appellants had fire arms with them and they had fired at the victims from the roof of their house. Deceased Gurdarshan Singh and the three injured eye-witnesses viz. PWs. 8, 9 and 10, namely, the father, brother and mother of Gurdarshan Singh were hit by pellets and injured in the course of the very same transaction. One Sandhura Singh (not examined as witness) was also hit with pellets and sustained injuries in the course of the same transaction.

3. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the appellants consisted of :-

1. the evidence of PWs. 8, 9 and 10, the three injured eye-witnesses; (father, brother and mother respectively of deceased Gurdarshan Singh),

2. evidence pertaining to motive;

3. the dying declaration made by Gurdarshan Singh before the Police Officer at the Hospital;

4. recovery of fire-arms at the instance of appellants 1 and 2; and

5. evidence regarding the absconding of the appellants.

4. The evidence regarding motive was to the effect that the father of appellant No. 1 viz. Shri Ajit Singh had a dispute with the father of the deceased about partition of the land belonging to the family to which both of them belonged. Appellant No. 1 had demanded plot No. 111, admeasuring 19 marlas which had fallen to the share of P. W. 8 (father of the deceased) which demand had not been acceded to by PW 8. Appellant No. 1 had also heaped his bricks on that part of the land and PW 8 had protested against the action of appellant No. 1. The trial court did not consider the evidence as regards motive reliable. The High Court, on the other hand, came to the conclusion that the evidence regarding motive was satisfactory and that the trial court was not justified in rejecting this evidence. However, the High Court proceeded to observe that ultimately nothing turned on it as the evidence, regarding motive. if believed, would merely strengthen the prosecution case and would provide further assurance to the other evidence connecting the appellants with the crime. Even if therefore the evidence was ignored it did not make any difference in the ultimate outcome of the matter in view of the fact that the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses PWs 8, 9 and 10 was considered reliable by the trial court and inasmuch as the High Court concurred with the assessment of the evidence made by the trial court.

5. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence of the three injured eye-witnesses. We are of the opinion that the trial court and the High Court were right in accepting their evidence. The presence of these three witnesses at the time of occurrence is beyond question having regard to the fact that all the three of them have sustained injuries by pellets on account of the gun-shots fired at them in the course of the very same transaction at the very time and place of occurrence. The fact that they are related to the deceased victim does not detract from the value of their evidence having regards to the fact that their presence at the scene of offence is natural and their presence near the deceased has been establis