JUDGMENT

M. K. MUKHERJEE., J. :- Darshan Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Gurdial Singh, the appellants herein, were tried by the Judge, Special Court, Ferozepore for committing the murder of one Rampal with fire-arms in furtherance of their common intention. The learned Judge acquitted Darshan Singh and Mukhtiar Singh but convicted the appellant under Section 302,I.P.C. and S. 25, Arms Act, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life for the first conviction and rigorous imprisonment for 1.1/2 years for the other, with a direction that the sentences would run concurrently. Hence this appeal.

2. According to the prosecution case the deceased and his father Amrit Lal (PW-3) used to run a Kirana shop in village Machhi Bugra. On June 2, 1984, at or about 6.30 p.m. when Ram Pal had come out of the shop to down its shutters the three accused came there on a scooter driven by Darshan Singh. The appellant and Mukhtiar Singh then got down from the scooter and shot at Ram Pal with the firearms, each of them was carrying, resulting in his instantaneous death. Thereafter all of them ran away on the scooter. Finding his son dead. Amri Lal rushed to the police station to lodge a report.

3. S.I. Joginder Singh (PW-4) recorded the F.I.R. and after making arrangements to send the special report to the Ilaka Magistrate left for the spot accompanied by Amrit Lal. Reaching there he held inquest upon the dead body of Ram Pal which was lying in the lane in front of the shop and it for post-mortem examination. He then inspected the spot and collected some blood stained earth, six empties of two different bores and made separate sealed parcels for the same. After completing the Investigation at the spot, PW-4 went in search of the accused persons and succeeded in apprehending the appellant on that very night. From his possession he seized a 12 bore gun and 25 cartridges and sealed them. He sent all the seized articles to the experts for their opinions and on receipt of their reports and completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet.

4. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and contended that they were falsely implicated. To prove its case the prosecution relied upon the ocular version of the incident as given out by PW-3 and other evidence adduced in support thereof. No witness was, however, examined on behalf of the accused persons.

5. In recording the impugned order of conviction and sentence against the appellant the learned Judge found that the evidence of PW-3 stood amply corroborated by the recovery of two empty cartridges from the spot and the report of the Ballistic Expert which showed that those two cartridges had been fired from the gun which was with the appellant at the time of his arrest and was seized. As no such corroborative evidence was available in respect of the other two accused the learned Judge did not feel inclined to rely solely upon the evidence of PW-3 to convict them. Accordingly he gave them the benefit of reasonable doubt.

6. Having carefully gone through the evidence of PW-3 in the light of other evidence appearing on record it appears to us that the finding of the learned Judge that the appellant shot at the deceased with a gun causing injures on his person is unassailable. Considering the fact that the incident took place in front of the shop of PW-3 he was the most natural and likely witness. His evidence, which was not in any way shaken in cross-examination, gets ample support from the evidence of Dr. Jaspal Singh (PW-1) who held post-mortem examination on the dead body and found, besides other injuries, two lacerated punctured wounds - corresponding with each other - which according to him could be caused by gun, if fired from a close range. The next piece of evidence which corroborates PW-3 is the FIR which was lodged with promptitude. We next get, from the evidence of PW-4 that in that very night, at or about 2.30 A.M the appellant was arrested and a 12 bore gun and 25 ca