(1) THROUGH this appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special courts) Act, 1984, the appellant challenges his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Judge, Special court, Ferozepur in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 1985.

(2) ON 14/7/1984 while Kundan Singh was sleeping on a cot by the side of his tubewell, his father Mohan Singh, Public Witness 3 and brother Balwinder Singh, PW 4, who were irrigating their fields nearby heard shriek of Kundan Singh, at about 4.00 a.m. and when they reached near his cot, they found the appellant armed with a kirpan and Pargat Singh (since acquitted) armed with a takwa causing injuries to Kundan Singh. An alarm was raised on which the appellant and the acquitted co-accused Pargat Singh fled away. Mohan Singh, Public Witness 3 leaving his son Balwinder Singh, Public Witness 4 by the side of the dead body and taking with him Lachhman Singh Panch, proceeded to the police station. At Village Padhri they met Harbhajan Singh, SHO, Police Station Makhu, Public Witness 5 and informed him of the occurrence, The statement of Mohan Singh, Ext. P-4 was recorded by Harbhajan Singh, Public Witness 5 in Village Padhri itself and the same was sent to the police station for registration of the case. The formal FIR, Ext. P-4/B was drawn up on that basis. SI Harbhajan Singh, Public Witness 5 along with Mohan Singh, Lachhman Singh and others proceeded to the spot and took the investigation in hand. Inquest report was prepared and the dead body of Kundan Singh was then sent for post-mortem examination which was performed by Dr V.K. Khurana, Public Witness 1.

(3) IT is further the case of the prosecution that Smt Sito, wife of Balwinder Singh, Public Witness 4, was suspected to be having illicit relations with Puran Singh, appellant. This illicit relationship was resented to by Balwinder Singh, Public Witness 4 and his brother Klindan Singh, deceased. Kundan Singh deceased had often told Puran Singh. appellant, to stop his liaison with the wife of his brother Balwinder Singh, Public Witness 4. Puran Singh, appellant bore a grudge against Kundan Singh on that account.

(4) THE prosecution with a view to connect the appellant with the crime examined Dr V.K. Khurana, Public Witness I, Bura Ram Patwari, Public Witness 2, Mohan Singh, PW 3, Balwinder Singh, Public Witness 4 and Harbhajan Singh, Public Witness 5, Investigating Officer. The reports of the chemical examiner and the serologist, as also the affidavits of Lachhman Singh and other formal witnesses were tendered in evidence. The trial court after an analysis of the evidence acquitted Pargat Singh giving him the benefit of the doubt. The appellant, however, was convicted for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.

(5) WITH the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the evidence on the record. Public Witness 3 and Public Witness 4. the father and brother of the deceased, have given an eyewitness account of the occurrence. Both of them have made consistent statements regarding the manner in which they heard the shriek of Kundan Singh, while they were irrigating their fields and on reaching the spot found the appellant causing injuries to the deceased. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination which could in any way affect their veracity or taint their reliability. From a close scrutiny of their evidence, we find that both Mohan Singh, Public Witness 3 and Balwinder Singh, Public Witness 4 appear to be witnesses of truth and their evidence inspires confidence. The medical evidence of Dr V.K. Khurana, Public Witness I, shows that the deceased had suffered 6 incised wounds. Injury 1, which was an incised wound of 15 cms x 14 cms on the junction of thorax with neck and had cut through and through the tissues of the neck i.e., muscles, blood vessels, ner