ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The convicts in Sessions Case No. 81 of 24-1-1987 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bamala, are in appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeals Nos. 331-SB of 1988 and 526-DBA of 1989 dated 25-7-1997.

3. The first appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 304 - Part II IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs 500; in default thereof to undergo RI for further six months and under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries to Manjeet Singh (PW 4) and was sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs 500; in default thereof to undergo further RI for six months and under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC for causing injuries to Harbhajan Singh (PW 5) and was f sentenced to undergo RI for six months and further conviction under Section 27 of the Anns Act was recorded and the sentence of six months' RI was imposed. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Insofar a as Appellants 2 and 3 are concerned, the trial court found them guilty under Section 323 IPC for causing hurt to PW 5 and they were released on probation. Against that judgment two appeals and one revision were filed before the High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 526-DBA of 1989 was filed by the State against the acquittal of the appellants under Section 302 IPC. The present appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 331-SB of 1988 challenging b their conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, referred to above. PW 5 filed criminal revision against all the accused persons challenging the conviction for lesser offences and sentence imposed on them by the trial court. By the judgment under challenge the conviction of the first appellant was altered to the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and of the second and the third appellants was altered to under Sections 302 and 307 c read with Section 34 IPC. All the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 each and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for two years each; no separate sentence was imposed under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

4. The gravamen of the charge against the appellants is that on 12-10-1986 at about 9.30 p.m. the appellants and the acquitted accused (Dhanna Singh and Jaila Singh) gave beating to PW 5. At that stage PW 2 Gurdial Kaur, the mother of PW 5 intervened and pacified them and they went away. Thereafter late in the night, at about 1 a.m. of 13-10-1986, the first appellant anned with a double-barrel gun (DDBL) and Appellants 2 and 3 anned with sticks went to the house of PW 5 and dragged him out of the house. While Appellants 2 and 3 were beating PW 5 with sticks, his wife e Rajinder Kaur (the deceased) came out hearing the shouts. The first appellant shot at her which caused injury in her leg. He then fired the second shot which hit her on the left side of the chest. She succumbed to the injuries. The third shot, after reloading the gun, was fired at PW 5 which caused injury on the right side of his buttocks and on the leg of PW 4. The incident was reported to the police by PW 2 who lodged the FIR at about 6.45 a.m. on the f same day. The police after necessary investigations filed the charge-sheet.

5. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12; PWs 4 and 5 are injured witnesses. PW 5 is the husband of the deceased Rajinder Kaur. PW 4 is the brother of her husband and PW 2 is the mother of her husband. PW 3 Dr. Amrik Singh, conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Rajinder Kaur, the deceased. He also examined PW 4 and PW 5 and issued post-mortem and g medical certificates, Ext. PB and Ext. PE respectively. On considering the evidence on record the trial court held that the first appellant did not intend to kill Rajinder Kaur. His intention was to kill only PW 5 and on that basis he was found not guilty under Section 302 IPC but wa