Y. R. MEENA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of Trial Court dated 28. 7. 1993 whereby the Trial Court has convicted the accused-appellants as under: (1) Arjun u/section. 302 IPC, imprisonment for life, fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default 2 years rigorous imprisonment. u/section. 3/25 Arms Act, one year R. I. , fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default 3 months R. I. (2) Girraj, u/section. 302 read with Section. 34 Tej Singh and Padam Singh IPC, Life imprisonment, fine of Rs. 5000/- in default 2 years rigorous imprisonment. U/section, 323 IPC, 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine or Rs. 1000/-, in default 3 months rigorous imprisonment.

( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Mohan Singh son of Govind Singh has given a written report (Ex. P. 3) on 4. 12. 1991, at Police Station Chiksana alleging therein that on 4. 12. 1991 at about 3. 00 p. m. While the informant Gopal Singh and Om Prakash were going for duty in Simco Factory near Ram Laxman temple, accused-appellants Arjun, Girraj, Tej Singh and Padam Singh met them and they stopped them. Arjun and Padam Singh were armed with country made pistols, Girraj was armed with Gupti and Tej Singh was armed with Lathi. At that point of time, Girraj told to kill Om Prakash (deceased ). On that, Arjun fired at Om Prakash which hit at right ribs of am Prakash. Om Prakash fell down as a result of gun shot injury and thereafter, Padam Singh, Girraj, Tej Singh and Arjun ran away. While the injured was taken to hospital, he expired on the way. On that written report, the police chalked out RR No. 89/91 (Ex. P. 4) for the offence u/sections. 302 and 341 IPC. The post mortem of the dead-body was got conducted. Post mortem report is Ex. P. 16. Dr. Babulal Meena (P. W. 9) opined that the cause of death is haemorrhages shock brought about as the result of injuries to vital organs (cumulative effect) such as right lung and liver damaged by gun shot fire from long distance (more than 5 meters but less than 10 meters) which are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All above- mentioned injuries are ante mortem in nature.

( 3 ) DURING investigation, the 1. 0. has prepared site plan Ex. P. 8. Accused-appellants were arrested. Injured Smt. Jagviri and Smt. Jantar. were also medically examined and the injury reports are EX. P. 1 and Ex. P. 17, In this case, informant P. W. 3 Mohan Singh and P. W. 4 Gopal have claimed to eyewitnesses of the incident. A country-made pistol has been recovered at the instance of accused Arjun. PW. 11 Harish Chandra Sharma, an Armourer, Police Une Bharatpur examined the recovered pistol and opened that pistol was fired and the pistol was in serviceable condition. The Trial Court has found Mohan Singh a reliable witness. The Trial Court also believed on the testimony of PW. 4 Gopal, and taking into account the recovery of pistol which was in serviceable condition, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that accused-appellant Arjun has committed the offence u/section. 302 IPC and the offence u/section. 3/25 of the Arms Act while accused-appellants Girraj, Tej Singh and Padam Singh have committed the offence u/section. 302 read with Section 34 IPC and convicted them as aforesaid.

( 4 ) BEING dissatisfied with the judgment of Trial Court, the accused-appellants have preferred this appeal.

( 5 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. Tholia and the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Paker Ferooq.

( 6 ) IN Prosecution case Mohan Singh is eye - witness. P. W. 3 Mohan Singh who has given the report and claimed to be eye - witness has deposed that on 4. 12. 1991 at about 3. 00 p. m. , while the informant along with Gopal and Om Prakash were going for duty in Simco Factory near Ram Laxman temple, Arjun and Padam Singh armed with country made pistols, Girraj armed with Guptit and Tej Singh armed with Lathi, met them. At that point of time Girraj told that today kill Om Prakash and on that, Arjun fired at Om Prakash with county m