JUDGMENT

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - By this appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated 18th December, 2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kishangarhbas, District Al war in Session Case No.58/2011. The accused-appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 336, 307 and 302 IPC and sentenced as under:

For offence under Section 336 IPC ' Three months' simple imprisonment.

For offence under Section 307 IPC ' Ten years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

For offence under Section 302 IPC ' Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

Brief Facts Of The Case:

2. An FIR No.130/2011, Exhibit-P3, was registered by the Police Station Kotkasim, District Alwar on a written report by complainant-Uttamchand. It was alleged that houses of accused-Ravindra Kumar Mathur and the complainant are situated at Mohalla Kanugoyan Kotkasim. On 23rd July, 2011 at around 7.00 PM, obscene act was done by Ravindra Kumar, Amit @ Kali, Chhotu, Hazari Lal Saini. When they were asked to stop it by the mother of complainant, they gave ill-treatment to her with a threat.

3. On 24th July, 2011 at 8.00 AM, when mother (Shakuntala) went on the roof to dry the clothes, accused-Ravindra along with Amit @ Kali, Chhotu, Hazari Lal Saini was on his roof with a gun and opened fire. After hearing noise, Yogesh went on the roof and found Shakuntala in pool of blood. When Yogesh tried to lift his mother, a fire was opened on him also. He died thereafter.

4. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was caused by the police. After the charge sheet, the cognisance of the offences was taken. Since offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to it.

5. The trial court framed the charges against accused-appellant for offences under Sections 509, 504, 336, 307, 302 IPC and under Section 6/28 of the Arms Act. The charges were explained to the accused-appellant. When it was denied, trial commenced.

6. The prosecution produced eighteen witnesses and thirty five documents to support its case. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 He produced two documents in defence. The trial court, after marshaling the evidence, convicted the accused-appellant-Ravindra Kumar for the offences under Sections 336, 307 and 302 IPC while acquitting co-accused-Amit @ Kali.

Arguments Of The Accused-Appellant:

7. Learned counsel submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the case due to previous rivalry. It was on account of a litigation initiated by the appellant on allotment of land to the deceased and his father. The land was allotted in the belt of river. Due to the aforesaid litigation, the appellant was falsely implicated in this case.

8. It is also stated that other than injured witness-Shakuntala (PW3), nobody has seen the occurrence though the prosecution planted PW17-Rudra as an eye-witness. The injured witness (PW3- Shakuntala) was interested witness, thus her testimony should not have been relied. It is more so when the occurrence of 23rd July, 2011 was not believed by the trial court.

9. The statement of PW17-Rudra was not recorded during the course of investigation. He was produced in the court itself. He said to have received gun shot injuries but it was not disclosed to any one immediately after the occurrence, rather, he admitted that those injuries were reported after few days.

10. A reference of medical report of PW17-Rudra, Exhibit-P35, has also been given to show that no X-ray report was sought. The medical report to show injury from firearm was given without X( 4 of 12) [CRLA-109/2014] ray report. The statement of PW17-Rudra should not have been believed by the trial court. Other than PW3-Shakuntala and PW17- Rudra, nobody was witness to the occurrence.

11. It is also stated that as per statement of PW3-Sha