JUDGMENT :

Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.

This criminal appeal is preferred by the accused-appellants (for short-'the appellants’) assailing the judgement dated 19.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli (for short-'the learned trial court’) in Sessions Case No.61/2015 (104/15) CIS 917/2015 whereby, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:

Appellant No.1- Muneem

Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default whereof, three months additional simple imprisonment.

Section 307 IPC: Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default whereof, three months additional simple imprisonment.

Section 3/25 Arms Act: Three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-; in default whereof, one month additional simple imprisonment.

All the sentences to run concurrently.

Appellant No.2- Banee Singh

Section 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default whereof, three months additional simple imprisonment.

Section 307 IPC: Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default whereof, three months additional simple imprisonment.

2. Both the sentences to run concurrently.

3. The relevant facts, in nutshell, are that the injured Smt. Kamlesh (PW1) made a parcha bayan (Ex.P1) dated 09.08.2015 at General Hospital, Karauli stating therein that on that very day, at about 6-7 am, when she, along with her sister-in-law Smt. Bhagwanti and daughter-in-law Kashmira, was at their water tank, the appellants came along with four other co-accused and the appellant-Banee opened gun fire which hit all three of them resulting in death of Bhagwanti. It was stated that the incident was witnessed by S/Shri Dhara Singh and Ram Swaroop. Based thereupon, an FIR No.118 dated 09.08.2015 came to be registered at the Police Station Kudgaon, District Karauli for offence under Sections 143, 307 and 302 IPC. After investigation, the police charge-sheeted the appellants as well as co-accused- Hariom for the offence under Sections 341, 324, 302/34, 307/34 and 120B IPC. Charges under Sections 341, 302/34, 307 and in alternate, under Sections 307/34, 324 and 120B were framed against the appellant-Banee Singh, charges under Sections 341, 302/34, 307/34 and 120B IPC were framed against co-accused Hari Om and against appellant-Muneem, under Sections 341, 302, 307, 324, 120B of IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. After trial, while, Hariom was acquitted of the charges framed against him, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court, vide judgement dated 19.09.2018, as stated hereinabove.

4. Assailing the judgement impugned, learned counsel for the appellants contended that their conviction has been recorded by the learned trial court on the basis of conjectures and surmises without any legally admissible evidence to connect them with the alleged offence. He submitted that though, the police has reached the house of the complainant-party soon after the incident; but, they refused to lodge the report rather, much delayed it which raises a grave suspicion as to true genesis of the case. He further submitted that from the evidence on record, it is apparent that there has been improvement and embellishment by the prosecution witnesses on material aspects of the case which renders the prosecution story to be unreliable. Inviting attention of this Court towards the statement of injured witnesses and other eye witnesses, learned counsel contended that their deposition as to their location vis-a-vis the position of the appellants at the time of commission of offence, who shot the gun and the number of gun fires, is self contradictory and mutually destructive which is fatal to the prosecution case. He also contended that prosecution version as to motive of the crime is also full of contradictions rendering it totally unreliable. He, therefore, prayed that the judgement impugned dated 19.09.2018 be quashed and set aside and they be acquitted of the charges framed.

5. Per