JUDGMENT :

1. Instant Criminal Appeal is directed by the appellant against the judgment dated 08-03-2019 rendered by the court of Ld. Pr. Sessions Judge Samba in file No. 06/Sessions titled State v. Yashvir Singh and Ors., whereby, appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years in FIR No. 100/2013 for commission of offence proved u/s 304-II RPC instead of offence u/ss 302/34 RPC charged against them. Be it noted, that out of the total four (4) accused persons including the appellant put on trial, remaining three (3) accused persons namely, Ranvir Singh S/o Kartar Singh, Tapinder Singh S/o Harbans Singh & Jagdish Singh S/o Kashmir Singh all residents of Mandi Raj Ghar Gurah Salathia District Samba have been acquitted.

2. Aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 08-03-2019, appellant/convict has questioned it's legality, propriety and correctness on the following grounds:-

(i) that the impugned judgment dated 08-03-2019 is against facts and law, in as much as, the commission of offence u/s 304-II RPC has not even been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence which was brought before it by the prosecution, the impugned judgment is a result of sheer miss-appreciation of evidence;

(ii) that the trial court has relied heavily upon the statements made by eyewitnesses who did not stand the test of cross-examination and in categorical terms deposed that appellant fired at the chest of deceased which itself causes doubt on the presence of eyewitnesses at the spot of occurrence, as the deceased received injury upon his thigh which is contrary to the version narrated by both the eyewitnesses;

(iii) that the court below has totally ignored the medical evidence produced by the prosecution wherein board of doctors specifically deposes before the court that the bullet shot suffered by the deceased could not have been received from front side of the body of deceased, but the shot was hit the deceased from the backside of the body which itself is sufficient ground to create a doubt on the veracity of eyewitnesses;

(iv) that the court below has not appreciated the aspect of the case that the person who brought the deceased in his car was a material witness who was intentionally and deliberately withhold and not included in the prosecution list of witnesses, moreso, the blood stained clothes of that person were not seized, prosecution deliberately tried to suppress the material facts and projected a false story, the so called eyewitnesses who are none other the real brother and wife of deceased during their cross-examination could not prove their presence on the scene of crime;

(v) that the court below has failed to appreciate the fact that prosecution has failed to establish as to whether the bullet shot was fired from the gun of accused, in as much as, it is proven fact that the fired cartridges seized from the spot of occurrence and three (3) live cartridges recovered from the house of appellant/convict were not only of different weight but were of different make, so the argument that bullet was fired from the gun of appellant has no substance;

(vi) that the prosecution eyewitnesses in one voice have deposed before the trial court that bullet was shot/fired at the chest of deceased, whereas, as per medical evidence of postmortem report the deceased suffered injury at the thigh, and this evidence is sufficient to create doubt regarding the presence of eyewitnesses on the scene of crime;

(vii) that the court below has failed to appreciate that fact that the statements made by the doctors who conducted the postmortem categorically shows that bullet injury suffered by the deceased is Circular in nature which means that gun was placed at right angle and not horizontally aimed at the chest of deceased, therefore, the version of prosecution that the appellant/convict fired bullet at the chest of deceased cannot be believe