The evidence of interested witnesses should be scrutinized with care but can be relied upon if found credible. Inquest reports have limited evidentiary value and are not required to mention all details of the incident. Acquittal of co-accused does not necessarily impact the guilt of the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

Pritinker Diwaker, J.

This appeal arises out of impugned judgment and order dated 10.2.1987 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mathura in Sessions Trial No.283 of 1985, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. As per prosecution case, on 5.7.1985 at 7:00 pm, accused appellant Parto along with three other accused persons namely, Biri Singh, Radhey Shyam and Jaggo reached near the well, where deceased Soran Singh, after taking his bath, was sitting on a platform. It is said that the accused appellant was carrying gun; accused Biri Singh was having a country made pistol; and accused Radhey Shyam and Jaggo were having gun with them. After reaching to the place of occurrence, accused Biri Singh exhorted by saying 'kill him, as he contests lot of cases'. Accused Radhey Shyam and Jaggo caught hold the deceased and then the appellant caused gunshot injury to the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down. Hue and cry was raised by the witnesses, including (PW-1) Bhura, (PW-2) Gumani and (PW-6) Raman and an attempt was also made by them to catch hold the accused persons, but as the accused persons were having weapons with them, they fled away from the spot. When injured Soran Singh was being shifted to the Hospital, on the way he expired. On the basis of written report Ex.Ka.1 lodged by (PW-1) Bhura (brother of the deceased) FIR Ex.Ka.10 was registered at 10:00 pm on 5.7.1985 against four accused persons, including the appellant under Section 302 of IPC.

3. Inquest on the dead body of the deceased was conducted vide Ex. Ka.3 on 5.7.1985 and the body was sent for postmortem which was conducted on 6.7.1985 vide Ex. Ka.2 by (PW-4) Dr. Nepal Singh.

As per Autopsy Surgeon, following gunshot injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased:

1. Fire arm wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep on Rt. side back, 7 cm above from Rt. hip bone. Blackening, tattooing and scorching present on around the wound.

2. Fire arm wound of exit 1 cm x 1.5 cm x cavity deep on front of Abdomen, 3 cm above from Penis in mid-line connected with Injury No.1.

Cause of death of the deceased was due to Syncopy as a result of A/M Injury noted.

4. While framing charge, the trial Judge has framed charge against the accused persons under Section 302/34 of IPC.

5. So as to hold accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined eight witnesses, whereas three defence witnesses have also been examined. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr PC in which, they pleaded their innocence and false implication.

6. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial Judge has acquitted accused Biri Singh, Radhey Shyam and Jaggo of all the offences, whereas the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced, as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

7. Counsel for the appellant submits:-

(i) that the FIR is ante-timed.

(ii) that on the same set of evidence, three accused persons have been acquitted and, therefore, the learned trial Judge has erred in law, in convicting the appellant.

(iii) that (PW-1) Bhura and (PW-2) Gumani are interested witnesses and, therefore, they have falsely implicated the appellant.

(iv) that there are material contradictions in the statements of (PW-1) Bhura and (PW-2) Gumani and, therefore, they are not trustworthy witnesses.

(v) that another eye-witness has been examined as (PW-6) Raman, but his testimony has been discarded by the trial Court.

(vi) that if the FIR was registered before preparing inquest, in the inquest, (PW-1) Bhura and (PW-2) Gumani ought to have disclosed the names of accused persons and likewise, details of the incident ought to have been given by them.

(vii) that on account of previous enmity between two families, the appellant has been falsely implicated.

8. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment and order, it has been argued by learned State Counsel that the conviction of the appellant is