Point of Law : Where direct evidence is of unimpeachable character and the nature of injuries disclosed in the postmortem report is consistent with the direct evidence, the examination of ballistic expert may not be essential.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.

1. The accused appellant has filed the instant appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 7.04.2014 and 11.04.2014, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Ghaziabad in S.T. No.1408 of 2006 convicting him under Section 302 IPC and awarding rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50,000/-and in default in payment thereof, to three years additional simple imprisonment and under Section 506 IPC to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-and in default in payment thereof, to ten months additional simple imprisonment and in Sessions Trial No.1409 of 2006 under Section 25 (1) (b) of the Arms Act, to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default in payment thereof, additional simple imprisonment of six months.

2. According to the prosecution case, on 13.6.2006 at about 10:30 p.m., accused Monu (appellant) and Khalid, neighbours of the victim Manju Sharma came to her house while she was sitting on a cot alongwith her daughter Komal (PW-1) on the open terrace. Her mother Sheela and brother Yogesh and Nitin were in the courtyard. Monu had some talk with her. After about five minutes, he took out pistol (tamancha) from his pocket and fired at the victim from the back side. While his accomplice co-accused Khalid, who was carrying some object made of iron, hit her on the head and hand several times. Her daughter Komal (PW-1/complainant), who had witnessed the incident, raised alarm and whereupon both of them escaped through the staircase brandishing the tamancha and threatening Yogesh and Nitin (brothers of the victim) and Smt. Sheela (mother of the victim) to kill them if they come in their way. The accused were duly identified in the moon light and light of lantern, as they live in the neighbourhood and the complainant (Komal) had known them since her childhood. Her mother was rushed to Jeevan Hospital by her maternal uncle. The victim was later shifted to Narendra Mohan Hospital and thereafter to Jang Bahadur Hospital, Delhi where she succumbed to her injuries and died on 14.06.2006 at 4:10 p.m. A first information report relating to the incident was got registered by Komal on 13.06.2006 under Sections 307, 506 IPC as Crime Case No.227 of 2006. Later on offence was converted to Section 302 IPC. The accused surrendered in court on 26.06.2006. On 04.07.2006, the court allowed police remand of 24 hours. On the same day, the police, on pointing out of the accused, recovered a country made pistol (tamancha) of 315 bore, 3 live cartridges – 315 bore and an iron handle of hand-pump. The Police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet under Sections 302 and 506 IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 14.9.2006 committed the trial to the Court of Sessions and it came to be registered as S.T. No.409 of 2006. By order dated 3.7.2007, the trial court declared co-accused Khalid as juvenile and he was tried separately by the Juvenile court.

3. During course of investigation of Crime Case No.227 of 2006, a separate case bearing No.270 of 2006 was registered against the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act on basis of recovery of a country made pistol of 315 bore and three live cartridges 315 bore on 4.7.2006. The police, after investigation, submitted a charge sheet. The Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 14.9.2006 forwarded the charge sheet to the Court of Sessions, where it came to be registered as S.T. No.1408 of 2006. Both the cases were tried together and have been decided by common judgment impugned herein.

4. During course of trial, the prosecution examined two witnesses of facts. The first one is Km. Komal (PW-1), who is daughter of the victim and also the complainant. She had seen the accused firing and assaulting her mother. The other is Nitin Sharma (PW-4), who is brother of the deceased victim and had seen the accused running away after committing the offence. The prosecution had examined thirteen other witnesses: