Point of Law : Related witness cannot be said to be an interested witness merely by virtue of being the relative of the victim. The scrutiny of evidence of related witness should be more caution.

JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Tripathi, J.

1. Heard Sri Jayant Prakash Singh and Sri Mohammad Zakir, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri S.A. Murtaza, Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State and perused the material on record.

2. The appellants have preferred these criminal appeals aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.05.2010 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No. 1637 of 1999, under Section 302/34 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 222 of 1999, Police Station Sikarpur, District Bulandshahr, convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo rigorous life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of IPC with a fine of Rs.5,000/-each, in default thereof, to undergo one year simple imprisonment, therefore, these appeals are heard and being decided together by this common judgement.

3. The prosecution case is as follows:

4. On 06.09.1999 in the morning at 10:00 a.m., the complainant Neeraj Singh, S/o Fem Singh, R/o Village Deeppur, Police Station Sahawar, District Etah filed a written report at Police Station Sikarpur with the prayer that his sister Rajeshwari, belongs to Village Manpur, married with Dalveer Singh. Yesterday, he came to the house of his sister. Prior to the incident, Munesh and others targeted his brother-in-law, namely, Dalveer Singh by means of country made pistol. On 06.09.1999, the complainant, his sister and his brother-in-law were going to Dehli where the brother of Dalveer Singh was residing. When the aforesaid persons reached nearby the field of Gyan Singh at about 7:00 p.m., the accused persons namely, Munesh, Shanakar, Shashi and Kaluwa met, armed with country made pistols (Tamancha). Munesh threatened to brother-in-law that how dare he lodged the First Information Report against him and asked him to withdraw the case. His brother-in-law refused to withdraw the case. The aforesaid persons started indiscriminate firing upon Dalveer Singh as a result of which, he died on the spot.

5. On the basis of the written report, the police registered a case as Crime No. 222 of 1999, under Section 302 IPC and entry about registration of the case was made in the General Diary on 06.09.1999. Investigation of the case was taken over by the Sub-Inspector R.D. Pathak. He rushed to the spot and recorded the statement of the complainant Neeraj Singh and prepared the site plan.

6. The postmortem examination was conducted on the dead body of the deceased Dalveer Singh by Dr. B.K. Gaur on 07.09.1999 at 04:15 p.m. As per the post mortem report, the age of the deceased was about 35 years at the time of the death and possibility of death of the deceased was about one and half day prior to the date of the postmortem. After death of the deceased, stiffness was present in the lower part of the body of the deceased but stiffness had gone from upper part of the body. There was no mark of rottenness in the body of the deceased. On internal examination of the deceased, the doctor opined that the deceased died due to coma, shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries.

7. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completing all formalities of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet (Exhibit Ka.-16) against the appellants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, under Section 302 IPC and cognizance of offence was taken by the Magistrate. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Bulandshahr. On 07.02.2000, charge was framed against the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and thereafter trial was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bulandshahr for trial.

8. In order to prove the charges framed against the appellants, the prosecution has examined Rajeshwar