Rajiv Sharma, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 11/12.07.2013 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in S.T. No.20/2009, whereby the appellant/accused Bhagwan Singh, who was charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and also u/s 25 of the Arms Act, was convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. He was further convicted u/s 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.20,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months’ additional rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. However, the appellant was acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act.

3. Case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the FIR was lodged by PW3 Dharam Singh on 21.4.2007 at P.S. Kotwali Bageshwar. According to the contents of FIR, on 21.4.2007, the marriage of Rakesh S/o Bhagwan Singh was solemnized at Village Dafaut. Marriage procession had come back at 5:30 PM. The bridegroom’s father Bhagwan Singh fired his gun. The pellets struck Anita, Khushal Singh, Ummed Singh, Smt. Vimla W/o Devendra Singh and Smt. Vimla W/o Bhupal Singh. They were taken to hospital. Smt. Anita and Khushal Singh died. Rest of the victims were referred to Base Hospital, Almora. The F.I.R. was registered. Initially, the appellant was charged u/s 304 (Part II) IPC but later on, the Charge was converted to Sections 302 and 307 IPC along with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

4. The matter was investigated and Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

5. Prosecution has examined as many as sixteen witnesses in support of its case.

6. Accused was also examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of prosecution. According to him, the children were playing with a ball. The ball, incidentally, struck against the gun. The gun fell on the ground causing accidental fire.

7. Appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court, as noticed hereinabove. Hence this appeal.

8. Learned Advocates, appearing on behalf of the appellant, have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Learned Sr. Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, has supported the judgment dated 11/12.7.2013.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record carefully.

11. PW1 Kamla Karmyal deposed that on 21.4.2007, she was the Pradhan of Villages Mithukot and Pokhari. The marriage procession of son of accused had come back. She heard the sound of fire arm. However, she did not see who has fired. She was declared hostile. In her cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor, she admitted that Ummed Singh, Vimla Devi, Sonu and Anita Devi had received the pellet injuries. Later on, Sonu and Anita Devi had died.

12. PW2 Chanchal Singh is the eyewitness. He deposed that on 21.4.2007, the marriage procession of son of accused had come back. Accused Bhagwan Singh was standing on the roof. He was carrying a double barrel gun. He aimed at his (PW2’s) wife and opened the fire. The bullet hit on the chest of his wife. His wife collapsed. She was taken to Bageshwar hospital. She was declared dead at about 7 PM. Dharam Singh lodged the report. When the appellant shot the fire, apart from his wife, Khushal Singh @ Sonu also received pellet injuries. He also died in Bareilly. Ummed Singh, Vimla Devi W/o Devendra Singh and Vimla Devi W/o Bhupal Singh also received the pellet injuries. The appellant fired his gun. The gun was owned by Rakesh, S/o accused Bhagwan Singh. He has identified the gun in the Court.

13. PW3 Dharam Singh has testified that the marriage procession had come back on 21.4.2007. At 4:20 PM, he heard the sound of fire arm. The fire was shot from the roof. It