JUDGMENT

(Per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

Having been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, having been sentenced to life imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and further directed to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment in lieu thereof for offence under Section 302 IPC, having been sentenced to four years' simple imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further directed to undergo six months' simple imprisonment in lieu thereof for offence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, and having been sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further directed to undergo one month's simple imprisonment in lieu thereof for offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act, the appellant, Kharak Singh Mehta has challenged the judgment dated 19.05.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2014.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 23.08.2014 Prahlad Singh (P.W. 1) had lodged a written complaint (Ex. Ka. 1), before the Police Station-Kotwali, Pithoragarh, wherein he claimed that his daughter, namely Hema, was married to Kharak Singh Mehta (the present accused). Kharak Singh Mehta was working in the Police force. He used to drink heavily. He used to assault his children daily. On 23.08.2014, at around 07:45 P.M, his neighbour's son, Hem Singh, informed him that Kharak Singh Mehta had killed his daughter by shooting her with his gun. Upon receiving this information, he, his wife, Mohani Devi, and his friends Bahadur Singh, Lalit Mohan Tadagi, Bhuwan Tadagi, and other villagers went to his daughter's house in Shiv Colony. When they went inside the room, they discovered the dead body of his daughter lying in a pool of blood. There was a lot of bleeding from the back of her head. According to the complainant, he asked Hema's sons, Umesh Singh Mehta and Mukesh Mehta, as to what had happened? While crying, both the children told him that there was a fight between their father and their mother, whereupon their father pulled out his gun, and at around 07:30 P.M. shot their mother dead. After killing their mother, he left the place. On the basis of this written complaint, a formal F.I.R., namely F.I.R. No. 5 of 2014, was chalked out for offence under Section 302 IPC.

3. Meanwhile, according to the prosecution story, on 23.08.2014 at around 07:55 P.M, the 108 Ambulance also received information informing them that a person has shot his wife dead. On the basis of this information, the police reached the scene of the crime. During the investigation, the statements of both the children Umesh Singh Mehta and Mukesh Mehta were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. From the scene of the crime, the police also recovered a SBBL 12 Bore gun, along with an empty and alive cartridges, which were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

4. After arresting Kharak Singh Mehta, and after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Kharak Singh Mehta for offences under Section 302 IPC, and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act.

5. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, and submitted twenty-five documents, and produced material objects. On the other hand, the defense neither examined any witness, nor submitted any documents. After going through the evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused Kharak Singh Mehta, asaforementioned, by judgment dated 19.05.2016. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.

6. Mr. R.S. Sammal, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court :-

Firstly, from the date of incident i.e. 23.08.2014 till the date when statements of both these witnesses, namely Umesh Singh Mehta (P.W. 2) and Mukesh Mehta (P.W. 2), were recorded i.e. till 09.06.2015 and 10.06.2015 respectively, both these children of the accused we