REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 552-554 OF 2003

State of Rajasthan       .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Arjun Singh & Ors. etc.               .... Respondent(s)

    WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 555-557 OF 2003

       AND    

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2003

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) These  appeals  are  filed  against  the  common  final  

judgment  and  order  dated  26.04.2002  passed  by  the  High  

Court  of  Judicature for  Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench,  Jaipur in  

D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 504, 533 and 673 of 1995 whereby  

the  High  Court  disposed  of  the  appeals  acquitting  Karan  

1

Singh,  Laxman  Raigar,  Bahadur  Singh,  Smt.  Swaroop  Bai,  

Smt.  Gyan  Kanwar  and  Smt.  Bhagwan  Kanwar  of  all  the  

charges  and  altered  the  conviction  and  sentence  of  Shivraj  

Singh, Banney Singh and Arjun Singh from Sections 302/149  

IPC  and  307/149  IPC  to  Section  302/34  and  307/34  IPC  

passed by the trial Court.    

2) Brief facts:

(a) On 24.12.1991, at about 09:30 a.m., an information was  

received  by  the  In-charge,  Police  Out-post  Anwa that  cross  

firing  had  taken  place  between  the  Rajputs  of  that  village.  

After recording the said information in Rojnamcha (Ex. P31),  

immediately  the  police  proceeded  towards  the  spot  and  

recorded Parchabayan of injured Himmat Raj Singh (Ex. P32)  

at about 11.40 a.m.  It was stated by Himmat Raj Singh (since  

deceased) that at 9.30 a.m., when he was standing outside his  

house,  Arjun Singh fired at  him from a muzzle  loaded gun  

from the roof of Karan Singh thereby 2-3 bullets hit him on  

the left hand and another 2-3 hit his abdomen and left thigh.  

On hearing his cries, two of his brothers, namely, Raghuraj  

Singh (since deceased) and Raj Singh (PW-2) came there and  

2

took him inside the house and after leaving him there, when  

they were going to inform the police at Police out-post, Anwa,  

Bheem Singh and Gajender Singh (who are now absconding),  

Banney Singh, Karan Singh and Shivraj Singh fired gunshots  

at them, as a result of which, both of them received injuries.  

Thereafter,  accused  Bahadur  Singh  came  with  a  gandassa.  

The  other  accused,  Laxman  Raigar  also  jumped  into  their  

house.  It was also stated that Smt. Swaroop Bai, Smt. Gyan  

Kanwar and Smt. Bhagwan Kanwar were also present on the  

roof  of  Karan Singh  and they  tried  to  kill  the  other  family  

members of the deceased with deadly weapons.   

(b)  The  moment  Raghuraj  Singh  and  Raj  Singh  (PW-2)  

received injuries, Roop Singh, their father immediately rushed  

to the Police Out-post to inform the Police about the incident.  

The police officials reached at the spot and on the basis of the  

statement of Himmat Raj Singh, a First Information Report (in  

short ‘the FIR’) being No. 228/1991 was registered against the  

accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections  

307, 147, 148 and 149 IPC.    The injured persons, Raghuraj  

3

Singh,  Himmat  Raj  Singh,  Dhiraj  Raj  Singh and Raj  Singh  

were taken to the M.B.S. Hospital at Kota for treatment.   

(c) Shri  Ajay  Kumar  Gupta,  (PW-18),  Munsif  and Judicial  

Magistrate (North),  Kota recorded the statements of Himmat  

Raj Singh and Raj Singh (PW-2).  Since Raghuraj Singh was  

not medically fit to make a statement, his statement was not  

recorded.    On  the  same  day,  Raghuraj  Singh  died  in  the  

Hospital, therefore, offence punishable under Section 302 IPC  

was added.  On 29.01.1992, Himmat Raj Singh also died in  

the  Hospital.   After  due  investigation,  the  police  submitted  

four  charge  sheets  at  different  stages  against  Arjun  Singh,  

Banney Singh, Shivraj Singh, Bahadur Singh, Smt. Swaroop  

Bai, Smt. Gyan Kanwar, Smt. Bhagwan Kanwar, Karan Singh  

and Laxman Raigar.   

(d) On  07.09.1995,  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Kota,  

after  examining  30  prosecution  witnesses  and  8  defence  

witnesses  convicted  Karan  Singh  under  Sections  148,  

302/149,  307/149 IPC and Section  3/27 of  the  Arms  Act,  

1959,  Shivraj  Singh,  Banney  Singh and Arjun Singh under  

Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 IPC and Smt. Swaroop Bai,  

4

Smt.  Gyan Kanwar,  Smt.  Bhagwan Kanwar,  Laxman Raigar  

and Bahadur Singh under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149  

and 452 IPC and sentenced all of them to undergo rigorous  

imprisonment.   

(e) Aggrieved  by  the  judgment  of  the  trial  Court,  Arjun  

Singh,  Banney  Singh,  Shivraj  Singh,  Bahadur  Singh,  Smt.  

Swaroop Bai, Smt. Gyan Kanwar and Smt. Bhagwan Kanwar  

filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 1995, Laxman Raigar  

filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 1995, Karan Singh filed  

D.B.  Criminal  Appeal  No.  533 of  1995 and Roop Singh-the  

complainant, filed D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 250 of  

1996  before  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  for  Rajasthan,  

Jaipur Bench at Jaipur.   

(f) On 26.04.2002, the High Court, by a common impugned  

judgment,  set  aside  the  order  of  conviction  and  sentence  

passed  by  the  trial  Judge  against  Karan  Singh,  Laxman  

Raigar, Bahadur Singh, Smt. Swaroop Bai, Smt. Gyan Kanwar  

and  Smt.  Bhagwan  Kanwar  and  acquitted  them  of  all  the  

charges.  As regards Arjun Singh, Banney Singh and Shivraj  

Singh, their conviction and sentences under Sections 302/149  

5

and 307/149 IPC were altered to Sections 302/34 and 307/34  

IPC.  

(g) Against  the  acquitted  persons,  the  State  of  Rajasthan  

filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 552-554 of 2003, Raj Singh, son of  

the Complainant-Roop Singh, who died during the pendency of  

the case, filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 555-557 of 2003.   Against  

the  order  of  conviction and sentence,  accused Arjun Singh,  

Banney Singh and Shivraj Singh filed Criminal Appeal No. 558  

of 2003 before this Court by way of special leave petitions.       

3) Heard  Mr.  S.R.  Bajwa,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

convicted appellants, Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional  

Advocate  General  for  the  State  of  Rajasthan  and  Ms.  

Aishwarya  Bhatti,  learned  counsel  for  the  son  of  the  

complainant.

Issues for consideration:

4) The  question  for  consideration  in  these  appeals  is  

whether the High Court was justified in acquitting Bahadur  

Singh, Laxman Raigar, Karan Singh, Smt Swaroop Bai,  Smt  

Gyan Kanwar and Smt Bhagwan Kanwar and also altering the  

conviction from 302/149 and 307/149 IPC to Sections 302/34  

6

and 307/34 insofar as Arjun Singh, Banney Singh and Shivraj  

Singh.   

5) Since  the  issues,  allegations  and  overt  acts  are  inter-

connected,  let  us  consider  all  the  available  materials  and  

ascertain whether the prosecution had established its case as  

initiated at the first instance.   

Discussion:

6) As  mentioned  earlier,  on  24.12.1991,  at  about  09:30  

a.m.,  all  the  accused gathered on the  roof  of  Karan Singh.  

Accused-  Arjun  Singh  fired  at  Himmat  Raj  Singh  (since  

deceased)  from the roof  of  Karan Singh from a capped gun  

thereby  few  bullets  hit  the  deceased  on  the  left  hand  and  

another 2-3 hit his abdomen and left thigh.  On hearing his  

cries, brothers of the deceased, Raghuraj Singh and Raj Singh  

(PW-2) came there and took injured Himmat Raj Singh inside  

their house and after leaving him there, when both of them  

were  going  to  police  out-post  to  lodge  a  complaint,  at  that  

time,  Bheem Singh,  Gajendra  Singh,  Banney  Singh,  Karan  

Singh and Shivraj Singh fired on them resulting in the death  

of Raghuraj Singh.  Other accused Bahadur Singh, Laxman  

7

Raigar,  Smt  Swaroop  Bai,  Smt.  Gyan  Kanwar  and  Smt  

Bhagwan Kanwar were also present on the roof of Karan Singh  

and  they  tried  to  kill  other  family  members  with  deadly  

weapons.   It  is  also  the  claim  of  the  prosecution  that  the  

accused persons attempted on the life of Dhiraj Raj Singh - the  

brother  of  the  deceased.   The  injured  persons,  namely,  

Raghuraj Singh, Himmat Raj Singh, Raj Singh and Dhiraj Raj  

Singh were taken to Kota Hospital.  Raghuraj Singh died on  

the same day and Himmat Raj Singh died on 29.01.1992 in  

the hospital, however, Raj Singh survived.  According to the  

High  Court,  there  is  complete  consistency  and  credible  

evidence  as  far  as  three  accused  persons,  namely,  Arjun  

Singh,  Banney  Singh  and  Shivraj  Singh  are  concerned,  

however, in respect of other six, there is no direct evidence and  

the  case  pleaded  by  the  prosecution  is  unacceptable  and  

acquitted them of all the charges.   

7) The prosecution examined as many as 30 witnesses in  

support of its case.  In the statements recorded under Section  

313  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973  (hereinafter  

called as “the Code”), all the accused denied the prosecution  

8

evidence  and  informed  the  Court  that  they  were  falsely  

implicated.  In addition to their statements, 8 witnesses were  

examined in their defence.

8) Before considering the evidence of eye-witnesses, let us  

analyse the  evidence of  the Dr.  Manmohan Sharma (PW-1),  

Medical  Jurist  in  M.B.S.  Hospital,  Kota,  who  examined  

Raghuraj  Singh,  Himmat  Raj  Singh  and  Raj  Singh  on  

24.12.1991 and Dhiraj Raj Singh on 28.12.1991.  The injuries  

noted  by  Dr.  Manmohan Sharma (PW-1)  in  Exs.  P1-P4  are  

relevant, they are as follows:-

“Raghuraj Singh (Ex. P1)

1. Gunshot wound 1/2" x 3/4" oval with inverted margins  blackening and tattooing on left shoulder outside.

2. Gunshot wound 3/4" x 1/2" oval with blackening on outer  side lt. iliac crust posteriolateral aspect upper quadrant of lt.  buttock.

3. Gunshot wound 1/2" x 1/2" on lt. lip 4" medial to No. 1.

4. Gunshot wound 1/4" x 3/4" upper quadrant of lt. buttock  5" below No. 1.

5. Gun shot wound 1/2" x 3/4", 2" medial to No. 1 on lt.  buttock.

6.   Gunshot  wound  1/3"  x  1/3"  on  sacral  gorder  of  lt.  buttock 3" away from middle.

7.  Gun shot wound 1/3" x 1/3" 1" below No. 6, 3 & 1/2"  away from middle.

8.  Gun shot wound 1/3" x 1/3" 1/2" below No. 6, 3 & 2"  away from middle.

9

Himmat Raj Singh (Ex. P2)

1. Gun shot wound 1/2" x 1/2 circular with inverted margin  with blackish.

2. Gun shot wound 1/2" x 3/4" oval with blackening on the  side of the abdomen.

3. Gun shot wound 3/4" x 3/4" oval iliac with blackening.

4. Gun shot wound 1/2" x 1/2" circular on left arm upper  outer side with bleeding.

5. Gun shot wound 1/2" x 3/4" oval 2" below slight medial to  forearm.

6. Gun shot wound 1/2" x 3/4" oval with inverted margin on  left forearm innerside.   

7. Gun shot wound 1/2" x 1/2" on the left hand.  

Raj Singh (Ex. P4)

1. Eight gun shot wounds about 1/2" x 1/2" size to 1" x 3/4"  scattered in front of left  thigh blackening tattooing margin  inverted.

Dhiraj Raj (Ex. P3)

1. Contusion 2” x 1” abrasion on left arm.

2. Contusion 3" x 1 and 1/2" with abrasion on left forearm.

3.  Lacerated  wound 1"  x  1/3"  x  1/3" abdomen right  side  outside in auxiliary 3” below knee joint.”   

9) With reference to the specific question about the injuries,  

Dr. Manmohan Sharma (PW-1) has explained to the Court that  

all the injuries referred to above were caused by gun shots.  It  

was  further  revealed  that  Raj  Singh  had  also  sustained  

injuries.   It  is  seen from the X-ray  Report  (Ex.P5)  that  Raj  

Singh  had  fracture  of  femur  bone  and  according  to  Dr.  

10

Manmohan  Sharma  (PW-1),  the  injuries  were  serious  in  

nature.  He also opined that the injuries of Himmat Raj Singh  

and  Raghuraj  Singh  were  sufficient  to  cause  death  in  the  

ordinary course of nature.  In his evidence, he also explained  

that  the  death  of  Himmat  Raj  Singh  was  caused  due  to  

septicemia shock as a result of multiple ante-mortem injuries  

to abdomen.  With reference to a suggestion, PW-1 had denied  

that  blackening  and  tattooing  marks  can  be  possible  only  

when gun shots were fired from a distance of 3 or 4 feet.  In  

respect of the same, Dr. Sharma, (PW-1), explained in detail in  

his cross-examination that the same marks are possible even  

in the case of gun shots which are fired from a distance of  

more than 3 or 4 feet and it depends upon the nature of gun,  

gun powder, cartridges etc.  Raj Singh, (PW-2), in his evidence,  

has stated that the accused Arjun Singh was standing on the  

roof of the house of Karan Singh and fired from muzzle loaded  

gun at Himmat Raj Singh.  Though there is little discrepancy  

as to the distance from the upper portion of the house and the  

actual scene of occurrence, it  cannot be concluded that the  

injuries on Raghuraj Singh, Himmat Raj Singh and Raj Singh  

11

were not caused by fire arms.  In this regard, it is relevant to  

point out the description of injuries as noted by Dr. Sharma  

(PW-1)  in  Exs.  P1-P4  which  we  have  extracted  earlier.   In  

addition to the same, it is seen from the evidence of PW-1 that  

the blackening marks found around the wounds and the dead  

body confirmed that the deceased were within a distance of 6  

feet from the assailants when they received the injuries.  

10) Learned  senior  counsel  for  the  accused  persons  

contended that in the absence of recovery of pellets from the  

scene of occurrence or from the body of the injured persons, it  

is highly doubtful as to the scene of occurrence and whether  

such incident did take place in the manner suggested by the  

prosecution.  Learned counsel appearing for the complainant  

pointed  out  that  though  there  was  an  entry  in  Malkhana  

Register (Ex. P31A) wherein it was stated that a sealed packet  

containing pellets was deposited but prosecution failed to lead  

any  evidence  on  this  point.   It  was  also  pointed  out  that  

though  a  report  was  received  from  the  Forensic  Science  

Laboratory, no evidence regarding recovery of the pellets was  

produced.   As rightly  pointed out by the learned Additional  

12

Advocate  General  appearing  for  the  State  that  mere  non-

recovery of pistol or cartridge does not detract the case of the  

prosecution where clinching and direct evidence is acceptable.  

Likewise,  absence  of  evidence  regarding  recovery  of  used  

pellets,  blood  stained  clothes  etc.  cannot  be  taken  or  

construed  as  no  such  occurrence  had  taken  place.   As  a  

matter of fact, we have already pointed out that the gun shot  

injuries  tallied  with  medical  evidence.   It  is  also  seen  that  

Raghuraj  Singh  and  Himmat  Raj  Singh,  who  had  died,  

received 8 and 7 gun shot wounds respectively while Raj Singh  

(PW-2) also received 8 gun shots scattered in front of left thigh.  

All these injuries have been noted by the Doctor (PW-1) in his  

reports Exs. P1-P4.   

11) If  we  analyze  the  evidence  of  Dr.  Manmohan  Sharma  

(PW-1), his reports, Exs.P1-P4 and the evidence of Raj Singh  

(PW-2), it leads to a conclusion that gun shot injuries tallied  

with the medical evidence and both the deceased persons died  

due to the same reason.  Similar conclusion arrived at by the  

High Court cannot be doubted.   

13

12) Coming to the contention relating to the motive, it is not  

in dispute that Raghuraj Singh and Himmat Raj Singh died  

due  to  gun  shot  injuries.   The  reliable  eye-witnesses  have  

stated  that  there  was  previous  enmity  between  them  and  

litigation was going on between the accused-Karan Singh and  

the complainant.  Even in the absence of motive, in view of the  

assertion  of  eye-witnesses,  particularly,  Raj  Singh,  (PW-2),  

coupled with the medical evidence as seen from Exs. P1-P4, by  

the  Doctor  (PW-1),  the  case  of  the  prosecution  cannot  be  

thrown out.  In a catena of decisions, this Court has held that  

motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for  

the prosecution to prove since one cannot normally be seen  

into the mind of another.  Motive is the emotion which impels  

a man to do a particular act.  Even in the absence of specific  

evidence as to motive, in view of the fact that in the case on  

hand, two persons have been killed and one sustained injuries  

due to fire arms, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown  

out on this ground.

13) Now,  let  us  consider  the  oral  evidence  led  in  by  the  

prosecution.   We have  already pointed  out that  though the  

14

prosecution  has  examined  as  many  as  30  witnesses,  they  

heavily relied only on 6 witnesses and out of these, Raj Singh  

(PW-2), Dhiraj Raj Singh (PW-3) and Brij Raj Singh (PW-4)  are  

brothers,  Roop  Singh  (PW-6)  is  their  father  and  Durga  

Shankar  (PW-5)  and  Satya  Narain  (PW-9)  were  working  as  

labourers  in  the  house  of  Roop  Singh  at  the  time  of  

occurrence.  It is true that the names of PWs 3, 4 and 6 were  

not  mentioned  either  in  parchabayan  (Ex.  P32)  or  in  the  

statements, Exs. P22-23, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate,  

(PW-18) on the day of the occurrence.

14) It  was  also  pointed  out  that  all  the  eye-witnesses,  

particularly, PWs 3, 4 and 6 being brothers and father of the  

deceased, they are interested in their version and no reliance  

need  to  be  placed  on  their  statements.   We  are  unable  to  

accept  the  said  contention.   This  Court,  in  a  series  of  

decisions, has held that the testimony of such eye-witnesses  

should not be rejected merely because witnesses are related to  

the deceased.  This Court has held that their testimonies have  

to be carefully analysed because of their relationship and if the  

same are cogent and if there is no discrepancy, the same are  

15

acceptable vide Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahiman Patel & Ors.  

vs.  State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 1.  Likewise, minor  

discrepancies  in  the  evidence  of  eye-witnesses  are  also  

immaterial.   However,  as  rightly  pointed  out,  if  Dhiraj  Raj  

Singh  (PW-3)  had sustained  some  injuries,  his  name  could  

have been mentioned in Exs. P22, P23 and P32 which were  

earliest versions.  In those documents, the names of Raghuraj  

Singh, who died on the same day and Himmat Raj Singh, who  

died later and Raj Singh, who received gun shot injuries alone  

were  mentioned  and none  else.   Another  aspect,  as  rightly  

pointed out is that when the injured persons were examined  

by  the  Doctor  on  the  same  day,  admittedly,  PW-3  was  

examined only on the fourth day of the incident and it  was  

seen that he did not receive any gun shot injury.  Considering  

all these aspects including the fact that there is no proof of  

receiving gun shot injury to PW-3 and also taking note of the  

fact that he was 13 years of age at the time of occurrence, as  

rightly pointed out by the High Court,  his presence itself  is  

doubtful.

16

15) The  remaining  eye-witnesses,  as  per  the  prosecution  

version, are PWs 2, 4 and 6.  It was demonstrated before us by  

the learned senior counsel for the accused that the names of  

PWs 4 and 6 did not occur in parchabayan (Ex. P 32) as well  

as in the statements (Exs. P22 and P23) recorded by Shri Ajay  

Kumar  Gupta,  (PW-18),  Judicial  Magistrate,  on  the  day  of  

occurence.  The statement in Ex. P32 was recorded at 11:40  

a.m. and the incident took place at about 09:30 a.m.  Though  

it was recorded within two hours, as rightly pointed out, while  

mentioning  the  details  of  the  occurrence,  names  of  the  

assailants,  eye-witnesses,  the  presence  of  Dhiraj  Raj  Singh  

(PW-3), Brij Raj Singh (PW-4) and Roop Singh (PW-6) was not  

mentioned.  We have already noted that even in Exs. P22-23,  

the  names  of  PWs  3,  4  and  6  were  not  noted  and  no  

explanation  has  been  offered  for  their  absence.   The  

verification  of  those  documents  clearly  show  that  only  the  

names of Raghuraj Singh and Himmat Raj Singh (both died  

due  to  gun  shot  injuries)  and  Raj  Singh  (PW-2)  who  also  

received gun shot injuries were noted and except these names,  

none else was noted.  Another important factor is that Himmat  

17

Raj Singh, Raghuraj Singh and Raj Singh (PW-2) alone were  

medically examined on the same day whereas Dhiraj Raj Singh  

(PW-3) was examined after 4 days of the incident and that too  

by the very same Doctor (PW-1).  There is no explanation at all  

for non-examination of PW-3 by the Doctor along with other  

injured witnesses.  In these circumstances, as rightly observed  

by the High Court, the presence of eye-witnesses, namely, PWs  

3, 4 and 6 at the place of occurrence on the date and time as  

pleaded by the prosecution is highly doubtful.  We agree with  

the said conclusion.

16) In  the  light  of  the  above  conclusion,  the  only  witness  

available to support the case of the prosecution is Raj Singh  

(PW-2).  Let us consider his evidentiary value and how far he  

supported the case of  the prosecution.   Mr.  Bajwa,  learned  

senior  counsel  for  the  accused,  by  pointing  out  certain  

contradictions,  submitted  that  it  is  not  safe  to  convict  the  

accused based on his evidence.  It is also pointed out that Raj  

Singh (PW-2) is highly interested witness and closely related to  

eye-witnesses.  It was further pointed out that in the absence  

of any neighbour, conviction based on the testimony of PW-2  

18

alone  is  not  sustainable.   In  the  light  of  the  above  

submissions, we have carefully scrutinized the evidence of PW-

2.  First of all, merely because the witness is related to eye-

witnesses or the family of the deceased is not a ground for  

rejection vide Kuldip Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2011) 5 SCC  

324. It was also held that merely because the prosecution has  

not examined neighbours, it cannot be claimed that it is fatal  

to their case, when the evidence of eye-witnesses examined on  

their side is found to be acceptable and reliable.  Raj Singh,  

(PW-2), in his evidence, in categorical terms has asserted that  

he saw five to seven persons standing on the roof of the house  

of Karan Singh.  He had specifically mentioned the names of  

those  persons  as  Bahadur  Singh,  Shivraj  Singh,  Banney  

Singh,  Smt Swaroop Bai,  Smt Gyan Kanwar,  Smt Bhagwan  

Kanwar, Gajendra Singh and Karan Singh.  Inasmuch as in  

the parchabayan (Ex. P32), only the name of Arjun Singh and  

as per Ex. P22 the names of Arjun Singh and Banney Singh  

was mentioned, who were present on the roof at the relevant  

time, as rightly observed by the High Court, the claim of Raj  

Singh (PW-2) that all  the accused persons were standing on  

19

the  roof  is  not  believable,  however,  his  assertion  that  two  

persons  Arjun  Singh  and  Banney  Singh  were  on  the  roof  

cannot be denied.  Even if we eschew certain portion from the  

evidence of PW-2, his assertion and the statement regarding  

the  involvement  of  Arjun  Singh,  Shivraj  Singh  and  Banney  

Singh cannot be disputed.  In categorical terms, he explained  

the role played by these persons.  It is clear from his evidence  

that he received gun shot injuries which is also supported by  

medical evidence.  In view of the same, his presence at the  

time  of  occurrence  cannot  be  disputed  and  is  found to  be  

proved.   This  is  also  strengthened  from  his  statement  in  

parchabayan  (Ex.  P32)  and  Ex.  P22  statement  given  to  

Judicial Magistrate (PW-18).  A perusal of Ex. P32 makes it  

clear that it  was Arjun Singh who first  fired a gun shot at  

Himmat Raj Singh and subsequently Bheem Singh, Gajendra  

Singh (both absconding) Banney Singh and Shivraj Singh also  

fired at Raghuraj Singh and Raj Singh causing injury to them.  

Ex. P32 also clearly shows that there are specific allegations of  

causing gun shot injuries against Shivraj Singh, Arjun Singh  

and Banney Singh.  In the same manner, verification of Ex.  

20

P22 shows that Arjun Singh and Banney Singh fired at the  

deceased Himmat Raj Singh and, thereafter, Bheem Singh and  

Shivraj Singh fired at the brothers of Himmat Raj Singh when  

they  were  going  to  inform  the  police.   Though  Mr.  Bajwa  

pointed  out  certain  discrepancies  as  to  the  number  of  gun  

shots, in view of the number of injuries, as seen from Exs. P1-

P4, supported by the evidence of Dr. Manmohan Sharma (PW-

1), the said objection is liable to be rejected and participation  

of these three accused, namely,  Arjun Singh, Banney Singh  

and  Shivraj  Singh  is  clearly  proved  through  various  

circumstances including the evidence of PW-2.

17) Finally,  learned senior counsel  for the accused pointed  

out that inasmuch as Himmat Raj Singh died after 35 days  

due  to  septicemia,  the  Courts  below  are  not  justified  in  

convicting the accused persons for an offence under Section  

302 IPC for his death.  Considering the medical evidence that  

Himmat Raj Singh sustained 7 gun shot injuries which were  

sufficient  to  cause  death  in  the  ordinary  course,  we  are  

satisfied that the death of Himmat Raj Singh undoubtedly falls  

within the ambit of 302 IPC.   

21

18) The materials placed by the prosecution clearly prove the  

guilt  against  the  three  convicted  accused,  namely,  Shivraj  

Singh, Arjun Singh and Banney Singh who were armed with  

guns and with their  common intention they fired gun shots  

resulting in death of Raghuraj Singh and Himmat Raj Singh as  

well  as  causing  injuries  to  Raj  Singh  (PW-2),  in  such  

circumstances,  their  conviction  and  sentence  by  both  the  

courts have to be confirmed.

19) Dr. Manish Singhvi vehemently argued as to the role of  

the acquitted accused.  As discussed in the earlier paras and  

on going through the evidence relating to their role and the  

detailed analysis by the High Court, we agree with the said  

conclusion and reject his arguments.  For the same reasoning,  

the appeals filed by the son of the complainant are also liable  

to be dismissed.   

20) In view of the above discussion and conclusion, we agree  

with  the  decision  of  the  High  Court,  consequently,  all  the  

appeals are dismissed.   

………….…………………………J.  

22

               (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

       ………….…………………………J.                  (H.L. GOKHALE)                                   

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 2, 2011.

23