AMITAVA ROY, J.The subject matter of scrutiny is the judgment and order dated01.10.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh inCriminal Appeal No. 378-DB of 2004 concurring with the verdict of the TrialCourt in convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and307 IPC while acquitting the co-accused Harpartap Singh, his son.Following his conviction, the appellant had been awarded sentence of lifeimprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence under Section 302IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- withdefault sentence under Section 307 IPC.Both the sentences have beenordered to run concurrently.The High Court has concurred with thesentence as well.We have heard Mr. Yatindra Singh, Senior Advocate, learned AmicusCuriae for the appellant and Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, learned counsel forthe respondent.The incident witnessing the death of Jatinder Singh and the injuriessustained by Lakhwinder has the genesis in a trifle.On a statementrendered with regard thereto by Gurdial Singh(PW1), the First InformationReport was registered against the appellant and his son Harpartap.It wasalleged that over a lingering land dispute between the informant and theappellant, who are brothers, on 06.07.2002, while Jugraj, the son of theinformant was in his fields, the appellant had hurled abuses to him.Jugraj having felt humiliated and anguished, on returning home, complainedabout the same to his father Gurdial, the informant.The houses of thebrothers were adjacent to each other.When the appellant returned homefrom his fields, the informant went to the terrace of the roof of his houseand summoned the former to that of his.The appellant and his sonHarpartap responded to the call whereafter informant enquired of Gurpal asto why he had abused his son.This enraged the appellant and whilearrogantly proclaiming that he was not only justified to do so but that hewould continue to conduct himself as done, rushed downstairs of his houseand brought his DBBL gun.His son Harpartap, the acquitted co-accused wasalso with him.It is alleged by the prosecution that on the exhortation ofHarpartap, the appellant opened fire, which hit the informant on the sideof his head.Meanwhile drawn by the commotion, Paramjit Kaur, the wife ofthe informant, Jatinder Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, friends of Jugrajrushed to the terrace.On seeing them, the appellant fired from his guntowards them, which hit Paramjit and Jatinder on their abdomen andLakhwinder on his mouth and head.On hue and cry being raised, theappellant and the accused fled the scene.The injured were rushed to the Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsarwhere they were treated.However, Jatinder succumbed to the injuriessustained.After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was laidagainst both the accused persons under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.The accused persons denied the charge and, therefore were tried.Theprosecution examined several witnesses including the informant, theinjured and the doctor who had performed the post-mortem examination andhad attended the injuries of others involved.The accused persons wereexamined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the completion of the trial, theTrial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 307 IPC butacquitted the co-accused Harpartap.To reiterate, the High Court hasaffirmed the conviction and the sentence recorded by the Trial Court.The learned Amicus Curiae has persuasively argued that theprosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge against the appellantwhich is patently deducible amongst others from the exoneration of the co-accused Harpartap, who allegedly had instigated the former to open fire onthe deceased and the injured.We have examined the evidence pertaining to the incident as availableon records.The eye-witnesses including the informant have offered aconsistent, coherent and convincing narration thereof which does not admitof any doubt of their trustworthiness.The plea of their familyrelationship to discredit them does not commend for acceptance in theattendant facts and circumstances.Noticeably, in course of theinvestigation, amongst others, the 12 bore DBBL gun loaded with two livecartridges used for the offence had been recovered from the appellant.Thesite plan prepared by the investigating officer also pins the place ofoccurrence as deposed by the witnesses.Further four cartridge shells havealso been recovered from the said spot.The medical evidence reveals injuries on the deceased and the injuredcompatible with the weapon used.The charges levelled against theappellant thus have been proved beyond doubt.We order accordingly.Ex-consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed.

Relevant sections: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code