Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court, are as under:The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.02.2009 on receipt of DD no. 68B, SI Saheb Singh along with HC Rajesh reached at the spot i.e. Enkey India office, near KDR factory, GTK Road, Jahangirpuri where dead body of a lady was lying in a pool of blood and blood was also coming out from the head of that lady.There were four injury marks on the head and both cheeks of the dead body.Since last one year, complainant's wife was working at Kohinoor Beauty Parlour at B-39, West Patel Nagar, Delhi on 35 per cent profit basis and Sanjeev Kumar was owner of the said beauty parlour.Due to some dispute over money, complainant's wife was not going to the said Beauty Parlour from the last ten days and Sanjeev Kumar had telephoned to call his wife but his wife did not go there.On 22-02- 2009 at about 10 pm, Sanjeev Kumar came to the house of complainant in black colour Santro car bearing no. DL3C AQ-7008 and asked them to talk.Complainant sit near the driver seat while his wife Pinki and daughter sit on the back seat of Sanjeev Kumar's car.Sanjeev Kumar drove the car towards Jahangirpuri Metro Station and then turned it towards GTK Depot and when the car reached near KDR factory, in front of factory no. B-3, Enky India office, Sanjeev stopped the car.Sanjeev Kumar asked complainant and his wife Pinki to get down from the car and to go back to their house.As soon as complainant and his wife Pinki got down from the car, Sanjeev Kumar fired two-three times from his pistol on Pinki due to Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 2 of 19 which she along with her daughter fell down on the road.Complainant got perturbed.On hearing the sound of firing, many people gathered at the spot.Sanjeev Kumar ran towards GTK Depot, By- pass in his car.Complainant lifted his daughter in his lap.Someone dialled to PCR.During investigation, Crime Team inspected the spot and photographs were taken.Blood sample, earth control, three empty cartridges were lifted from the spot and taken into police possession.The dead body was shifted to mortuary.The IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant and recorded statement of witnesses.During investigation, it was revealed that Santro car bearing no. DL3C- AQ-7008, in which Sanjeev Mahajan ran from the spot, was standing at Outer Ring Road, near Income Tax Colony.It was further revealed that said car was registered in the name of Ajay Kumar r/o Flat no. D-45, Gujaranwala Apartments, J-Block, Vikaspuri, Delhi.Ajay Kumar disclosed that after getting financed, he had given the said car to Sanjeev Mahajan.Sanjeev Mahajan was not found despite search.Postmortem was got conducted on the dead body of deceased Pinki from BJRM hospital mortuary.The case property was deposited in the malkhana.The testimony of PW1 Surenderjeet Singh is further corroborated from the statement of PW13 Surender Kumar Mishra, a Security Guard in KDR factory that he heard the noise of the firings and one person shouting "bachao-bachao" and on opening the gate of the factory, he saw the deceased lying on the ground few steps away from the gate with blood oozing from her mouth after which, he informed the Police Control Room.During cross examination, PW13 stated that shouts of Bachao Bachao was in a gents voice which would also establish that PW1 was present at the spot and escaped after the gun shots.During investigation, PW 5 SI M.D. Meena, who was part of the crime team stated that when he reached the place of incident he saw a body of a lady lying with blood scattered at the spot and Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 13 of 19 having bullet mark injuries on both sides of head ear and check and three empty shells with mark "KF 765" were lying there.As per the said register, at serial No. 914 Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sohan Lal, V& PO Bhikwind was issued license of 12 bore double barrel gun vide serial No. 14460 by the order of District Magistrate Amritsar.PW25 further stated that as per the said entry, the holder of the license can carry his weapon all over India and he proved relevant entry as Ex. PW25/A. PW25 also stated that aforesaid person was also issued one Addl.PW28 Sh.V. R. Anand, Asstt.Director, Ballistic Division, FSL, Rohini, Delhi stated in his examination in chief that on 25.08.2009 one sealed parcel was received in his office by messenger HC Joginder from P.S. Jahangirpuri and on 11.02.2011, one another sealed parcel was received through messenger Const.Rajender Singh.PW28 stated that all the seals on the parcel were intact and on opening the parcel No. 1, three 7.654 mm cartridges marked as EC-1 to EC-3 were taken out and on opening the second parcel, Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 14 of 19 one bullet and one deformed bullet marked as EB-1 & EB-2 respectively were taken out.PW28 examined the said exhibits and cartridges EC-1 to EC-3 were fired empty cartridges and bullets EB-1 & EB-2 corresponded to the bullet of 7.65 mm cartridges.PW28 further stated that individual characteristic of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on EC-1 to EC-3 and TC-1 to TC-5 in case FIR No. 104/09, P.S. Jahangirpur (FSL NO. 10/F- 5254) were compared under comparison microscope and were found identical.PW28 also stated that mark EC-1 to EC-3 were fired through the pistol 7.65 mm calibre marked Ex. F-1 in case FIR No. 83/09, P.S. Crime Branch (FSL No. 2009/F-2386) deposied in case FIR No. 104/09, P.S. Jahangirpuri (FSL No. 10/F- 5254).PW28 further stated that individual characteristic of rifling marks present on bullet marked as EB-1 and TB-5 in case FIR No. 104/09, P.S. Jahangirpuri (FSL NO. 10-F-5254) were compared under comparison microscope and were found identical.PW28 stated that EB-1 was fired through the pistol 7.65 mm calibre marked Ex.F-1 in case FIR No. 83/09, P.S. Crime Branch (FSL No. 2009/F-2386) deposited in case FIR NO. 104/09, P.S. Jahangirpuri (FSL No. 10/F-5254).PW28 also stated that individual characteristic of rifling marks present on bullet marked as EB-2 were insufficient for comparison and opinion whether it was fired through the pistol 7.65 mm calibre marked Ex.F-1 in case FIR No. 83/09, P.S. Crime Branch (FSL No. 2009/F-2386) deposited in case FIR No. 104/09, P.S. Jahangirpuri (FSL No. 10/F-5254).After Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 15 of 19 examination, report running into 3 pages Ex.PW28/A was prepared in his office on his dictation.PW28 further stated that on 29.11.2010, one sealed parcel was also received in his office and seals on the parcel were intact.Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2013 and order of sentence dated 24.05.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 217/09 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27/54/59 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 6,000/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offences under Section 27/54/59 of Arms Act with fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 1 of 19Due to bullet injury in the head, the complainant's wife Pinki died on the spot.During investigation, Inspector J. K. Sharma conducted investigation from the driver of Sanjeev mahajan namely Maninder Singh, partner of Kohinoor Beauty Parlour namely Karan Singh and some other people but he could not be found.The scaled site plan was got prepared from draftsman.In the meanwhile, information was received that wanted accused Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 3 of 19 Sanjeev Mahajan was arrested in case FIR no. 83/09 u/s 25 Arms Act by the Crime Branch SOS and the pistol by which he fired bullet at Pinki, was also recovered from him.On 05.06.2009, accused Sanjeev Mahajan was arrested from Patiala House Court and his one day PC remand was taken from the court.Accused Sanjeev Mahajan gave disclosure statement that due to financial disputes with Pinki, he fired at her from his licensed pistol whose license had expired.Accused led the police to the place of incident and the place where he left the Santro car.Accused disclosed that he threw the cloths in the water of Haridwar which he wore on that day of the incident.Exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini.After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed against the accused Sanjeev Mahajan u/s 302 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 3 of 19After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Sessions Court.Charge under Section 302 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."The prosecution, in the course of the trial, relied upon the testimonies of 35 witnesses and also placed on record several exhibits whereas one witness has been examined by the accused in his defence.Statement of accused was recorded under Section 323 of Code of Criminal Procedure.The learned Trial Court, after scrutiny of the evidence, found that prosecution had been able to prove the case against the appellant and, accordingly convicted him for the offences and imposed the sentence as has been stated hereinabove.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 4 of 19While arguing the appeal, Ms. Aishwarya Rao, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court are wrong and illegal as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by filling in lacunas in the investigation.Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the case of the prosecution rests only on the sole testimony of PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, whose presence at the spot is highly suspicious; that there are inconsistencies and material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses; that there are many loopholes in the investigation; that the santro car allegedly used by the appellant was identified by PW1 Surenderjeet Singh within 2 hours of the incident whereas the said car was seized by the officials of Police Station Maurya Enclave on 23.02.2009; that the alleged FIR is ante-dated and ante-timed; that prosecution has failed to bring on record the call record of the phone used for informing the police about the alleged incident; that the informer i.e. PW13 Surender Kumar Mishra was not cited as a witness to the memos and recoveries; that the weapon of offence i.e. Pistol could not be identified by PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, who is the sole eye witness of the incidence; that the bullets allegedly recovered from the body of the deceased were not produced before the learned Trial Court and were not exhibited and in this manner, the weapon of offence does not get connected with the offence; that the investigating agency has manipulated the case and the investigation Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 5 of 19 has not been conducted properly; that PW8 Maninder Singh and PW13 Surender Kumar Mishra are planted witnesses to implicate the appellant falsely in the present case.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 5 of 19On the other hand, Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, learned counsel for the State opposed the appeal filed by the appellant and argued that it is a case of direct evidence and the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt; that PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, husband of the deceased, being the eyewitness, saw the appellant firing three rounds of bullets at his wife.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 6 of 19 become witness to the criminal proceedings or investigations and hence there are no public eye witnesses to the alleged crime and appellant cannot take benefit of faulty/defective investigation.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 6 of 19We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and considered their rival submissions.In order to deal with the contentions of both the parties, it would be appropriate to examine the testimony of the material witnesses and documents.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the prosecution on the testimony of sole eye witness of the alleged occurrence is PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, who is husband of the deceased and since he is a highly interested witness, therefore, no reliance should have been placed on his statement.In a case, where conviction is based on the sole testimony of an eye witness, it becomes necessary to evaluate the truthfulness and reliability of the said witness.In the present case also, it needs to be examined whether the testimony of PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, who is the single witness to the incident can be relied upon.PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, deposed :"I am working as an electrician in A Block Market, Jahangir Puri.Accused Sanjeev Mahajan, now present in the court, was running a beauty parlour by the name Kohinoor Beauty Parlour at West Patel Nagar.My wife was working in the beauty parlour for the last 1-1 years before her death.She was working with accused on a 35% profit in the partnership.About 10-15 days before her murder, Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 7 of 19 she was not going to the parlour owing to the reason that our daughter was unwell.Accused made a telephone call to her to join her work in the parlour but my wife refused.He took us in the car on the pretext that he wanted to talk to us.Our daughter was also with us.I was sitting besides the driver seat in the car while my wife and daughter were sitting on the rear seat.The accused took the car to Jahangir Puri and from there, to KDR factory at G.T. Road.Accused stopped the car near the KDR factory and asked us to get down and go back to our house.When we got down from the car, accused Sanjeev Mahajan also got down and fired on my wife Pinki thrice from his pistol.My wife along with the child fell down and started bleeding and died at the spot.Accused then fled away towards by-pass with his car.I lifted my daughter.I got scared and rushed towards to the house of my in-laws at I Block, Jahangir Puri which was nearby to the spot.But, my in-laws were not present at the house and therefore I telephonically informed my father in law and then again came back at the spot.The PCR van had reached at the spot.Police had recorded my statement Exbt.PW-1/A which bears my signatures at point A. After about one and a half hour - two hours, the police officials asked me to indentify one car standing near Sunday bazaar, Pitam Pura.I went there and identified the car.Police enquired the name of the owner of the car.The body of my wife was rushed to BJRM Hospital for post-mortem.The body after post-mortem was handed over to me vide receipt Exbt.PW-1/B. My statement was recorded by the police regarding the identification body of my deceased wife which is Exbt.PW-1/C. I had shown the place of occurrence to the police.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 8 of 19 identify the pistol if shown but can identify the car..."Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 7 of 19PW6 SI Sahib Singh deposed that the spot was inspected by crime team and three empty shells were found at the spot were lifted and seized vide memo Ex.PW6/D. PW23 SI Ravinder had proved the arrest of appellant and the recovery of one loaded pistol with 6 live cartridges and a Arms Licence with bullets having marking "KF 765".Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 13 of 19On opening the parcel, one pistol 7.65 mm calibre bearing No. RP-129479, one test fire cartridge case and five 7.65 mm cartridges were taken out.These exhibits were already marked in case FIR No. 83/09, P.S. Crime Branch (FSL 2009/F-2386) as F-1 and A-1 to A-6 respectively.PW28 examined the exhibits and two 7.65 mm cartridges from laboratory stock were test fired through the pistol marked Ex.PW28 also stated that the said report Ex.PW28/B was correct and may be read as part of his evidence.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 14 of 19Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 15 of 19The parcels received in the FSL were intact.Individual characteristic of refilling marks present on bullet as stated above were found identical.PW28 proved his report as correct.PW17 Dr. K. Goel proved the post-mortem (Ex. PW17/A) on the body of the deceased which was referred by PW34 Inspector J.K. Sharma with alleged history of gunshot injuries.PW17 Dr. K. Goel opined that the injuries were antemortem in nature and were Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 16 of 19 result of firearm which caused cranio-cerebral injuries which are sufficient in the ordinary course.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 16 of 19PW27 Sh.V. Shankaranarayanan proved his report Ex.PW27/A (FSL Report) and Ex.PW27/B (Serological Report) on the basis of Ex. 1, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d (clothes of the deceased) and Ex. 5 (metallic pieces).The ocular testimony of PW1 Surenderjeet Singh stands corroborated with the medical evidence led by the prosecution through PW17 Dr. K. Goel as well as scientific evidence led through PW27 Sh.V. Shankarnarayanan that appellant had committed murder by firing bullets from his licensed pistol on deceased as a result of which she died on the spot.The bullets recovered were compared and found to be identical.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code