Case: Pupinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab

the father of the deceased. In such circumstances, it was quite unlikely that the Appellant a young boy of 17 years, would unnecessarily kill the deceased by firing at him from a very close range particularly when he had no occasion to be inimical to the deceased. Mr. Lalit has also contended that depositions of relations of complainant and deceased and persons having strained relations with the accused need not be discarded as a matter of course but the expediency requires that the Court should be careful enough in accepting such evidences. He has submitted that it is quite apparent that there was bad relations between the complainant and the accused and one of the witnesses for the prosecution had occasions to be inimical. It has been found that a false implication was sought to be made against the father of the Appellant Iqbal Singh but the learned Sessions Judge did not accept the prosecution case so far as Iqbal Singh is concerned. When the prosecution witnesses had shown over-jealousness to falsely implicate the father of the Appellant because of enmity, the depositions of the alleged eye witnesses should not have been accepted by the courts below on the face value. Mr. Lalit has submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate that when the witnesses for the prosecution had deposed falsely to implicate both the father and the son in order to feed fat on the grudge, it was only expedient that no reliance should be placed on their evidences even against the Appellant. He has, therefore, submitted that the conviction of the Appellant is wholly unjustified and the same should be set aside and the Appellant should be acquitted. 9. Such contention of Mr. Lalit was strongly refuted by Mr. Bindra, Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent. Mr. Bindra has submitted that admittedly the deceased had died because of the injuries caused by the shot fired from the gun since held by the Appellant. The place and time of occurrence are also admitted. It is, therefore, necessary to analyse as to whether the deceased had deed to accidental fire as has been contended by the Appellant or the Appellant had deliberately fired on the deceased. The Learned Counsel has submitted that it has been held by both the courts below that the presence of the eye witnesses at the place of occurrence was quite natural. He has submitted that there is no inconsistency in their depositions. So far as the Appellant is concerned, their depositions are also corroborated by the medical report and the evidences given by the doctor who is a disinterested witness. Simply because the relations of the deceased and the neighbour who had strained -relation with the accused No. 1, had deposed on behalf of the prosecution, there was no reason to discard their deposition more so when such depositions stand corroborated by medical evidence, both the courts below have given good reasons for accepting the straightforward deposition given by eye-witnesses. Mr. Bindra has also contended that if the automatic rifle of the accused No. 1 was in a proper working condition, the fired cartridge was likely to be ejected from the rifle but it could not be established on behalf of the accused that the said rifle when fired was in such a proper condition at the time of occurrence. Moreover, simply because the cartridge was not found, it cannot be held that the eye-witnesses had been deposing falsely against the accused No. 1. He has also submitted that it has not been held by the learned Sessions Judge that the witnesses had been deposing falsely and they were not trustworthy but the accused No. 1 was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt because the case against him could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. In the aforesaid circumstances, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the deposition of the eye witnesses also against the Appellant were required to be discarded, cannot be accepted. Mr. Bindra has also contended that the High Court has given elaborate reasons in concurring with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge that the Appellant was guilty for murdering the deceased and there is no ground to discard them. He has contended that the Appellant made a cunning attempt to give a story of accidental firing by making an application before the police authorities. But the falsity of the case of the Appellant was clearly established by the evidences adduced in the case and both the courts below, therefore, did not accept the same. The Learned Counsel has, therefore, contended that in the aforesaid facts, there is no occasion to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. The appeal, therefore, should be dismissed. 10. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the case of accidental firing as sought to be contended cannot be accepted. It has been rightly held by the courts below that the presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence was natural and their depositions were not liable to be discarded. It also appears to us that the depositions of the eye-witnesses stand amply corroborated from the evidence of the doctor and also the post mortem report. The delay in lodging the first information report has been explained by P.W. 2, the father of the deceased and such explanation has been rightly accepted by the High Court and we do not find and cogent reason to take a contrary view. In our view, the grounds indicated by the High Court in discarding the case of accidental fire on account of the alleged tussle between the deceased and the Appellant appear to be quite reasonable. There is also force in the submission of Mr. Bindra that simply because prosecution case against accused No. 1 was not accepted to be fully proved, the case against the Appellant should not be dismissed.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]10. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the case of accidental firing as sought to be contended cannot be accepted. It has been rightly held by the courts below that the presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence was natural and their depositions were not liable to be discarded. It also appears to us that the depositions of the eye-witnesses stand amply corroborated from the evidence of the doctor and also the post mortem report. The delay in lodging the first information report has been explained by P.W. 2, the father of the deceased and such explanation has been rightly accepted by the High Court and we do not find and cogent reason to take a contrary view. In our view, the grounds indicated by the High Court in discarding the case of accidental fire on account of the alleged tussle between the deceased and the Appellant appear to be quite reasonable. There is also force in the submission of Mr. Bindra that simply because prosecution case against accused No. 1 was not accepted to be fully proved, the case against the Appellant should not be dismissed.