Case: Mohan Singh Vs. State of Punjab

2. The occurrence, as already mentioned, took place on April 27, 1968. On that day the appellants mother was going in the lane in front of the house of Karam Singh. There was an exchange of abuses between Karam Singhs wife and mother and the appellants mother because Karam Singhs dog had barked at her. Shortly thereafter the appellant and his brothers came to Karam Singhs house and again started abusing. The appellant was then carrying a gun. When Karam Singh returned home and heard about this incident he abused the accused. This brought the appellant and his brothers to the lane and they in turn abused Karam Singh. The deceased Dial Singh, a cousin of the appellant came there at that time carrying a dang and challenged the appellant and his companions. Teja Singh came there at that time and exhorted the appellant to fire. The appellant fired the gun as a result of which Dial Singh died and Swaran Kaur was also hit.3. According to the appellant when he went to his house to fetch a dang he heard his father, Teja Singh, raise an alarm Mar sittya and he heard the report of aHe picked up the gun and went out and saw Swaran Kaur lying injured and Dial Singh armed with a pistol. When Dial Singh started loading his pistol he fired at him inThe short and simple point therefore is whether the appellant fired at and killed Dial Singh in

Reasoning:
7. The expert stated that he came to the conclusion that the injuries on Dial Singh and Swaran Kaur were probably caused by one gunfire only. It must first of all be noted that he is not categorical about it. The reasons for his conclusions are the dimensions of the injuries. He had not seen the injuries and it would need superhuman ability to come to a conclusion on this subject by merely looking at the description of the injuries or even the photographs given by the doctors. The dimensions of the injuries noted by the doctors cannot be correct to the extent of 1/100th of an inch. Most of the experts answers are not categorical. He did not have an opportunity of seeing the injuries and exist wounds of the shots himself. He was mostly giving his answers on the basis of observations made by others and measurements noted by them. A small difference in the measurements one way or the other might make all the difference to the final result. We think it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance on the evidence of the expert for the reasons we have already given and hold that the shots which hit Swaran Kaur and which resulted in the death of Dial Singh were fired from the same gun in a single shot. Furthermore, when Karam Singh started out of his house, having heard about the appellant and his people having come to his house and abused and the appellant being armed with a gun, he is not likely to have gone out unarmed. He was accompanied by Dial Singh when he met the appellant and his party. Swaran Kaur was appellants aunt. She was trying to persuade Karam Singh and others not to abuse. So she could not have gone behind Dial Singh while doing so and been hit by the bullets which hit Dial Singh. It seems more likely that the injury was caused to Swaran Kaur from a member of Karam Singhs party as pleaded by the appellant. In any case we consider that it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the shots which hit Swaran Kaur were the same shots which hit Dial Singh. An accused pleading the right ofneed not prove it beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough if he establishes facts which on the test of preponderance of probabilities make his defence acceptable. In any event, the discarding of the prosecution story by us as respects the manner of the causing of the injuries on Swaran Kaur means that the whole story as to the manner of occurrence becomes very doubtful. In such a situation the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.