RAI SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                              RAI SINGH                                      A
                                    v.
                        STATE OF HARYANA

                           AUGUST 23, 1996

          [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.]
                                                                             B

      Criminal Law :

      Penal Code, 1860 : Section 302.
                                                                             c
       Murder-Caused by pistol-Incident took place inside house of
deceased at an unearthly hour--S on and daughter of deceased were most
natural and probable witnesses-1heir evidence stood amply c01mborated by
the fact that body of deceased was found in their house with fireann in-
juries-According to rep01t of Forensic Science Laboratory these could have   D
been caused by pistol which was concealed by accused-Held : conviction
justified--Anns Act, 1959, S. 2~Tenmist and Disrnptive Activities (Preven-
tion) Act, 1985, S. 6.

     The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of the   E
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. Hence this
appeal.

      According to the prosecution in the early hours when the deceased
was sleeping in her house with her two children - her husband being away
- she heard a knock on the door. When she 01,ened the door she found the
                                                                             F
appellant-accused standing outside. Having come to know that her hus-
band was away, the appellant told the deceased to accompany him. When
she refused he fired at her with a pistol as a result of which she fell down
dead. During investigation pursuant to the appellant's statement the pis-
tol, which was concealed beneath a tree, was recovered. As regards to the G
motive for the murder, it was the further case of the prosecution, that the
deceased and the appellant originally hailed from two neighbouring vil-
lages and that they were close to each other. After her marriage the
appellant still continued to visit her and an illicit relationship. grew
between them. A fortnight before her murder the appellant had again come H
                                    125
    126                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   to meet lter and her husband 1turned him out after assaulting him with a
    lathi.
                                                                                  ...
          Dismissing the appeal, this Court

          HELD : 1.1. Though the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge
B   of murder levelled against him, he admitted that he had developed illicit
  - intimacy with the deceased and that about a fortnight prior to the incident
    her husband had found them in a compromising position. He also ad-
    mitted his presence in the house of the deceased on the fateful night.
    According to him, he was called by the deceased herself and when her
C husband returned early in the morning he tried to kill the appellant but
    somehow he made good his 1escape. He did not know what happened
    thereafter. [128·C"D]

           1.2. Since the murder took place inside the house of the deceased
D   and that too at an unearthly hour, the son and daughter of the deceased
    were the most natural and probable witnesses. Besides, in spite of search-
    ing cross-examination, the defonce could not discredit them. On the con-
    trary, their evidence stands amply corroborated by the fact that the body
    of their mother was found in their house with firearm injuries, which
    according to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory could be caused
E   by the pistol which the appellant kept concealed beneath a tree, a fact
    which stands established by the evidence of the Investigating Officer and
    the witnesses to the recovery. (128-G-H; 129-A-B]

         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
    479of1988.
F
          From the Judgment and Order dated 8.6.88 of the Designated Court
    at Karna! in Sessions Trial No. 106 and 107 of 1987.

          Sanjay Bansal (AC) for the Appellant.
G
          Ajay Siwach and Prem Malhotra for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. Rai Singh, the appellant before us, stands
H   convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms
                 RAISINGHv. STATE[M.KMUKHERJEE,J.)                        127

 Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of the Terrorist and Distruptive Activities       A
 (Prevention) Act, 1985 for committing the murder of Smt. Parkashi W/o
 Attar Singh, with a country made pistol.

         2(a) According to the prosecution case in the early hours of January
  30, 1987 when Smt. Parkashi was sleeping in her house in village Chhajpur
                                                                                 B
  under Panipat Police Station with her two children - her husband being
  away to Panipat where he worked as a Chowkidar in a factory - she heard
  a knock on the door. After lighting an earthen lamp when she opened the
  door she found the appellant standing outside. He asked her as to her
  husband's whereabout and gave out that he wanted to take revenge as he
  (her husband) had assaulted him a fortnight ago. When she replied that he      c
  had gone to Panipat that appellant told Smt. Parkashi to accompany him.
  When she refused he started dragging her out. In course of the scuffle that
  ensued, the appellant brought out a pistol and fired at Smt. Parkashi, as a
· result of which she fell down dead. The appellant then ran away with the
  pistol. Attar Singh was then sent for and after his arrival their son Mohkam   D
  Singh (P.W.3) went to the police station and lodged a report.

      (b) S.I. Mehar Sigh (P.W. 7) took up investigation of the case and
went to the spot along with other police officials. He held inquest upon the
dead body of Smt. Parkashi and sent it for post mortem examination. He           E
then prepared a rough site plan and seized some blood soaked earth from
the spot which he packeted and sealed.

      (c) During investigation appellant was arrested and pursuant. to his
statement that he had concealed the pistol and a live cartridge under a tree
                                                                                 F
near Sanauli barrier the same were recovered. The pistol and the pellets,
which had earlier been recovered from inside the body of the deceased by
P.W. 1 at the time of autopsy, were sent to the Director, Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL) Madhuban for their examination. In their reports FSL
opined that the pistol was in working order and the pellets recovered from
the body of the deceased could be parts of the empty cartridge case that         G
was found embedded in the barrel of the pistol. On receipt of those reports
and completion of investigation the Investigating Officer submitted char-
gesheet against the appellant.

      (d) As regards the motive for the murder it was alleged by the H
    128                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A prosecution that the deceased and the appellant originally hailed from two
    neighbouring villages in the State of Uttar Pradesh and that they were close
    to each other. After her marriage to Attar Singh the deceased came to
    reside with him at Chhajpur. The appellant still continued to visit her and
    an illicit relationship grew between them. A fortnight before her murder
B   the appellant had against come to meet her when her husband turned him
    out after assaulting him with a lathi.

           3. Though the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder
    levelled ag:ainst him, he admitted that he had developed illicit intimacy with
    Parkashi and that about a fortnight prior to the incident Attar Singh had
C   found them in a compromising position. He also admitted his presence in
    the house of the deceased on the fateful night. According to him, he was
    called by the deceased herself and when her husband returned early in the
    morning he (her husband) tried to kill him but somehow he made good his
    escape. He did not know what happened thereafter.
D
          4. That Smt. Parkashi met with her death on being fired from a pistol
    stands conclusively proved by the evidence of Dr. Gupta (P.W. 1) who held
    the post mortem examination and found a lacerated wound over the
    sternum and multiple metallic pieces embedded inside, which he extracted.
E   He also found multiple lacerated wounds over the posterior wall of the
    pericardium. He opined that the injuries found by him were sufficient to
    cause death in the ordinary course of nature and that those injuries were
    caused by firearm.

          5. To prove that the appellant was the culprit, the prosecution relied
F   upon the eye witnesses' account given by Mohkar Singh (P.W. 3), son and
    Usha (P.W. 4), daughter of the deceased and the evidence adduced in
    proof of the recovery of the pistol along with an empty cartridge pursuant
    to the statement made by the appellant.

G         6. Having gone through the entire evidence on record we do not find
    any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Since the murder took
    place inside the house of the deceased and that too at an unearthly hour,
    the son and daughter of the deceased were the most natural and probable
    witnesses. Besides, we find that in spite of searching cross-examination, the
H   defence could not discredit them. On the contrary, we find, their evidence
                  RAI SINGH v. STATE (M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.]              129

    stands amply corroborated by the fact that the body of their mother was A
    found in their house with firearm injuries, which according to the report
    of the FSL could be caused by the pistol which the appellant kept con-
    cealed beneath a tree, a fact which stands established by the evidence of
    the Investigating Officer and the witnesses to the recovery.

          7. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly   B
    dismissed.

    V.S.S.                                               Appeal dismissed .




•