JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.
1. The appellant Ramji Lal has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.1.1982 passed by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 86 of 1981 convicting him under Section 302 I.P.C. with sentence of life imprisonment.
2. We set out the relevant facts for the appreciation of succeeding discussion. The incident took place on 12.11.1980 at about 11 AM inside the own house of the accused appellant in village Rohina Singhpur, P.S. Akrabad, District Aligarh and the F.I.R. was lodged the same day at 11.30 AM by one Man Singh PW 1. The appellant is the father-in-law of the deceased Krishna Devi who was married to his son Raj Kumar. As per the F.I.R., Man Singh PW 1 resident of the same village had gone to the house of village Pradhan Om Prakash Singh at about 11 AM. on the fateful day. He did not find him there and was coming back via a lane. On reaching in front of the house of Gandharva Singh, he heard two shots emanating from the direction of the house of Ramji Lal. He rushed towards the said house and saw him (Ramji Lal) coming out of his house with DBBL gun in hand and walking away in haste. When accosted, Ramji Lal did not reply and went ahead. Man Singh went to the courtyard of the house and saw that Krishna Devi wife of Raj Kumar son of Ramji Lal was lying dead in the room near window] (Jangla). Several other persons of the village also arrived. Two empty cartridges were lying there. An attempt was made to apprehend Ramji Lal but he slipped away towards Aligarh in a tonga. It was also mentioned in the F.I.R. that about 1 years earlier, the deceased was married to Raj Kumar. She was the daughter of Kushal Pal Singh of village Gangapur. The Sasural of Man Singh (informant) was also in that village and he had acted as a mediator in the settlement of the said marriage. Ramji Lal had demanded dowry of Rs. 10,000/- but only Rs. 3,000/- were paid to him by Kushal Pal Singh who got prepared ornaments for his daughter (Krishna Devi) of the remaining amount. Ramji Lal used to demand those ornaments, but Krishna Devi had kept the same at her father's place. Ramji Lal was annoyed with Krishna Devi on that score. In the morning of the date of incident also, Ramji Lal asked his son to leave the lady at Gangapur, saying that he would not allow her to remain in his house. A quarrel had taken place between the father and son on that account. Raj Kumar accused had caused a bite to his father and fled away. Taking advantage of this situation, Ramji Lal shot dead his daughter-in-law Krishna Devi with his licensed gun and bolted away therewith.
3. On the lodging of the F.I.R., constable clerk Shiv Mangal Singh PW 4 prepared a chik report and made entry in the G.D., registering the case. The investigation was taken up by Lal Singh Tyagi PW 8, Station Officer of P.S. Akrabad who recorded the statement of the informant and then reached the spot, busying himself with the activities related to the investigation of the case including preparation of the site plan, inquest report etc. The dead body after being sealed was sent for post mortem through Constable Vijendra Singh PW 5. The autopsy was conducted by Dr L.K. Shukla PW 6 M.O. in Malkhan Singh hospital, Aligarh on 13.11.1980 at 1.30 PM. The deceased was aged about 20 years and about one day had passed since she died. The following two gunshot wounds of entry as ante mortem injuries were found on her person:
1. Gunshot wound of entry 11/4" x 1" x cavity deep on epigastric region, 7" above umblicus. Margin inverted. Blackening and tattooing was present.
2. Gunshot wound of entry 1" x 1" x cavity deep (chest) on left side back, middle upper part.
4. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result mortem injuries.
5. The accused surrendered on 17.11.1980. On his disclosure, the gun (weapon of the offence) was discovered. The gun and two empty cartridges (found at the spot and-taken in possession by the Investigating Officer on 12.11.1980 itself) were sent to the Ballistic Expert B. Rai PW 9 for opinion.
6. The defence was of denial and false implication due to enmity with Om Prakash, Pradhan.
7. The prosecution in all examined ten witnesses. Most material witnesses Were Man Singh PW 1 and Ramvir Singh PW 2. The accused also examined Dr J.N. Singh DW 1 Medical Officer, District Jail, Aligsrh in defence. The evidence of the prosecution found favour with the trial judge who recorded the impugned judgment. Aggrieved, the accused has challenged the same by mans of this appeal.
8. We have heard Sri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the accused appellant and Sri Amar Jeet Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
9. It has been argued for the accused appellant that he came to be implicated only on suspioion. It has been urged that Man Singh PW 1 himself did not see the shooting and was not an eyewitness. The testimony of Ramvir Singh PW 2 has been criticised on the premise that he was not named as eyewitness in the F.I.R. lodged by Man Singh and that the Investigating Officer did not show in the site plan the point wherefrom he allegedly saw the incident from the roof. Making reference to the testimony of Om Prakash PW 7, it has been pointed out that he saw Ramvir Singh PW 2 at the place of incident only at 2 PM.
10. On scrutiny, we do not find any substance in these submissions and in-depth analysis of the evidence exposes their hollowness. It should be pointed out that Man Singh PW 1 and Ramvir Singh PW 2 had no axe to grind. To say in other words, they had no enmity whatsoever against the accused appellant. They spoke only what they saw with their own eyes. True, Man Singh PW 1 was not the eyewitness of the shooting but he fully explained the background and the circumstances where under his attention was attracted to house of the accused where from he saw him coming out with a gun and walking away in haste. He was the resident of the same vicinity where the incident occurred. He had played the role of mediator in the settlement of the marriage of the deceased Krishna Devi with Raj Kumarson of the accused. Thus, he yew about the dowry and the method of its payment. His arrival at I the scene of occurrence at the fateful time was not unnatural in view of the f facts staled by him. he testified by him, he did not find the Pradhan (to whom he had gone to west) at his house and was going to the village in his search. When he reached in front of the house of Gandharva Singh, he heard gunshot emanating from the direction of the house of the accused. Rushing to that place, he saw the accused appellant coming out of his house with DBBL gun in hand. He questioned him to know as to what the matter was. He did not give any reply. Instead, he went away in haste. He then went inside the house f of the accused and saw the dead body of Krishna Devi lying in the room, window (Jangla) and door of which were open. Other persons also collected there.
11. It is not at all fatal to the prosecution that Ramvir Singh PW 2 is not cited as an eyewitness of shooting in the F.I.R. lodged by Man Singh PW 1 after getting u scribed from Om Prakash Singh, Pradhan PW 7 who had also reached the scene of incident after about five minutes. The F.I.R. is not an encyclopaedia of every minute detail. It is also noted from his testimony that immediately after him, Suraj Pal. Banwari Lal, Ram Babu, Badan Singh and I several other persons including ladies had collected there. According to him, he had got the report scribed from Om Prakash Singh Pradhan at the Chabutara of the accused. Immediately after the scribing of the F.I.R., he had gone to the police station to lodge it. It was actually lodged there on 12.11.1980 at 11.30 AM. It has to be recalled that the incident took place on 12.11.1980 at about 11 AM and the distance of the police station was about four miles. It is clear that he had not stayed any longer at the spot after the F.I.R. was scribed. Rather he had immediately rushed to the police station. There is nothing unusual. So, non-mentioning of the name of Ramvir Singh Eyewitness in the F.I.R. would not belie that Ramvir Singh saw the shooting from the roof.
12. No point can be scored from this statement either of Om Prakash Singh PW 7 that he had seen Ramvir Singh at the spot, at 2 PM. It was explained by the own statement of Ramvir Singh PW 2 that after seeing the shooting from the roof, he had come down and chased Ramji Lal to apprehend him. By the time he reached the road, he (Ramji Lal) boarded a tonga and proceeded towards Aligarh. This witness even met a Daroga coming on a motorcycle on road and he told him of the incident, but that Daroga replied that he belonged to P.S. Sikandararau. It was thereafter that he reached the scene (house of Ramji Lal), being unsuccessful in apprehending Ramji Lal. There he saw the dead body of Krishna Devi in a pool of blood. A crowd had already collected there. By the time he reached there, Man Singh had already left to lodge the F.I.R.
13. A little remissness on the part of the Investigating Officer in not showing that point at the roof wherefrom Ramvir Singh PW 2 saw the shooting can W no ground to reject his testimony, because on scrutiny Ramji Singh's testimony is found to be credible and cogent that he saw the actual shooting. We should point out that admittedly his house was adjacent in the north to that of the accused where the incident occurred. Further, this witness was the on uncle of the accused with no enmity with him whatsoever. At the time of the incident, he was preparing Guchhi of jute at his roof at about 11 AM. He heard a gunshot from the house of the accused accompanied by shriek. His attention was instantly attracted and peeping from the roof, he saw the accused in his courtyard with a DBBL gun and within his sight he opened second shot, taking aim towards the room through Jangla. It is gleaned from the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer that the dead body of the deceased was found at point 'A' by the side of Jangla. It was adjacent to the courtyard wherefrom the accused opened shots. It was there in the testimony of Ramvir Singh PW 2 that the roof of the accused had a parapet of 1IV2 ft. height. Ramvir Singh PW 2 was very well in a position to see the accused opening second shot while peeping from the roof, his house being adjacent in the north on the roof of which he was preparing Guchhi. He instantly came down from his house and chased the accused, but the latter managed to escape in a tonga. The trial judge rightly found the testimony of the eyewitness Ramvir Singh PW 2 to be perfectly believable.
14. The learned Counsel for the accused appellant then argued that Km. Usha (daughter of the accused) and Raj Kumar (husband of the deceased) were not produced by the prosecution as witnesses though they were cited as such in the charge sheet. We do not think that it makes any dent in the prosecution case, it h the quality of evidence that matters, and not the quantity. The blood is thicker than water. The son and daughter of the accused were his own, family members. There was every possibility of their crossing over to the side of the accused. After all, the accused himself could produce both or, any of them in his defence in case they were to say something against the prosecution case. It is important to note that the incident took place inside the house of the accused. He did not say anything as to where he was at time in the incident. Rather, his conduct was that he surrendered in-court on 17.11.1980. We should also point out that after being taken on police remand, he led to the recovery of the DBBL gun (Ext. 7)--weapon of the offence. S.I. Vidya Rarn made the recovery. Vidya Ram being dead, Sunhari Lal PW 10 who had accompanied Vidya Ram at the time of recovery of gun testified about such recovery. The empty cartridges (Exts. 3 and 4) found at the spot re sealed by the Investigating Officer at the spot and deposited in the Malkhana of the Police Station. The gun and these empty cartridges were sent to the Ballistic Expert on 22.2.1981 for opinion. The report of the ballistic expert is Ext. Ka-16. The said Ballistic Expert B. Rai PW 9 was examined. The report of the Ballistic Expert and his testimony was to the effect that one of the empty cartridges found at the spot had been discharged from the can in question, though comparison of the second one could not be possible because of insufficient data. Thus, the prosecution case further got cemented that it was the accused appellant Ramji Lal who had shot dead the deceased by firing from the DBBL gun in question (Ext. 7)
15. The evidence of Dr J.N. Singh DW 1, Medical Officer, District Jail, Aligarh had no relevance at all. He had found a few contusions and two traumatic swellings on the person of the accused at the time of his medical examination at 27.11.1980 at 5.30 PM. They were estimated to be two days' old. The incident occurred on 12.11.1980. Thus, such few simple injuries found on the person of the accused on 27.11.1980 were of no relevance.
16. On threadbare we analysis of the evidence on record, we do not find any merit in any of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant. The case against the accused appellant was proved to the hilt by clinching and convincing evidence without any shadow of doubt whatsoever. He, the own father-in-law of the deceased, committed her murder without the least justification. He has rightly been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. with sentence on life imprisonment which is lesser of two alternative punishments provided for of the said offence.
17. We hereby dismiss it the accused appellant Ramji Lal is on bail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh shall cause him to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment passed against him.
18. The judgment be immediately certified to the lower court. Compliance shall be reported by the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned to this Court within two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order which shall be sent by office immediately.