1996 INSC 1147
                                                       Rai Singh

                                                           Vs

                                                  State of Haryana

                                        Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1988

                                      (M.K. Mukherjee, S. P. Kurdukar JJ)

                                                      23.08.1996

                                                     JUDGMENT

M. K. MUKHERJEE J.

1. Rai Singh, the appellant before us, stands convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC and
Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1985 for committing the murder of Smt Parkashi, wife of Attar Singh, with a
country-made pistol.

2. (a) According to the prosecution case in the early hours of 30-1-1987 when Smt Parkashi was
sleeping in her house in Village Chhajpur 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 whereabouts and gave out that he wanted to take revenge
as he (her husband) had assaulted him a fortnight ago. When she replied that he had gone to Panipat
the appellant told Smt Parkashi to accompany him. When she refused he started dragging her out. In
the 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 Singh (PW 3) went to the police station and
lodged a report.

                  (b) SI Mehar Singh (PW 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 then prepared a rough site plan
                  and seized some blood-soaked earth from the spot which he packetted and sealed.

                  (c) During investigation the appellant was arrested and pursuant to his statement that
                  he had concealed the pistol and a live cartridge under a tree 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 PW 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 was found embedded in the barrel of the pistol. On receipt of those reports and
                  completion of investigation the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against
                  the appellant.
                  (d) As regards the motive for the murder it was alleged by the 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 the appellant had again 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 against him, he admitted
that he had developed illicit intimacy with Parkashi and that about a fortnight prior to the incident
Attar Singh had 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.

4. That Smt Parkashi met with her death on being fired at from a pistol stands conclusively proved
by the evidence of Dr Gupta (PW 1) who held the post-mortem examination and found a lacerated
wound over the sternum and multiple metallic pieces embedded inside, which he extracted. 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 upon the eyewitnesses' account
given by Mohkam Singh (PW 3), son and Usha (PW 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.

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 defence could not discredit them.
On the contrary, we find, 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 FSL
could be caused 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.

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