1998 INSC 0525
                                                      Ram Gopal

                                                           Vs

                                                  State of Rajasthan

                                        Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 1986

                                     (CJI M. M. Punchhi, K. T. Thomas JJ)

                                                      28.07.1998

                                                     JUDGMENT

THOMAS, J. ­

1. This appeal by special leave is by an accused who was convicted under Section 302 IPC for
murdering his nephew (Gopinath) by firing a gun. The trial court and the High Court has
concurrently found that the appellant had intentionally fired the gun and caused the death of
Gopinath. The defence version that the firearm got accidentally triggered off in a scuffle was not
accepted by the two courts.

2. The case of the prosecution was that accused Ram Gopal and his brother's sons were at
loggerheads, years ago Ram Gopal had murdered the father of Gopinath. On the evening of the date
of occurrence (24-6-1985), there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant about which
a complaint was made by the deceased with the police. In the night, by about 11 p.m., when the
deceased was trying to repair an electric lamp, the appellant fired his rifle at him through the
window which resulted in Gopinath falling down dead. His brother Vishwanath (PW 1) rushed to
the scene and the appellant aimed a gunshot at him also but he escaped by ducking down. Then
another brother Bharat Bhushan rushed up who too was targeted, but the target was missed and
Bharat Bhushan caught hold of the firearm and there ensued a scuffle between the two. The police
came to the scene and nabbed the appellant.

3. Though PW 1 Vishwanath has not seen the crucial act of firing at the deceased, his evidence
reached very close to the version of any eyewitness. He gave first information to the police on the
same night. Two eyewitnesses PW 2 (Asha) and PW 3 (Maya) are sisters of the deceased. PW 4
Bharat Bhushan narrated the incident which took place after he reached the scene which, of course,
was subsequent to the shooting down of the deceased.

4. The appellant denied the prosecution version regarding previous enmity. He tried to show that he
was maintaining a good relationship with his nephews right from the beginning. Regarding the
occurrence, he said that he returned home only at about 11 p.m. from his work spot and he was
carrying his rifle with him and on reaching home, he found the door closed. When he opened the
door, he noticed PW 4 and deceased Gopinath hiding behind and waiting for him. A scuffle
followed and in the course of the hubbub, the rifle happened to be triggered off.

5. The High Court did not believe the above version of defence. Learned Judges pointed out that
since a police petition was filed by the deceased complaining that the appellant had assaulted him on
the said evening at the place of occurrence, it is a strong material to suggest that the appellant was
present at the house much earlier than 11 p.m. Another argument of the defence was that the
incident would not have taken place on the first floor because blood was found on the ground floor.
That argument also was repelled for a good reason that the dead body was taken down and blood
would have oozed out and thus blood was found on the ground floor.

6. The main argument is that all the eyewitnesses are interested persons being the kith and kin of the
deceased. It is true that the prosecution could not examine any independent witness for proving the
occurrence, but the situation and time was such that no independent witness could be expected to be
present. The venue of the incident was inside the dwelling house of the deceased and the time of the
incident was near midnight. In such a situation, the inmates of the house would be most natural
witnesses to such an occurrence. Hence they are the most natural in such circumstances. There is no
question of discarding such evidence on the mere premise that they are related to the deceased.

7. Another point raised is that the FIR is silent about the details of the occurrence. But the skeletal
facts revealed in the FIR are consistent with the detailed narration of the eyewitnesses in the
evidence. The trial court and the High Court have rightly pointed out that non-mention of the details
of the occurrence in the FIR is not sufficient to jettison the vital document.

8. We do not think that the trial court and the High Court have committed any error in reaching the
conclusion that the appellant has intentionally murdered the deceased. We therefore dismiss this
appeal.