A.N Jindal, J.

This judgment shall dispose of three criminal appeals bearing Crl. Appeal Nos. 157-DB, 273-DB and 920-SB of 2002 as well as Criminal Revision No. 907 of 2004, titled Suresh v. State of Haryana, Sobhat Singh v. State of Haryana, Lachhman Singh v. State of Haryana and Smt. Kamla v. State of Haryana, respectively, as these arise out of common judgment dated 12/14.02.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.

Similarly, the appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.02.2004 passed in Complaint Case No. 95-1 of 1995 decided on the same day arising out of the same incident is also disposed of by this judgment.

Accused Dharam Pal alias Dharma, Sobhat Singh and Suresh were tried for the offences under section 302/34 read with section 120-B IPC and 25 of the Arms Act in a case registered vide FIR No. 736 dated 16.12.1994 for the murder of Chander Bhan. A case was also registered vide FIR No. 743 dated 25.12.1994 against Lachhman and Suresh under Sections 25, 30 & 59 of the Arms Act which was also tried along with case FIR No. 736 dated 16.12.1994

Chander Bhan is a resident of village Sundawas, where there was a main contest between Maha Singh and Dharmpal son of Nanak for the election of Sarpanch. Complainant Sobhat Singh and Chander Bhan were supporting Maha Singh. During the day time at about 10-11 AM a scuffle had taken place in which several shots were fired and some persons were injured regarding which a case was registered against Maha Singh and one Darya. Ultimately, they were challaned. Maha Singh had lost that election.

On 16.12.1994 at about 4.30 AM, the complainant along with Chander Bhan and Dharam Pal were going to Chandigarh. When they reached 1½ Kilometers from village then they spotted a jeep coming from the opposite side. One of the occupants Umed Singh son of Begraj raised Lalkara that enemies were going and they be taught a lesson for helping Maha Singh. Dharampal and Umed Singh son of Beg Raj and Dharambir son of Ram Lal alighted from the jeep. Dharam Pal was armed with a pistol and he fired a shot hitting Chander Bhan in his stomach and ran away. However, complainant Sobhat Singh saved himself by lying on the ground. After the aforesaid persons went towards village, the complainant along with Dharam Pal son of Nanak took Chander Bhan to the hospital, where he died.

On the aforesaid statement, a ruqa Ex.PE was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which FIR Ex.PN was registered against Umed Singh, Dharam Pal and Dharambir. The case was investigated by the Investigating Officer Bhim Singh who reached the spot but could not trace anything connecting the commission of crime at the disclosed place of the occurrence at the spot.

Thereafter Bhim Singh Investigating Officer went to the village, recorded statement of Smt. Kamla who disclosed that on the intervening night of 15/16.12.1994 Sobhat Singh and Dharm Pal had come to their house and took away Chander Bhan saying that Maha Singh had lost the election and was involved in a criminal case, therefore, they were to falsely implicate Dharam Pal Sarpanch by registering a counter case against him.

Then the Investigating Officer, Bhim Singh during investigation, arrested Dharam Pal son of Nanak, Suresh and Sobhat and they had also made extra-judicial confession regarding commission of crime before Zile Singh Ex-Sarpanch who had produced them before the police. The Investigating Officer also recorded disclosure statements Ex.PS, Ex.PT and Ex.PU, formally arrested them and prepared site plan Ex.PX Suresh also identified the place (room) at Adarsh Nagar, Hisar, where they had allegedly committed murder of Chander Bhan. They also got recovered the pellets from the Khurli and .12 bore single barrel gun along with two live cartridges. Since gun was owned by Lachhman Singh therefore, he was also challaned under section 30 of the Arms Act. Similarly Suresh was challaned under section 25 of the Arms Act vide FIR No. 743 dated 25.12.1994 Thus, on completion of investigation accused were tried together in both the cases.

Sobhat Singh accused being dissatisfied from the investigation, filed a complaint against Dharam Pal, Sarpanch and others which was also tried with the case.

All the accused as referred to above were charged accordingly to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to substantiate the charges the prosecution examined Dr. R.S Bishnoi PW 1, Dr. Surender Singh PW 2, Sham Lal Licence Clerk PW 3, Karan Singh HC PW 4, Subhash Chander constable PW 5, Bhagat Ram HC PW 6, Lilakhan constable PW 7, Gulshan Kumar photographer PW 8, Shamsher Singh draftsman PW 9, Jagbir Singh ASI PW 11, Kapoor Singh SI PW 12, Smt. Kamla PW 13, Umed Singh PW 14, Bhim Singh PW 15, Zile Singh PW 16, Mewa Singh PW 17 Inspector Bijender Singh and Sobha Chand were given up by the prosecution. The prosecution also proved on record Ex.PA and PA/1 applications made to the medical officer. Ex.PAA sanction order, Ex.PB inquest report, Ex.PBB and PBB/1 seats of injuries, Ex.PD application, Ex.PD/1 opinion of the doctor, Ex.PE ruqa medical, Ex.PF treatment charge, Ex.PG licence of the gun, Ex.PH affidavit of Karan Singh, Ex.PJ affidavit of Lila Khan, Ex.PM scaled site plan, Ex.PN FIR, Ex.PN/1 statement of Sobhat Singh, Ex.PN/2 ruqa, Ex.PO photo copy of the FIR, Ex.PQ recover memo, Ex.PR site plan of place of occurrence, Ex.PS disclosure statement of Suresh, Ex.PT memo of demarcation of the place of occurrence by Sobhat Singh, Ex.PU memo of demarcation of occurrence by Dharampal, Ex.PV sketch of the gun, Ex.PV/1 recovery memo of the gun along with cartridges and memo of demarcation of place of occurrence, Ex.PX site plan of place of occurrence Ex.PY recovery memo of the pellets, Ex.PZ ruqa of the Arms Act, Ex.PZ/1 copy of FIR No. 243.

When examined under section 313 Cr.PC the accused denied the prosecution allegations and claimed their false implication. In defence, they also examined Sobhat Singh as DW 1, Dharampal DW 2, Sahab Singh DW 3, R.K Sharma as DW 4. They also proved statement Ex.DA of Smt. Kamla recorded under section 161 Cr.PC in case FIR No. 736 dated 16.12.1994 under section 302/34 IPC. Ex.DB Photostat copy of statement of Umed Singh under section 161 Cr.PC Ex.DC statement of Sobhat Singh Ex.DE copy of judicial remand dated 26.12.1994, Ex.DF copy of memo of personal search, mark X and Ex.DY copies of telegram and closed the defence evidence. Prior to the consolidation of the Sessions Case No. 61-SC of Arms Act against Lachhman and Suresh with Sessions Case No. 60-SC of 1995, the earlier evidence in the Sessions case 61-SC three witnesses namely Sham Lal licensing Clerk, Dilbag Singh SI and Mohar Singh SI were examined and it was stated that their evidence be also read in the main case.

Since Dharma had died, therefore, proceedings against him stood abated.

The trial resulted into conviction of Sobhat Singh, and Suresh under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Suresh and Lachhman Singh were further convicted and sentenced under sections 25 and 30 of the Arms Act, respectively.

It is a unique type of case where the complainant himself was found to be killer. Though Sobhat Singh himself was the complainant in the case who had recorded the FIR. On the statement made by him at about 8 AM, FIR was recorded at 10 AM on 16.12.1994 but the occurrence as stated by him was found to be false by the Investigating Officer SI Bhim Singh (PW 15) and during his investigation three accused namely Suresh, Sobhat Singh and Dharampal son of Beg Raj was found to be culprits.

The case is not based on direct evidence but circumstantial evidence only. In order to determine the guilt of the accused on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the court is governed by the following guidelines:-

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State Of Uttaranchal 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 832, also approved the law as settled earlier and observed as under:-

“4…………. The law relating to circumstantial evidence is well settled. In dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering in mind may take place of proof. Suspicion howsoever strong cannot be allowed to take place of proof and, therefore, the Court has to judge watchfully and ensure that the conjectures and suspicions do not take place of legal proof. However, it is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial. Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturization of actual incident but the circumstances cannot fail. Therefore, many a times, it is aptly said that “men may a tell lie, but circumstances do not”. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact must be proved individually and only thereafter the Court should consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of the guilt. If the combined effect of all the facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts, by itself/themselves, is/are not decisive. The circumstances proved should be such as to exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution case succeeds in a case of circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. Where the various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then, a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. If the circumstances proved are consistent with the innocence of the accused, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. However, in applying this principle, distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to the proof of basic or primary facts, the Court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact or not and if that fact is proved, the question arises whether that fact leads to the inference of guilt of the accused person or not. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although there should be no missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that every one of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inference or presumptions, the court must have regard to the common course of natural events, and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case.”

In the light of the above observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have to consider the evidence adduced by the parties.

The prime question for determination before us is, ‘whether the prosecution version as set up by Sobhat Singh is correct or Chander Bhan was murdered and thereafter instrumented for a motive to implicate Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj, the elected Sarpanch of village against whom the accused had a grievance?’.

Admitted facts of the case are that on 15.12.1994 there was an election of village Sarpanch in their village. In this election main contest was between Maha Singh and Dharam Pal. Sobhat Singh and Chander Bhan deceased were supporting Maha Singh. During the election at about 10-11 AM there was a quarrel between the two groups whereupon the shots were fired and a case was registered against Maha Singh and Darya Singh under Section 307 IPC. Dharam Pal was elected as Sarpanch.

The other circumstances admitted by Sobhat Singh are that he and Dharam Pal had brought Chander Bhan from his house in the presence of his wife on 16.12.1994 at about 4.30 AM in connection with some domestic work. Though the case of Sobhat Singh is that the occurrence had taken place at a distance of 1½ Kms from Village Sundawas, when a jeep occupied by Umed Singh, Dharam Pal and Dharambir had arrived and Dharam Pal had attacked Chander Bhan with a pistol. To the contrary, the Investigating Officer found the statement of Sobhat Singh to be false and reached the conclusion that no occurrence had taken place on the way but it took place in a Kotha (room) of Suresh, where he was given gun shot injury by Suresh with his SBBL gun and thereafter he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Hisar.

Now the question is ‘whether the statement of Sobhat Singh as given by him before the police on the morning of 16.12.1994 is to be believed or not?’. If his statement is found to be false then certainly in the presence of the clear motive with Sobhat Singh etc. to implicate Dharam Pal, the story as discovered by the police that Suresh, Sobhat and Dharma had committed murder of Chander Bhan with the gun owned by Lachhman Singh father of Suresh would stand established. As regards the credibility of Sobhat Singh it may be observed that Sobhat Singh has admitted the prior occurrence in which Maha Singh and Darya Singh were arrayed as accused. He has also admitted that Dharam Pal and Umed Singh were the real brothers and Dharambir is the cousin of Umed Singh and Dharam Pal. He has also admitted that Dharam Pal and Maha Singh were the main constants in the election and Chander Bhan was agent of Maha Singh. A case under section 307 IPC was registered against Maha Singh and Darya for that occurrence. Dharam Pal was the complainant in the earlier case and he had won the election therefore, there was no motive for Dharam Pal to cause injuries to Chander Bhan. No particular enmity with Dharam Pal has been alleged by Sobhat Singh against Chander Bhan for causing him injury. Had Dharam Pal along with Umed Singh and Dharambir come to cause injuries then they would not have caused a sole injury to Chander Bhan and they would have also not spared Sobhat Singh and Dharam Pal son of Nanak also.

At this juncture, the testimony of Smt. Kamla (a witness to the last seen), who would be the last person to depose against the accused hailing from their own party cannot be said to be incredible. Smt. Kamla while appearing in the witness box has stated that on 15.12.1994 after taking the dinner, they had gone to sleep. At about mid night accused Dharma and Sobhat came to their house shouting that they had some work with Chander Bhan and they had to go to Hisar for that purpose and they wanted to cause fire arm injuries to somebody to involve Dharam Pal, Sarpanch in a case. Surrounding circumstance is that Maha Singh who had lost in the election was also implicated in a case under section 307 IPC. The tempers appear to have gone high in the head of Sobhat, therefore, he in order to have revenge against Dharam Pal took Chander Bhan with him at the cost of even sleep with an intention to implicate Dharam Pal, Sarpanch in the case.

Smt. Kamla PW 13 during her cross-examination has again clarified that accused Dharma son of Nanak is a collateral of her husband. They had talked with her husband about the motive during that night but they did not talk to her. She denied if they had not gone to Hisar. Story set up by Sobhat Singh appears to be false that they wanted to go to Chandigarh in connection with search of match for the daughter of Sobhat Singh. Such story was never set up by Sobhat Singh in the FIR recorded by him or later on during investigation. Since Chander Bhan was related to the accused Dharma, therefore, there was no reason for Smt. Kamla to doubt them particularly when they hailed from the same group. Since Maha Singh their close associate was involved in a criminal case on that very day, and he had lost the election, therefore, it is impossible that they would go to Chandigarh for seeking a match during that night itself.

The motive to commit murder is also writ large. At the cost of repetition, it is apparent that since Sobhat Singh and Dharma being hailing from the same faction had grudge against Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj and wanted to satisfy their egos by involving him in some murder case. With that intention, they had joined Suresh and went to his room and caused injuries to Chander Bhan. Thereafter, they themselves took him to the hospital where Chander Bhan expired. Thus, the motive for involving Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj and Dharambir and Umed in the murder of Chander Bhan stands proved. Rather the motive against Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj and others for attacking Chander Bhan does not stand proved at all.

The credibility of Sobhat Singh also stands impeached for the other reason that occurrence as stated by him is not proved. Neither the place of occurrence nor the manner in which the occurrence took place stands proved. According to Sobhat Singh complainant the occurrence had taken place at a distance of 1½ Kms from village Sundawas but according to prosecution the occurrence had taken place in the room (deserted kotha) in Adarash Nagar, Hisar as disclosed in the site plan Ex.PM and Ex.PX Bhim Singh Investigating Officer (PW 15) has categorically testified that he at the first instance, while believing the statement of Sobhat Singh, went to the place as identified by him but he could not find pellets, any incriminating material, blood stains or other symptoms i.e skid marks and foot prints so that it could be ascertained and identified as place of occurrence, but thereafter, while doubting the story, he went to Kamla on the same day and recorded her statement indicating motive for causing injuries by Sobhat etc. and from there, he had the clue to proceed in the investigation. Similarly, he recorded the statement of PW 14 Umed Singh who stated that on the morning of 16.12.1994 when he was present near Borstal Jail, Hisar waiting for some conveyance, he had seen the Chander Bhan along with Sobhat Singh and Dharam Pal and Suresh accused while going in a auto-rickshaw and Suresh was holding single barrel gun.

Suresh was arrested and pursuant to disclosure statement made by him, said licenced single barrel gun was got recovered by him from the place shown in Ex.PM i.e deserted Kotha in the presence of Mewa Singh. Three pellets and some pieces of concrete material were also recovered from Khurli which were taken into possession by the Investigating officer and attested by Mewa Singh (PW 17). Mewa Singh (PW 17) has lent support to the fact with regard to recovery of pellets, concrete material and single barrel gun from Turi Kotha and Mewa Singh was cross-examined at length but no finger could be raised against him to challenge his credibility and trustworthiness. He has stated that on 25.12.1994 he had gone to Hisar in order to collect money from Commission Agent. When he reached Bus Stand, Hisar he was told by some passengers that actual culprits relating to murder of Chander Bhan had been apprehended. At this he went to Police Station, Hisar where Dharam Pal, Sobhat Singh and Suresh were found in the police custody. Bhim Singh, SHO interrogated all the accused in his presence and they admitted their guilt and Suresh pursuant to his statement led the police party to the kotha, opened the door and got recovered gun wrapped in a cloth along with two cartridges. The Investigating Officer also recovered the pellets lying in the khurli. Similarly he had also seen the pellets marks on the wall of the khurli. A portion of the wall was broken and the pellets were lying in Khurli adjoining that wall.

Further in order to complete the chain of evidence and with an endeavor to leave anything to doubt, the prosecution proved Forensic Science Laboratory Report Ex.PB which reveals that SBBL gun got recovered from Suresh was in working condition. Pellets which were found in the dead body of Chander Bhan, found to have been fired, were of the size which were fired and loaded in .12 bore gun also so the pellets which were recovered from khurli were of the same size to that found in the dead body. There were also marks of gun shot on the wall of room as shown in the site plan Ex.PM and photographs. From this, two facts stand established: one is that the occurrence had taken place in the said room and complicity of Suresh in the commission of crime. Had the occurrence taken place on the road side as stated by Sobhat Singh then some marks of the violence, the tyre marks of the jeep, blood stains empty or the pellets must have been found at the place.

As regards the argument that since no blood was found in the kotha of Adarash Nagar, therefore, it is doubtful to believe that the occurrence had taken place there. Similarly, the place of occurrence being thoroughfare, no question of pellet marks or tyre marks could be seen. But this argument is devoid of any merit. because of the crystal clear motive on the part of Sobhat Singh to commit such crime so as to implicate Dharam Pal Sarpanch in the case. As it has already been observed that since Dharam Pal had no reason to come at such odd hours to cause injuries to Chander Bhan that too without any motive against him and it also looks abnormal that if he along with his companions had come to cause them injuries then they would return after causing sole injury to Chander Bhan. Thus, apparently, the occurrence as alleged by Sobhat Singh cannot be believed.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances and recovery of pellet marks, the concrete material and recovery of gun from the kotha in question owned by Suresh indicate that the occurrence had taken place nowhere but in the said kotha.

As regards the ownership of the room, it is evident from document mark X that Suresh himself had purchased the said room and the said document has not been rebutted by Suresh accused. Since Sobhat Singh wanted to create evidence for having a revenge from Dharam Pal Sarpanch, therefore, he made Chander Bhan a soft target in order to project that Dharam Pal had committed his murder, therefore, it was in all human probabilities and the movements made by Dharam Pal son of Nanak, Sobhat Singh and Suresh and the place chosen by them invite us to draw the inference that there is no other hypothesis except one that these were the accused persons and none else who committed the crime.

The prosecution version does not only bank upon the testimony of Smt. Kamla and the recovery of weapons but the case is also based upon the testimony of last seen witness Umed Singh who had seen all of them in the auto-rickshaw before commission of the crime. He has deposed that at the relevant time he has been waiting for the conveyance for going to his village so that he could milch his buffalo in the morning when he had seen them coming in the auto-rickshaw. Suresh was holding a single barrel gun and was sitting on the front seat by the side of the driver, the remaining persons were on the rear seat. Auto-rickshaw stopped near him, and on inquiry of the accused, he told that he was waiting for a conveyance for going to his village. During cross-examination, he clarified that he had to borrow money from Jasbir son of Ram Sarup for purchasing fertilizer and since house of Jasbir was near Borstal Jail, Hisar, therefore, after receiving Rs. 3000/- from him he was going to his village. Umed Singh may be little bit discrepant qua time of occurrence as the occurrence took place at about 6.15 AM. The villagers cannot be expected to give accurate time and it is given on guess work. But the presence of Umed Singh cannot be said to be doubtful at that time. It is a matter of common experience that people in the villages normally return to their houses early in the morning and he had a special reason that he had to milch his buffalo and thereafter to go for purchasing the fertilizer. It is also often seen that the rustic villagers have no sense of time and they depose by guess work. Under these circumstances waiting for the bus after coming to the road near Borstal Jail, Hisar is not unnatural and improbable. Even otherwise, he had no axe to grind against the accused. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt his testimony.

Then coming to the other piece of evidence of extra judicial confession. Accused had appeared on 25.12.1994 before the police and according to prosecution, they had contacted Zile Singh, Sarpanch and made a confession before him regarding their guilt. Zile Singh while appearing in the witness box has narrated the entire sequence of events stating that the accused had come to him and suffered extra judicial confession before him. He has narrated that they had compared one by one and stated that election of Sarpanch was held on 15.12.1994 in which they were the supporters of Maha Singh and many supports of Dharma had caused injuries regarding which a case under section 307 IPC was registered and in order to project a cross version, Dharma and Sobhat Singh had gone to Chander Bhan and then after taking him along with them, had gone to the house of Suresh at Hisar as he was having a gun. They wanted to get a cross case registered against Dharam Pal etc., thereafter all of them reached at an abundened house situated at Adarsh Nagar. They further told that on the asking of Dharma and Sobhat Singh, Suresh had fired a shot at Chander Bhan. Resultantly, Chander Bhan had fallen down whereupon Suresh had fled away with his gun. Dharma and Sobhat Singh took Chander Bhan to Civil Hospital, Hisar and got registered a case against Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj and Umed Singh under section 302 IPC. After confirming these facts from Sobhat Singh and Suresh he took all the three accused to the Police Station and produced them before SI Bhim Singh.

Zile Singh had no reason to falsely involve the accused. He was a respectable person having no bad track record. Nothing was suggested to him that if he had reason to depose against the accused and after the accused were produced, they got identified place of occurrence. Suresh pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.PS got recovered the gun Ex.P.20 and cartridges Ex.P.21 and P.22 Disclosure statement also led to the recovery of the pellets and concrete material from where the Investigating Officer could identify the place of occurrence. No evidence has been led by the accused that kotha did not belong to Suresh and the gun did not belong to his father Lachhman Singh. The extra judicial confession in the given circumstances of the case certainly is a good piece of evidence supporting the prosecution case. In order to determine the value of the extra judicial concession. The apex court in case Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2001 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 122, laid down the following guide-lines:-

“Indian Penal Code, Section 302. evidence Act, section 21, 24, and 25. Murder Extra judicial confession. Law enunciated by Supreme Court summed up:

(i) Extra judicial confession, if true and voluntary, it can be relied upon by the court to convict the accused for the commission of the crime alleged. Despite inherent weakness of extra judicial confession as an item of evidence, it cannot be ignored when shown that such confession was made before a person who has no reason to state falsely ands to whom it is made in the circumstances which tend to support the statement.

(ii) Evidence in the form of extra judicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be always termed to be a tainted evidence.

(iii) If the court believes the witness before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on such evidence alone.

(iv) It is not open to the court trying the criminal case to start with presumption that extra judicial confession is always a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the credibility of the witness who speak for such a confession.

(v) Retraction of extra judicial confession which is a usual phenomenon in criminal cases would by itself not weaken the case of the prosecution based upon such a confession.

(vi) An unambiguous extra judicial confession possesses high probative value force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and is admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion of any falsity.

(vii) Before relying on the alleged confession, the court has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary and is not the result of inducement, threat or promise envisaged under section 24 of the Evidence Act or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumvent Sections 25 and 26.

(viii) Court is required to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out as to whether such confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of law suggesting that it may be true. All relevant circumstances such as the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made have to be scrutinized.

(ix) Extra judicial confession which is not obtained by coercion, promise or favour of false hope and is plenary in character and voluntary in nature an be made the basis for conviction even without corroboration. 1999 (2) RCR (Cri.) 285 (SC) relied and AIR 1987 SC 1507 distinguished.”

In the instant case also the extra judicial confession appears to be true and voluntary made before respectable person with a hope that he may be helpful for their protection when they surrender before the police through him and he had no reason to state falsely against them. Witness has stood the test of cross examination and nothing fruitful could be elicited from his testimony enabling this court to disbelieve him qua any aspect of the case.

The defence plea as set up by Sobhat Singh has been found to be hallow and the mischief played by him ultimately was exposed.

Thus, in the instant case, the chain of circumstances in order to connect the accused with the commission of crime appears to be complete in itself and the circumstances established in the case suggest no other hypothesis except the one that these are the appellants except Lachhman Singh who had committed the crime.

As regards the contention that from the facts and circumstances, even if they are considered as proved even then the intention of the accused to commit murder is not proved, therefore, at the most they could be convicted under section 304 Part-II. Having pondered over the argument, we do not find ourselves persuaded to it and we observe that the accused with an intention to get a criminal cross case registered against Dharam Pal Sarpanch etc caused such bodily injury to Chander Bhan which may be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. The tamper had gone so high that hey could go to any extent to have the revenge against Dharam Pal. The medical evidence also reveals that injury caused was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Circumstances that accused Dharma and Sobhat Singh, with an intention to cause him injuries had gone to his house during dead of night and after taking him towards Hisar and then after taking Suresh they went to his deserted room and fired at him effecting vital organs of his body, therefore, certainly the offence could be traced to the nature of injury as caused by him.

Similarly, the trial court has also accepted version of the prosecution with regard to recovery of the single barrel gun with two cartridges from the deserted house belonging to Suresh. We also do not stand to differ with him on this aspect of the case. It is also established that Lachhman father of Suresh being owner of said gun had allowed the gun to be taken by Suresh for misusing the same, as such the offence under section 25 of the Arms Act against Suresh Kumar and under section 30 of the Arms Act against Lachhman Singh also stand proved

Resultantly, all the four appeals are dismissed.

As regards revision petition preferred complainant-Kamla, without pressing the enhancement of sentence, it is urged on her behalf that on account of death of Chander Bhan, his widow Smt. Kamla had to suffer a serious loss. She along with her children lost their bread-winner rendering them as destitutes, as such, compensation may be awarded for their livelihood.

Having considered the contention, Chander Bhan became the victim of Suresh, Sobhat Singh and Dharam Pal @ Dharma (since deceased) and they with an evil design to satisfy their egos, showed him the door of death rendering Smt. Kamla and her children being destitutes suffering for starvation. Chander Bhan was the sole breadwinner of the family. As such, certainly, they are entitled to some amount of damages to be paid by Suresh and Sobhat Singh, appellants.

In the result, Criminal Revision No. 907 of 2004 is disposed of with a direction to Suresh and Sobhat Singh, appellants, to pay a sum of Rs. one lac on account of damages, in equal shares to Smt. Kamla and her two children.