Prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing favourable to the petitionerconvict or adverse to the prosecution could be produced on record.

 Prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing favourable to the petitionerconvict or adverse to the prosecution could be produced on record. These PWs remained consistent on each and every material point inasmuch as they made deposition exactly according to the circumstances happened in this case, therefore, it can safely be concluded that the ocular account furnished by the prosecution is reliable, straightforward and confidence inspiring.
As far as minor contradictions in the statements of the PW5 are concerned, the some ore natural as admittedly the petitioner remained absconder for a period of 12 long years and the trial begun after his arrest on 24.09.2015. Aftersuch a lapse of time, some minor discrepancies may occur but the some are neither dishonest nor are sufficient to discard the testimonies of the PWs of the ocular account.
The medical evidence available on the record is in line with the ocular account so for as the nature, locale, time and impact of the injury on the person of the deceased is concerned.
So for as the question that the PWs were closely related to the deceased, therefore, their testimony cannot be believed to sustain conviction of the petitioner-convict is concerned, it is by now a well established principle of law that mere relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such witnesses unless previous enmity or ill will is established on the record to falsely implicate the accused in the case but no such thing could be brought on record. All these PW5 have reasonably explained their presence at the place of occurrence.
Substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon. The complainant would not prefer to spare the real culprit and falsely involve the petitioner without any rhyme and reason.
The recovery is held to be inconsequential as admittedly the petitioner was arrested after 12 years of the occurrence and it W05 impossible to retain the crime weapon with him in such a long period of time. The petitioner had also got recorded his statement under Section 340(2) Cr.P.0 and produced one defence witness in support of his version that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. However, except for the bald statement, no credible evidence in this regard could be brought on record.
As for as the argument of learned counselfor the petitioner that on the some set of evidence co-accused Samad who was ascribed the similar role has been acquitted whereas the petitioner has been convicted is concerned, the learned High Court has rightly observed that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable to that of the acquitted co-accused as all the eye-witnesses stated that the bullet, which hit the deceased, was fired by the petitioner whereas only a general role of firing was ascribed to the co-accused Samad. In these circumstances, it can safely be said that the prosecution has brought on record reliable evidence to sustain the conviction of the petitioner. However, so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, we are of the view that when the learned High Court itself has observed that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment over the blockage of passage and there was no premeditation on the part of the petitioner; the petitioner only fired single shot and did not repeat the some despite having ample opportunity to do so; no motive has been alleged by the prosecution for the commission of the crime and the recovery of the weapon is inconsequential, the sentence of imprisonment for life was not justified. In this view of the matter, we convict the petitioner under Section 302(c) PPC and sentence him to fourteen years RI. So for as the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that it was not a sudden affair and the finding that the petitioner only fired single shot is contrary to record is concerned, despite our repeated queries he could not show us from record anything in support of his contention, which could persuade us to hold otherwise.

Crl.P.53-Q/2020
Gul Zarin & others v. Kamal-Ud-Din & another