Shyam Sunder Byas, J.
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Hanumangarh dated February 13, 1981, by which the appellant Mithasingh was convicted under Section 302, IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and three years' rigorous imprisonment on the respective counts.
2. The prosecution case is short and simple and in succinct it is as follows. Azyabsingh the deceased victim in the case was the son of PW 1 Gulabsingh, Jat Sikh and cousin of PW 2 Sukhdeo Singh. He was living with his parents in village Chandro P.S. Hanumangarh, district Ganga-nagar. The accused is also resident of the same village. Azyabsingh was convicted under Section 307, IPC and was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment for making attempt on the life of the appellant. The appellant, due to this attempt on his life by Azyabsingh, started harbouring ill-will against him. Azayabsingh, went in appeal. The appeal was admitted and his sentence was suspended during its pendency. He was released on bail a few months before the occurrence. This further fanned the fire of enmity. At about 1.00 p.m. on October 5, 1979, Azyabsingh was sitting under a Shisham tree in an open place along with Gurdeosingh, Laxmansingh, Nidansingh and PW Sukhdeosingh. Azayabsingh was sitting in a hunched position with his thighs touching his chest. The accused emerged from the house of one Safi Mohmmed situate near by and came to the place where these persons were sitting. When he remained only two or three feet away from Azayabsingh, he (accused) took out a pistol from the fold of his Loongi and fired a shot at Azayabsingh. The shot hit the left intra-scapular region and pierced the left side of chest. It further hit in left thigh antero-surface 6 inches below the inguntial line. Azayabsingh got up and started tunning, but he soon fell down. His father Gulabsingh (PW 1), who was returning from the field in his house, on seeing the incident reached there. He and those who were sitting near Azayabsingh followed him and tied his turban around the chest wound. They lifted him to take to his house, but he succumbed to the injuries. The accused, after firing the shot, took to heels, PW 1 Gulabsingh reached police Station, Hanumangarh Junction and verbally lodged report Ex. P. 1 of the occurrence at about 2.00 p.m. on the same day. The Police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The ASI police Kartarsingh (PW 4) immediately arrived on the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. p. 2. He also seized the blood stained soil from the place where the dead body of Azayab Singh was lying. He also noticed same drop of blood on the place where Azayabsingh had fallen down after runnings few feet Since those drops of blood were in miniature, they could not be lifted. The ASI prepared the inquest report of the victim's dead body. The autopsy of the victim's dead body was conducted at about 5.15 p.m. on the same day by PW 3 Dr. Narendra Godara. He noticed the following ante-mortem injuries on the victim's dead body:
(1) wound of entry, lacerated wound 3/8' x 1/4' probe could be passed 1' deep-margin inverted scorching and blackening present around the wound. I from above down ward situated on left inter scapular region at the leval of 4th throasic spine 1-1/4' from mid line
(2) wound of exit-lacerated wound from left side of chest enteriorly in 7th inter coastal space 2-3/4' from midsteral line 4-1/2' below and medial to left nipple size 3/8' x 1/4' probe couid be passed 1' in depth-margin everted-no blackening or scorching present
The wounds No. 1 and 2 were bleeding on examination. The horizontal distance between wounds No. 1 and 2 was of 6-1/2'. On disSection, the wounds No. 1 and 2 were seen communicating with each other
(3) wound of entry-Lacerated wound on left side enteriomedical surface 6' below the ingunial line. Size 3/8' 1/4' probe could be passed through and thigh-margins inverted Blackening and scortching present
(4) wound of exit-Lacerated wound on left thigh posterior surface 7' above left knee line. Size 1/2' x 1/4' probe could be passed through and through margins everted. No blackening or scortching present. The wounds were bleeding on examination. The wounds No. 3 and 4 were communicating with each other and the distance between both such wounds was of 4-1/2'.
The wound No. 3 is situated 1' above wound No. 4. The direction is above downwards for wound Nos. 3 and 4.
3. The doctor was of the opinion that the death had taken place due to fire arm injuries caused to vital organs like heart and lungs. The postmortem examination report prepared by him is Ex. P. 6. The blood stained clothes of the victim were seized and sealed. The accused was arrested on October 6, 1979 and in consequence of the disclosure statement made by him on the same day, one pistol, two cartridges and one empty-cartridge-case were recovered. The empty cartridge-case was found in the barrel of the pistol. These were seized and sealed. The various articles were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and Serologist. Human blood was found on the clothes of the deceased. In respect of pistol reeovered at the instance of the accused, the opinion received is that it has been used in firing. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The Additional Seesions Judge framed charge under Section 302, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. Denouncing the whole prosecution story as false and fabricated piece of concoction, the accused claimed absolute innocence. According to him, he has been falsely implicated due to the long-standing enmity between him and the deceased. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found both the charges duly proved against the accused. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced, as mentioned at the very out-set. He has come-up in appeal to challenge his conviction.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file carefully.
5. There is no room for doubt that the death of Azayabsingh took place on account of the fire-arm injuries. Mr.Garg, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant did not challange the opinion of Dr. Godara (PW 3) relating to the cause of death of the victim. We need not therefore, touch the testimony of Dr. Godara (PW 3) on this point. It is altogether another matter for consideration whether the opinion of doctor Godara (PW 3) can be accepted that both the entry wounds caused to the deceased-victim were the results of a single shot.
6. We may point out that the entire prosecution case against the appellant rests squarely on the evidence of two eye-witnesses: PW1 Gulabsingh and PW 2 Sukdeo Singh, each of whom has claimed to have seen the whole occurrence from its commencement to the end. PW 1 Gulabsingh is the father and PW 2 Sukhdeo Singh is the cousin of the deceased victim. Sukhdeo Singh (PW 2) was sitting in the open place under the Shisham trees along with Bhajansingh, Laxmansingh, Nindansingh and deceased Azayabsingh when Azayabsingh was shot at by the appellant, PW 1 Gulabsingh was returning to his house from the fields, when he happened to pass at the place where the aforesaid persons were sitting, he saw the accused emerging from the house of Safi Mohammed. The accused took out a pistol from the fold of his Loongi and fired a shot towards Azayabsingh. It was PW 1 Gulabsingh who immediately went to Police Station & lodged report Ex. P. 1 of the occurrence within an hour of the incident. He has given the same version in FIR Ex. P. 1 which was later on stated by him during trial. The name of PW 2 Sukhdeo Singh has been mentioned in Lx. P. 1. The FIR Ex. P. 1 was received in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Hanumangarh at 4.10 p.m. on the same day. Taking all these facts into cousideration, the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the testimony of these two witnesses as true and reliable. The appellant was convicted solely on the strength of what they testified.
7. In assailing the conviction, it was strenuously contended by Mr. Garg that PW 1 Gulabsingh and PW 2 Sukhdeosingh have been falsely introduced as ocular witnesses and they haue been wrongly taken as witness of truth by the trial court. While elaborating and building his argument. Mr. Garg contended that the claim of these witnesses to have seen the incident is wholly untrue and unfounded. In an attempt to show that all these witnesses have been falsely introduced, Mr. Garg raised the following points:
(1) No blood was found at the place 'A' in site plan Ex. P. 2 where, according to these (witnesses, Azayabsingh was shot at
(2) No trial of blood was found from place 'A' to place 'B' where the victim is alleged to have fallen after running a few steps. At place 'B' in Ex. P. 2 also, no blood was found;
(3) According to PW 3 Godara, the victim must have met the death instantaneously on the spot on receiving the gun-shot injuries. He was not in a position to run from place 'A' to 'B'. The evidence of these two witnesses that the deceased ran from place 'A' to place 'B' on sustaining the injuries, thus, stands completely falsified and that in itself is sufficient to render them unworthy of credit and reliance;
(4) As per medical evidence of PW 3 Dr. Godara, two entry wounds caused by fire-arm were found on the victim's deadbody. Both the entry wounds had blackening and scorching. These were, therefore, the results of two shots. The injury on left thigh of the victim could not be caused by the shot which caused the injury on scapular region. According to these two eye witnesses, only one shot was fired by the accused. Since it is a case of two gun-shots and the witnesses have stated only about one gun-shot, the inevitable inference would be that they had not seen the occurrence
(5) Some of the material witnesses, who were admittedly present at the place of incident and were sitting along with the deceased, have been with-held by the prosecution;
(6) The victim had exit wounds also. It shows that the bullet with which the victim was hit, came out of the victim's body. But no bullet was found at the place of incident or near about it. That suggests that Azayabsingh was shot at some other place and his body was later on brought to place 'C in Ex. P. 2 where it continued to lie till the arrival of police; and
(7) The opinion of PW 3, Dr. Godara that both the entry wounds of the victim could be caused by a single gun-shot if he was sitting in a hunched position, with his thighs touching his chest, is not correct and dependable. The very fact that blackening and scorching were found on both the entry wounds, it sufficient to hold that they could not be results of single shot.
8. Mr. Garg contends that in view of these various circumstances, the Court below crept into an error in taking these two witnesses as true and reliable. While controverting the contentions of Mr. Garg. it was argued by the learned public prosecutor that the approach of the court below was perfectly correct, The absence of blood at place 'A' or the trail of blood from place 'A' to 'B' has been sufficiently explained. The opinion of Dr. Godara (PW 3) is not open to any challenge. The pistol recovered at the instance of the appellant has been found in working order by the Ballistic Expert. The other persons, who were sitting with the deceased at the place of occurrence, were also his close relatives. They have not been with held with any oblique motive. The FIR was lodged promptly within an hour of the incident by the eye witness Gulabsingh (PW 1;. He had no time to cook and manipulate the matter and introduce a false story against the appellant in Ex. P1.When all these factors are taken together into consideration it cannot be said that PW 1 Gulabsingh and PW 2 Sukhdeo Singh have been falsely introduced as ocular witnesses of the incident. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. It would be proper to deal with the contentions of Mr. Garg at seriatim.
9. It is true that according to eye witnesses, Azayabsingh was shot at place 'A'. In site plan Ex. P. 2 no blood was found at place 'A'. It is also true that no trail of blood was found from place 'A' to place 'B' in Ex. P. 2 where the victim fell down after running a few steps. The explanation given by the eye witnesses is that as soon as Azayabsingh received the injuries, he got up and started running. He fell down at place 'B'. Now, the deceased was wearing a Loongi on the waist and lower part of his body. The injuries sustained by him were in mascular regions. When one receives the fire-arm injuries, blood does not flow in torrents so as to drip down like water dripping down on the opening of a tap. In such a case, the blood trickles down in drops. Since the victim immediately got up on receiving the injuries and started running and he was wearing a Loongi. The blood trickling down from his wounds was soaked by his Loongi. That satisfactorily explains as to why no blood was found at place 'A' or the trail of blood was not found from place 'A' to 'B' in site plan Ex, P. 2. We, thus, find no force in the contentions of Mr. Garg that the absence of blood at place 'A' or the absence! of the trail of blood from place 'A' to 'B' renders the testimony of eye witnesses suspicious.
10. We again find no merit in the contention of Mr. Garg that no blood was found at place 'B' where the victim had fallen down after running some feet. The site inspection memo Ex. P. 2/A shows that some drops of blood were found at place 'B'. They were not found capable of being lifted by the police. Blood was, thus, found at place 'B'. Being miniature in size, the drops of the blood could not be lifted for chemical examination.
11. Taking the contention that the victim could not run from place 'A' to place 'B' on receiving the injuries, we find no substance in it. Dr. Godara (PW 3) stated that though, generally, the said injuries (caused to the victim) must have resulted in instantaneous death; the possibility of one's in such circumstances, having walked a few steps after receiving injuries is there. He could walk about two or three steps. After all, the distance between place 'A' & place 'B' is not much. It is the general reaction of a victim that as soon as he receives injuries, he tries to run in a bid to save himself from more injuries. This is a natural phenomena. Therefore, it is highly probable that Azayabsingh, on receiving the injuries, made a bit to run and after running a few steps, fell down at place 'B'. There is yet another aspect of the matter to dismiss the aforesaid contentions of absence of blood or trail of blood or the inability of the victim to run. If the two eye witnesees wanted to introduce a false story, they could very well state that the place of occurrence was not 'A' but 'B' and that Azayab Singh was shot at place 'B'. That could have also well fitted in with the probabilities of the prosecution case.But the eye witnesses did not state so and thus, avoided introducing false material. There is, thus no substance in the contention of Mr. Garg.
12. It is true that when the site was inspected by the Investigating Officer and site plan Ex. P. 12 and site inspection memo Ex. P. 2/A were prepared, the bullet discharged from the pistol by which the deceased was hit, could not be recovered there. It has been mentioned in site memo Ex. P. 2/A that no bullet was found on the spot or near about it despite search. It was argued by Mr. Garg that since no bullet was found on the alleged place of occurrence or near about, it should be inferred that the occurrence did not take place at the place suggested by the two eye witnesses. This fact in itself is sufficient to render their testimony suspicious. We are unable to agree with Mr. Garg. The direct testimony of eye witnesses cannot be discarded simply because the bullet fired from the pistol could not be traced at the spot. The place where the occurrence is alleged to have taken place it sandy. It appears that the bullet got embedded some where in the sand, therefore, it could not be traced out. The fact that the bullet could not be traced out on the spot does not diminish the value of the direct evidence of the eye witnesses.
13. In respect of with holding of the material witnesses by the prosecution, it was contended by Mr. Garg that the deceased was sitting at the place of occurrence with Laxmansingh, Nidansingh, Gurdeosingh and Sukhdeosingh. Out of them only Sukhdeosingh (PW 2) has been examined while the remaining three have not been produced in evidence. The occurrence is alleged have been seen by all of them. As such the remaining three witnesses viz. Laxmansingh, Nidansingh and Gurdeosingh were material and important witnesses. They have not been examined by the prosecution. A presumption, should, therefore be raised against the prosecution that in case they were examined, they would not have supported the prosecution case. They have been deliberately with-held. It was, on the other hand, contended by the learned public prosecutor that Laxmansingh, and Gurdeo are the close relatives of the deceased victim Azayabsingh, Sukhdeosingh (PW 2) is also the close relative of the deceased. In these circumstances, the prosecution thought it proper not to multiply the evidence by the same sort of relative witnesses. There are two eye witnesses of the occurrence. Even in case these three remaining persons Gurdeosingh, Laxmansingh and Nidansingh were examined, they would not have added anything more to the prosecution case. In these circumstances, no adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution.
14. Now, as has been stated by PW 2 Sukhdeosingh and PW 1 Gulab Singh, the remaining three persons, viz., Laxmansingh, Nidansingh & Gurdeo Singh who were sitting with the deceased at the time of the occurrence are his close relatives. They are the first cousins of deceased. In these circumstances, if the prosecution thought it proper not to multiply the evidence by producing these three witnesses, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. It does not appear that these three persons were with held with any oblique motive. In case where a large number of persons have witnessed the incident, it is open to the prosecution to examine some of them who are essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based. The prosecution has the choice in such a matter. Apart from that, it is no use in examining several witnesses on the same point. It would amount only to duplication of evidence. The contention of Mr. Garg, thus has no substance.
15. The last contention which survives for deliberation is whether the injuries sustained by the deceased were the results of a single shot or were the results of two different shots. In case the injuries of the deceased could not be caused by a single shot, the two eye witnesses cannot be taken as witnesses of truth. The inevitable inference then would be that they have not seen the occurrence and they have been falsely introduced as ocular witnesses by the prosecution to fabricate and manipulate the evidence against the accused.
16. Before we deal with the contention of Mr. Garg on this point, it would be proper to briefly notice what the eye witnesses have stated and the medical evidence relating to the qestion in dispute. According to eye witnessess PW l Gulabsingh and PW 2 Sukhdeosingh, the accused came and fired a shot from his pistol at Azayabsingh. Azayabsingh was then sitting in a hunched position with his thighs touching his chest. The shot hit Azayabsingh on the scapular region, pierced the left side chest and further hit him on the thigh causing two entry wounds and two exit wounds. According to Dr. Godara (PW 3), all the injuries found on the victim's dead body could be caused by a single shot. It would be proper to quote him in his own words. He deposed:
In case the left thigh of the deceased was in proximation of left chest when he was shot at the injuries No. 1 to 4 could have been caused by a single shot. In case the distance between the site of injury No. 3 and the fire-arm are within 4 feet, it would cause scroching and blackening round injury No. 3 (entry wound on the thigh).
He was cross-examined at some length but no question was put to him, challenging his above opinion. It was the duty of the defence to challenge his opinion by inviting his attention to the medical opinion expressed in relevant treatise which are contrary to his opinion and do not support him on this court. No such attempt was made.
17. There is, thus, complete agreement between the evidence of the eyewitnesses and the. opinion expressed by Dr. Godara (PW 3) that the injuries sustained by the deceased were the results of a single shot. It is pertinent to note that there is absolutely no conflict or discordance between the evidence of the eye witnesses and the medical evidence. On the contrary there is complete harmony and agreement between these two sets of evidence.
18. It was vehemently contended by Mr. Garg that since blackening and scorching were found on both the entry wounds of the deceased, it should be taken that they were the results of different shots and not of a single shot. It was argued that the evidence of these two eye witnesses and so also the medical opinion expressed by Dr. Godara (PW 3) should not be accepted as true and dependable.
19. The sheet anchor of Mr. Garg's argument is that blackening and scorching were found on the second wound of entry on the thigh. This blackening and scorching could be caused only when the second shot was fired. The bullet piercing the scapular and chest region could not cause the blackening and scorching on the second wound of entry on the thigh of the deceased. It was, on the other hand, argued that all the injuries caused to deceased-victim were the result of a single shot. The injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by a single shot. Reference by both the parties were made to various treatises on the subject. We readily subscribe the view propounded by Mr. Garg before us that in case the injuries to the deceased were caused by two shots, the evidence of the ocular witnesses cannot be accepted as true and reliable and so also the evidence of Dr. Godara (PW 3) When the witnesses speak only of one gun shot while the injuries have been found to have been caused by two gun shots, the evidence of the eye witnesses, as held in Shambhosingh v. State 1975 WLN (UC) 139, must fall. The clinching question, however, is whether the injuries to the deceased in the instant case were caused by a single shot or they were the results of two different shots.
20. In order to properly appreciate the rival submissions, it would be proper to have a preliminary idea of the working system of a fire arm According to Modi, missiles are loaded at the breach and into a chamber and they are forcibly driven forward by the detonation of an explosive charge which forms gages at high temperature and great pressure in the chamber at the closed end of the barrel. By pulling a trigger which release a hamper or pin and strikes over the percussion cap at the base of the cartridge, the primer is detonated and it fires the propellant charge. As a result, the bullet comes out the end of the barrel. As the bullet emerges out of the muzzel with considerable velocity and energy, it is accompanied by flame shot consisting of carbon and unburnt particles of powder and gases of explosing formed in the barrel. Taylor on page 287 (Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence- 1965 Edition) says:
Entrance wounds--When a weapon is discharged in contract with, or very close indeed to the body, the gases, including CO. which emerge with the bullet, enter the issues and thereafer expand, causing tearing of the skin or clothes, very often in the form of a cruciate or stekkate split. Most of the powder is found inside the tissues, but there may be traces of blackening, burning, soiling and tattooing around the entrance hole.
21. Thus, if shot is fired from a close range, to the body, the flame, smoke and particles of gun powder will all follow the track of the bullet in the body. On page 228 (Medical Jurisprudence - 1977 Edition), Modi expres-ssed the view:
Particles of unburnt powder expelled from the weapon behind the missile are driven to some distance, through the wound, and some of them are found embedded in the wound and the surrounding skin which is also singed and blackened by the flame and smoke of combustion... The exit wounds are always free from signs of burning, blackening tattooing from powder.' Again, on page 296, Taylor expressed the opinion:
Whatever the nature of the charge or projectile, a portion of the powder always escapes combustion at the time of discharge, and each grain then acts like a minute projectile, contusing the skin, producing ecchymosis and often lacerating it if the weapon is fired at a close range. The clothing may be burnt, and the skin scorched by the flame or hot gas, and particles of powder may be actually driven into the skin causing 'tattooing'.
22. Charring (also called scorching, burning etc.) is the burning effect of flame or hot gases produced in the combuston of powder. The possibility of confusing the charring with the deposit of dirt around the wounds is always there. At pages 174, 175 and 176 are of 'Firearms in Criminal Investigation and Trial' (1976 Edition), BR. Sharma Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, while dealing with dirt ring around the wounds, says
Dirt is deposited by some projectile around the wound. The projectiles often carry grease on them. Dirt gets collected on the grease which, in turn, is deposited around the wound
Dirt may be picked up by the projectile white passing through a medium (clothes or mud walls), or from the surface from which the projectile has ricocheted. This dirt is deposited around the entrance hole.
Charring is often confused with blackening, tattooing dirt ring or even with confusion rings. They are described as charring. Charring is different from blackening.
Thus, charring is more often than not confused with deposit or dirt around the wound or with contunsions caused by the impact of projectiles.
23. In the instant case, PW 3 Dr. Godara, who performed the autopsy, noticed blackening and scorching on the entry wound on the thigh. He has not mentioned the area of this blackening and scorching. It may be of a every minor nature. It appears that Dr. Godara confused that deposit of dirt around this wound or with contusions caused by the impact of projectiles, as charring. It is unfortunate that the doctor was not thoroughly examined on this point to elicit a clear and definite opinion from him However, since the possibility of his confusing the dirt ring or contusions with charring is there, the evidence of the ocular witnesses cannot be dismissed. The evidence of the eye witnesses should be read, assessed and evaluated keeping in view this possibility of taking the deposit of dirt around the wound or with contusions caused by the impact of the projectiles. When the evidence of the eye witnesses is so read, we find no sound reasons to dismiss what they testified that only one shot was fired by the accused.
24. When there is a case of single shot causing more then one entry wounds, the position in which the victim was sitting, standing or running, will have to be kept in view to judge whether in the given position, the several entry wounds were caused by a single shot. On page 25 (Firearm and firearm injuries) by Dr. Rao (1965 Edition Published by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India), the view expressed is:
Multiple wounds of entrance and exit from a single shot. A single bullet may enter the back and make its exit from the front of the abdomen and again enter the thigh when the victim's leg is raised as in case of running in a stepping position. Thus, one single bullet can give rise to more than one wound of entrance and exit.
25. Dealing with the aspect of several wounds caused by one or more shots, the opinion expressed by Taylor on page 300 of his book (supra) read as under:
Evidence from several wounds.--In cases in which there are two wounds and the accused alleged that only one shot had been fired, it must be remembered that one bullet may sometimes produce several wounds on the body. If the bullet splits up within the body and divides itself into three or four pieces, there will be only one entry hole but possibly several exits. This splitting of a bullet has repeatedly occurred which the projectile in its course has encountered an angular surface, or a projecting ridge of bone. A bullet may also transfix an arm and pass through the chest so that four wounds result. We have seen six, from a bullet traversing the chest, thigh and lower leg if a man bending 'one his haunches' at the time.
26. Returning the case in and, the deceased, according to the two eye witnesses, was sitting in a unched position with both his thighs touching his chest. The bullet hit the scapular region, came out of the left side of the chest and again hit the left side of the thigh. Both the entry wounds of the victim may, therefore, be caused by a single shot. It is pertinent to note that both the entry wounds are of the same size of 3/8' x 1/4'. That again shows that they were the result of a single shot. Injuries of the same dimension are, generally not caused by different shots.
27. There are other features also, which cannot be lost sight off in assessing the evidence of the two eye witnesses. The FIR Ex. P. 1 was lodged at about 2.00 p.m. whereas the occurrence had taken place at about 1.00 p.m. Ex. P. 1 was received in the Court of the Magistrate on the same day. In Ex. P. 1 the essential features of the occurrence have been described. It was lodged by one of the eye witnesses and the names of all other witnesses are there in it. In Ex. P. 1 it has been clearly mentioned that only one shot was fired. The FIR was lodged promptly with no time to manipulate the prosecution story. This again, adds to the credibility of the prosecution story and the eye witnesses.
28. We exercise a good deal of mental gymnasium to visualise whether the two entry wounds of the victim was caused by two different shots. Looking to the location of the two entry wounds, we cannot visualise a situation in which they could be caused by two different shots. Mr. Garg could not convince us how the two entry wounds could be the results of two different shots. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the deceased Azayab Singh was sitting in a hunched position with legs touching his chest. He in this position could have easily sustained two wounds of entry by a single shot. They cannot be the results of two different shots, if he was sitting in a hunched position.
29. We, therefore, find no merit in the contention of Mr. Garg that the case is of two gun shots and not of one shot. For that reason, we also reject his contention that the evidence of the two eye witnesses should not be accepted as true and reliable. The accused was rightly convicted. No interference is called for.
30. For the reasons stated above, we find no force in this appeal and dismiss the same.