JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar dated 15th January, 1977 by which he convicted the appellant for the offences under sections 302 and 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment on the first count and eight years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo one months' rigorous imprisonment on the second count. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to the trial of the appellant ate that on 4.4.74 at 8.00 p.m. Baluram (P.W.8) resident of village-Khcri Tehsil was going from his house towards the village to extend invitation for 'Bhat' ceremony in connection with the marriage of his cousin. When he reached near the peepal tree (fig tree) standing on the ground out side his house, he saw the appellant Rameshwar standing there alone with Beyta, Kushla and Ramkumar. On seeing him, Ramkumar cried out that enemy was coming towards his house, at which his companions Beyta, Kushla and Ramkumar told him what was there to see he should accomplish the task. Baluram stopped there hearing their talks Rameshwar while pointing his pistol towards him gave a warning that he was going to be shot at and immediately thereafter he fired three shots but none hit Baluram because he had hidden himself behind the people there. On hearing the report of the pistol Bhagwan, Amarsingh and Hasankhan reached their and enquired from Baluram about the matter. Meanwhile Manguram 'P.W.17,. Gordhan. Sharwan (P.W. 15). Bhagwanaram (P W.7), Nathusingh (P.W.6) and Mst. Surji (P. W. 11) also reached their and enquired from Baluram whether he had sustained any injury. Baluram replied in the negative. All these persons then proceeded towards the house of Baluram. Just then Beyata, Kushla and Ramkumar who were standing near by instigated Rameshwar that the enemies were going collectively and he should do away with them. When Baluram and others accompanying him had reached in between the peepal tree and electric pole. Rameshwar throw one hand granade which fell at a distance of 5-7 paces from them. The hand granade burst out and its splinters hit Baluram and nine other persons who were with him. They all except Mst. When Baluram and others accompanying him had reached in between the peepal tree and electric pole. Rameshwar throw one hand granade which fell at a distance of 5-7 paces from them. The hand granade burst out and its splinters hit Baluram and nine other persons who were with him. They all except Mst. Surji who had fallen on the ground at the spot went away from there. Rameshwar was said to have sat down near Mst. Surji telling that he would not allow any body to lift Mst. Surji from there. On reaching the house, Gordhan became unconscious and the injured person brought Gordhan in a camel-cart to Laxmangarh. Baluram lodged a written report Ex. P. 6 at Police Station Laxmangarh on 5-4-75 at 3.15 P. M. and then he along with other injured, proceeded to Sikar Hospital by train. In the way between Laxmangarh and Sikar Gordhan breathed his last. The injured along with the dead body of Gordhan went to hospital Sikar where Dr. B. P. Jangid (P. W. 4) examined the injuries of the injured persons and conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Gordhan the same day. 3. Dr. Jangid examined Baluram and found one lacerated wound 3/4" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the back of the left upper arm. The injury was simple. X-ray was advised to determine the nature of the weapon used. The X-ray report revealed a big radio opaque shadow in his left shoulder region. On its basis Dr. Jangid opined that the injury was caused by some gun powder blast. The injury report prepared by Dr. Jangid is Ex.P.8 4. On examination of Hasankhan Dr. Jangid noted one abration 1/2" x 1/2" on the left side of the back of chest 2" below last rib. The injury was simple and caused by some blunt object. The injury report is Ex. P.9. 5. On the same day Dr. Jangid examined Bhagwanaram and noted the following injuries on his person : 1. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" on the left buttock posteriorly. 2. Lacerated wound 1/2" x ⅛" x ⅙" on the back of right leg at the junction of lower two third and upper one third. 6. Both the injuries we.e simple. X-ray was advised to determine the weapon used. The X-ray report revealed radio opaque shadows under both the injuries. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" on the left buttock posteriorly. 2. Lacerated wound 1/2" x ⅛" x ⅙" on the back of right leg at the junction of lower two third and upper one third. 6. Both the injuries we.e simple. X-ray was advised to determine the weapon used. The X-ray report revealed radio opaque shadows under both the injuries. Hence these injuries were held to be the result of gun powder blast. The injury report is Ex. P. 10. 7. On examination of Sanware, Dr. Jangid noted following injuries on his person : 1. Four abrasions 1/2" x 1/4" such on the front of left forearm upper part scattered in the area of upper one third. 2. Penetrating wound 1/4" x 1/2" x 1, 1/2" on the front of left thigh upper part. 3. Abrasion 1/2" x 1, 1/2" above injury No. 2. 4. Penetrating wound 1/2" x 1/4" x ⅙" x 1" below injury No. 2. 5. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x 1" on the front of right thigh upper part. 6. Five abrasions 1/2" x 1/4" on the front of right thigh surrounding injury No. 5. 7. Penetrating wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1" on the lateral side of right leg upper part. 8. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on the antero lateral aspect of right leg upper part. 9. Penetrating wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/2" on the lateral side of right leg below the knee. 10. Multiple abrasions 1/2" x 1/4" scattered on the lower part of chest and whole of the abdomen anterior aspect. 8. According to the Doctor, all the injuries except injury no. 10 were simple in nature. For determining the nature of injury no. 10 and also the nature of weapon used, he advised X-ray. On the basis of X-ray report he opined that injury no. 10 was simple and injury no. 1 and 3 were caused by some blunt object and rest of the injuries were caused due to gun powder blast. The injury report is Ex. P.l I. 9. Mst. Surji was examined by Dr. Jangid and following injuries were noted on her person : 1. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" above the left internal malleolus. 2. Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the lateral side of right thigh in the middle. 3. The injury report is Ex. P.l I. 9. Mst. Surji was examined by Dr. Jangid and following injuries were noted on her person : 1. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" above the left internal malleolus. 2. Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the lateral side of right thigh in the middle. 3. Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4"' x 1/2" in front of the right ear upper part. 10. According to the Doctor injuries nos. 2 and 3 were simple. X-ray was advised to determine the nature of injury no. 1 as well as the weapon used for causing all the injuries. The X-ray report revealed fracture of the fibula bone at two places and radio opaque shadows under all the injuries. Hence injury no. 1 was previous. All the injuries were caused by gun powder blast. The injury report is Ex. P. 12. 11. On the same day Dr. Jangid examined Bhanaram and noted following injuries : 1. Penetrating wound of 1/2" diametre and 1" obliquely deep on the right lateral border of the sternum 2" below the clavicle. 2. Penetrating wound of ⅛" diametre 1/2" deep on the front of left thigh lower one third. 3. Penetrating wound of ⅛" diametre 1/4' deep on the front of left shoulder. 12. The X-ray report revealed radio opaque shadow under injuries no.l and 3. Hence injuries no. 1 and 3 were caused by gun powder blast and injury No. 2 was caused by some blunt object.On examination of injuries of Amarsingh Dr. Jangid noted the following injuries on his person : 1. Lacerated wound 1/2" x ⅛" x 1/2" on the postero-lateral side of right leg in the middle. 2. Penetrating wound 1/2" x 1/4" x ⅙" on the left heal. 3. Lacerated wound ⅛" x ⅛" x ⅛" - 1" above and lateral to left eye. 13. All these injuries were simple. Injuries no. 1 and 3 were caused by some blunt object. The X-ray was taken for injury no 2. The X-ray report revealed a big radio-opaque shadow. Hence that injury was held to be the result of gun powder blast. The injury report is Ex. P. 14. 14. On examination of Mangu following injuries were noted on his person: 1. Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the back of right thigh upper one third. 2. The X-ray report revealed a big radio-opaque shadow. Hence that injury was held to be the result of gun powder blast. The injury report is Ex. P. 14. 14. On examination of Mangu following injuries were noted on his person: 1. Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the back of right thigh upper one third. 2. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" above the right medial meleolus. 15. Both the injuries were simple in nature. The X-ray was taken and it revealed radio opaque shadow under these injuries. Hence these injuries were caused by gun powder blast. The injury report is Ex. P. 15. 16. Dr. Jangid also examined Nathusingh and noted one lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the back of right thigh lower-part. The injury was simple. The x-ray was advised and it revealed big radio opaque shadow. Hence this injury was held to be the result of gun powder blast. The injury report is Ex. P. 16 17. According to Dr. Jangid the duration of the injuries of the aforesaid persons was within 12 hours. The X-ray referred to above were taken by Dr. K. C. Jain and it was on the basis of those - X-ray reports that Dr. Jangid has expressed opinion about the nature of certain injuries and the weapon used. 18. On 5.4.75 at 11 a.m. Dr. Jangid conducted an autopsy on the dead body of Gordhan and noted fallowing external injuries on the dead body : 1. Lacerated wound 1, 1/2"x ⅙" bone deep on the right parietal region in the middle. 2. Lacerated wound 1 " x 1/2" bone deep on the right parietal eminence. 3. Lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" bone deep lateral to the right eye. 4. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" bone deep. 1" lateral to the right eye brow. 5. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" above the right eye brow. 6. Lacerated wound 1,1/4" x 1/4" x 1/2" on the lateral side of right shoulder. 7. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2" x ⅙" 1" below injury no. 6. 8. Two abrasions 1/4" x 1/4" on the back of right wrist. 9. Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/2" x 1/4" on the right side of abdominal 2" below the ribs. 10. Penetrating wound 1/2" x 1/2" abdominal cavity deep 1" above and right to the umblious. the omentum was coming out of this injury. 11. 6. 8. Two abrasions 1/4" x 1/4" on the back of right wrist. 9. Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/2" x 1/4" on the right side of abdominal 2" below the ribs. 10. Penetrating wound 1/2" x 1/2" abdominal cavity deep 1" above and right to the umblious. the omentum was coming out of this injury. 11. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" on the right side of the abdomon 2" below and right to to tho umblicus. 12. Penetrating wound 1" x 1/2" abdominal cavity deep in the left iliac fossa of loop of small intestines coming out. 13. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4"x 1/2" on the part of right thigh upper part. 14. Lacerated wound "x"x" 1" below injury no. 13. 15. Lacerated wound "x "x 1/2" on the medial side of left thigh lower part. 16. Lacerate wound 21/2" x 11/2" x 1/2" on the dorsom of right foot near the toes. 17. Lacerated wound 2'x 1 x 1/2" on the front of left knee. 18. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2 x 1/2" on the front of left leg lower part. 19. Lacerated wound 1 "x 1/2" x 1/2" on the scrotum. The left testicle was coming out of this wound. 20. Lacerated wound 11/2" x 1" x 1/2" on the lateral side of right thigh in the middle. 21. On dissection of the dead body the Doctor noted as under ' 19. There was dark fluid blood in the peritoneal cavity. The stomach was congested. There two were ruptures in the greater curvature of the size 1/2" x 1/2" each. The Doctor removed two pellets from the stomach. There were multiple punctures in the stomach and large intestine and the omentum. Seven pellets of different sizes were removed by the Doctor from the small intestine and its mesentry. The other viscera were found to be normal but congested. 20. According to the Doctor, all the external and internal injuries noted by him on the dead body were antimortem in nature. In his opinion Gordhan had died due to intra abdominal haemorrhage as a result of multiple punctures in the stomach, small and large intestines and in the mesentry which were caused due to external injuries no. 10 and 12. He further opined that external injuries no. 10 and 12 with their internal effects, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Gordhan. 10 and 12. He further opined that external injuries no. 10 and 12 with their internal effects, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Gordhan. The postmortem examination report prepared by Dr. Jangid is Ex. P. 17. 21. P. W. 20 Mahipal singh, Station House Officer, Laxmangarh was out of Police Station on duty hence the written report lodged on 5.4.74 by Baluram at 4 Police Station was received by him from the Head Constable, on his return. The 1 Station House Officer went to the site and after inspection of the site at the instant of Rameshwar (P. W. 2) prepared the site plan Ex. P. 5 and the site inspection memo Ex. P. 5 A. The pieces of hand grenade found at the site were taken in possession vide memo Ex. P. 1. The blood soaked earth from the site was taken in possession vide memo Ex. P. 2. Witness Rameshwar produced the blood stained clothes of deceased Gordhan which were taken in possession vide memo Ex. P. 3. The Station House Officer obtained the injury reports of the injured persons, the postmortem report and the panchayatnama of the dead body which was prepared at Sikar. The appellant and other co-accused were arrested. After his arrest, while in the police custody, the appellant furnished information to the Station House Officer for getting recovered the pistol. The information reduced into writing is Ex. P. 49. In pursuance of that information the police recovered the pistol Ex. 2 from inside the roof of his jumpha. The site plan of that place is Ex. P. 50. The recovery memo of the pistol is Ex. P. 22. The Station House Officer sont the blood stained clothes and the earth recovered by him for chemical examination. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Ex. P. 52. All the articles sent were positive for blood. According to the report of the Serologist Ex. P. 1, the articles sent to him were found stained with human blood. 22. The pieces of the hand granade and the pistol recovered by him and the pieces of hand granade received from the Doctor were sent to Dy. Controller of Inspection (Ammunition), Gwalior. They were examined by the Ballistic Expert. The report of the Ballistic Expert is Ex. P. 53. 22. The pieces of the hand granade and the pistol recovered by him and the pieces of hand granade received from the Doctor were sent to Dy. Controller of Inspection (Ammunition), Gwalior. They were examined by the Ballistic Expert. The report of the Ballistic Expert is Ex. P. 53. The report of the expert is not traceable on the file but the enclosure of the letter received from Mr. B.B. Gokhale, Assistant Foreman is there and is marked as Ex. P. 53 (Contd.). It has been certified in it that the photograph pasted thereon bearing number CIA/FV/83/74 is the true photograph of the exhibits forwarded by the Controller of Explosives, Gwalior vide his letter No. RI(18) 375 dated 21.9.74. The letter referred in Ex. P. 53 (contd.) is not available but in the statement of the appellant Rameshwar, a question in this connection has been asked to him from which the contents of letter are known as under. 23. The exhibits described below were received from the Controller of Explosives, Gwalior vide his letter No. BK11)375 dated 28. 11.74. The exhibits were under the wax seals of Inspector of Explosives, Gwalior and they were received by R.P.P. 2. The central Photograph bearing number CIA/FB/83/74 taken at this controller ate is enclosed herewith for ready reference. Description 3. The Cloth bag contains Metal pieces. They are magnetic. The circularise is the base plug of the granade Hand No. 36 N MKT manufactured in India. This is evident from the markings on the pieces which reads as No. 36 M. MKT. The spring with a rod is the striker of the granade hand No.36. 24. From the shape and size and appearance it can be said that they are the fragments of the granade hand of Rifle No. 36. Their total weight is 151 grams (2330 grains). (b) The metal pieces in a bottle weigh 0'44 grains. They are magnetic. (c) The metal pieces from the four paper packets weigh as stated below : Packet 'A' 1-59 grains 'B' 1-98 grains 'C' 1-27 grains 'D' 1-37 grains 25. All the four pieces are magnetic and could be the pieces of the granade hand." 26. The report of the Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) New Delhi Ex. They are magnetic. (c) The metal pieces from the four paper packets weigh as stated below : Packet 'A' 1-59 grains 'B' 1-98 grains 'C' 1-27 grains 'D' 1-37 grains 25. All the four pieces are magnetic and could be the pieces of the granade hand." 26. The report of the Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) New Delhi Ex. C.1 states that the pistol contained in the parcel was a toy pistol and was not covered by the definition of "Fire Arms" in the 'Arms Act' 1954 of 1959. 27. After completion of necessary investigations a charge-sheet against the appellant and the co-accused Ramkumar, Beyata and Kushlaram was filed in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur. The learned Magistrate committed the appellant and the co-accused to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, The learned Additional Sessions Judge charge-sheeted them for the aforesaid offences and recorded their pleas. All of them denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate its case prosecution examined twenty witnesses in all. The appellant in his statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that it was because of party politics that he has been falsely involved in the case. He also stated that Mahavir son of witness Mangu was in Military service and had come in the Village on the day of occurrence. The defence witnesses were examined to substantiate the defence version that it was at the hands of Mahavir that the grenade burst causing injuries to a number of persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not hold the case proved against Ramkumar, Beyata and Kushlaram beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, extending benefit of doubt to them, acquitted them of all the charges framed against them. The prosecution evidence against the appellant Rameshwar was held to be believable and he was held guilty for the murder of Gordhan and for causing injuries to others. 28. We gave our anxious consideration to the materials on record and heard Mr. O. C. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. S. Acharya, Public Prosecutor for the State, 29. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of the trial court for the offences under sections 307 as well as 302 Indian Penal Code. 28. We gave our anxious consideration to the materials on record and heard Mr. O. C. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. S. Acharya, Public Prosecutor for the State, 29. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of the trial court for the offences under sections 307 as well as 302 Indian Penal Code. It has been strenuously contended by him that there is no convincing evidence to establish that it was the appellant who had thrown the hand grenade which caused injuries to the deceased and other injured persons. Another argument advanced by Mr. Chatterjee is that there is no expert evidence to prove that the injuries of Gordhan deceased were caused by some lethal weapon. It has bean urged that Dr. Jangid is silent on the point and the pellets have not been sent to the Ballistic expert. Yet another argument advanced in this regard is that the pistol said to have been recovered in pursuance of the information furnished by the appellant is, according to the expert, 'a toy pistol' and therefore it is clear that two fatal injuries number 10 and 12 of Gordhan could not have been caused by that pistol and so the appellant could not have been held responsible for causing the fatal injuries to the body of the deceased. 30. Controverting these arguments, Mr. N. S. Acharya, Public Prosecutor submitted that there is ample evidence on record to prove that it was the appellant who fired the shots and then threw hand grenade, the splinters of which hit and injured ten persons and one of them namely Gordhan lost his life on account of the injuries thus sustained. It has also been contended by him that there is the expert opinion that the pieces sent for examination were pieces of grenade and in such circumstances the findings of learned trial judge stand justified. 31. In order to find out whether there is justification for the finding that it was on account of the hand grenade thrown by the appellant that the deceased and some other persons sustained injuries, the evidence of the injured persons had to be scrutinised carefully. 32. Out of the ten injured persons Gordhan succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The surviving nine injured persons have been examined by the prosecution. Amarsingh, Nathusingh, Bhagwanaram, Baluram, Mst. 32. Out of the ten injured persons Gordhan succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The surviving nine injured persons have been examined by the prosecution. Amarsingh, Nathusingh, Bhagwanaram, Baluram, Mst. Surji, Bhanaram, Hashankhan, Sarwan and Mangu have deposed at the trial that it was Rameshwar who had thrown the hand grenade which caused injuries to them as well as to Gordhan Baluram has stated that it was Ramesh was who had initially fired three gun shots at him but they did not hit him and thereafter when others reached Rameshwar threw the hand grenade which caused injuries to the ten persons present there including the witness. He has further deposed that after that Rameshwar again fired three gun shots. The evidence of all the nine persons is not about any gun shot injury being caused to any one of them rather their evidence has ascribed injuries to the splinters of the hand grenade thrown by Rameshwar. Though in their examination in chief the witnesses are unanimous on the point that the hand grenade was thrown by the appellant Rameshwar, some of them in their cross-examination have stated that they had not seen him actually throwing the grenade but came to know of it only when it burst and there was smoke and they were hit by its splinters. 33. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of the injured persons shows that most of them have even in cress-examination supported the version that it was Rameshwar who had thrown the grenade. All that they could not say is as of what shape or colour the grenade was and in what manner it was thrown. P.W. 5 Amarsingh had stated that it was Rameshwar who had thrown the grdnade. To cross-examination he has expressed ignorance about the size and shape of the hand grenade and the way in which.it was thrown. He was unable to say in what manner Rameshwar threw it and with which hand. From this it cannot be inferred that he, had, not seen Rameshwa, throwing the hand grenade towards him and his companions. P,W. 6 Nathusingh in his examination in chief stated that Rameshwar had thrown the grenade. In cross-examination he admitted that the grenade in the hand of Rameshwar was not visible to him and he could not tell its colour and the shape. P,W. 6 Nathusingh in his examination in chief stated that Rameshwar had thrown the grenade. In cross-examination he admitted that the grenade in the hand of Rameshwar was not visible to him and he could not tell its colour and the shape. He however stated that there was a loud noise when the grenade bursted. He stated that he had seen the accused persons when the grenade was thrown and then stated that because of the burst of the grenade there was dense smoke and- therefore nothing was visible. This statement show s that after the burst nothing was visible but it cannot be inferred that he could not even seen the grenade being thrown by Rameshwar. P.W. 7 Bhagwanaram has stated in examination in chief about Rameshwar appellant throwing grenade. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution because he did not support the prosecution case so far as it related to the presence of the three other accused at the spot. In his cross examination he has stated that he had not seen the grenade in Ramesbwar hand and when it fell down there was smoke, his attention was drawn towards it and because the grenade had come from the side of Rameshwar he thought that Rameshwar might have thrown it but he had not actually seen him throwing the same Baluram has stated that it was Rameshwar who had thrown the hand grenade. The evidence of this witness could not be shaken in cross-examination. He has described the way in which the hand grenade was thrown by the appellant. In his cross-examination he has stated that Rameshwar had thrown the hand grenade by raising his hand and he had seen the appellant doing so by turning towards him. He of course could not say as to with which hand Rameshwar had thrown the hand grenade but has given an explanation for it that it was after their going about 15 paces ahead that Rameshwar had thrown the grenade and therefore he could not say which hand was used by him for doing so. P.W. 11 Mst. Surji's version in her examination in chief is that it was Rameshwar who had thrown the grenade -though of course towards Baluram but it caused injuries to ten persons. In her cross-examination she has stated that she had not seen what type of grenade it was. P.W. 11 Mst. Surji's version in her examination in chief is that it was Rameshwar who had thrown the grenade -though of course towards Baluram but it caused injuries to ten persons. In her cross-examination she has stated that she had not seen what type of grenade it was. There was smoke when it fell down and then she became aware that it was grenade and she understood that it was thrown by Rameshwar. P.W. 12 Bhanaram stated that Rameshwar threw the grenade from western side which caused smoke and its pieces hit him and others. In his/cross examination he denied the suggestion that the grenade was with Mahavir which had burst and further stated that it was wrong that Rameshwar might not have thrown the hand grenade. P.W. 14 Hashankhan was also injured in the incident. He stated that Rameshwar threw the grenade towards them which fell at a little distance from them on their back side and it busted and there was smoke and then all of them present there sustained injuries as a result of the blast. In his cross-examination all that was extracted from him to smash his testimony is that he could not tell the size and colour of the hand grenade. His statement about Rameshwar being the person who threw hand grenade remained un-shattered in cross-examination. Sarwan P.W. 15 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that Rameshwar had thrown the hand grenade. In his cross-examination he has given details about the way in which the appellant had done so. Though he could not say the size of the' grenade, he was specific on the point that Rameshwar had thrown the grenade by raising his hand up to his shoulder. P.W. 17 Mangu has stated that Rameshwar had thrown the grenade which fell on their western side. The witness of course admitted in cross-examination that as he had started walking from that place and the grenade had fallen on his back side, he could not see which accused had thrown it. 34. Thus there is ample evidence on the record to prove that deceased Gordhan and the injured witnesses had sustained injuries on account of blast of the hand grenade, thrown by the appellant, Baluram and Sarwan have stated the manner in which Rameshwar had thrown the grenade towards them. As stated earlier all the injured persons were examined by Dr. 34. Thus there is ample evidence on the record to prove that deceased Gordhan and the injured witnesses had sustained injuries on account of blast of the hand grenade, thrown by the appellant, Baluram and Sarwan have stated the manner in which Rameshwar had thrown the grenade towards them. As stated earlier all the injured persons were examined by Dr. Jangid and on the basis of the x-ray reports he has opined that the injuries were caused by gun powder blast. The pieces of the grenade recovered from the site and those extracted from the wounds of Amarsingh, Mangu, Nathu and Bhagwanaram were sent for examination to the expert. Similarly the grenade in a small bottle the paper pasted on which bears the signature of Dr. Jangid were also sent for examination to the Ballist c Expert. This fact is proved by the evidence of the Station House Officer Mahipalsingh at the trial. The report of the Ballistic Expert about there being pieces of grenade has already been quoted above. Hence it is duly established that the deceased and these witnesses have sustained multiple injuries from the splinters of the hand grenade. 35. It is no doubt true that the appellant while throwing the hand grenade had no intention to kill the surviving injured except Baluram could safely b, presumed to have the knowledge referred to in Section 300 Fourthly Indian Penal Code that his act was so imminently dangerous that it was likely to cause their death and if the death of the injured persons had been caused by the act of the appellant in throwing the hand grenade at them he would have been guilty of murder and so his act amounted to an offence of attempt to murder punishable under section 307 Indian Penal Code. For the applicability of Section 307 Indian Penal Code the fact that minor injuries resulted from the act done by the appellant with the knowledge referred to in Section 300 clause IV Indian Penal Code, is not relevant. For the applicability of Section 307 Indian Penal Code the fact that minor injuries resulted from the act done by the appellant with the knowledge referred to in Section 300 clause IV Indian Penal Code, is not relevant. The injure is caused consequence of the act done with such knowledge as referred in clause IV of Section 300 Indian Penal Code would however make the doer of the act liable to enhance punishment under the latter part of Section 307 Indian Penal Code.We will now discuss the evidence with a view to arrive at a conclusion whether all the injuries of Gordhan including the fatal injuries no. 10 and 12 were caused by Rameshwar so as to hold him guilty for the murder of Gordhan. 36. Dr. Jangid while stating about the injuries of the surviving injured persons having been caused by gun powder blast did not say that the injuries found on the dead body of Gordhan could also be caused by Gun Powder Blast. Commission on the part of the Doctor to state this fact in his postmortem report and subsequently in his deposition at the trial need not lead the court to presume that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not caused by bursting of the hand grenade especially when there is positive and reliable evidence of the eye witnesses that the appellant had thrown hand grenade at Nathusingh, Bhagwanaram, Manguram, Srawankumat Mst. Surji, Daluram, Amarsingh, Yasin and Gordhan deceased the blast of which caused injuries to all of them and on account of multiple injuries caused by its blast Gordhan had died. 37. In the absence of medical opinion as to the nature of the weapon with which injuries were caused to the body of Gordhan deceasd this Court can itself come to the conclusion of the nature of injuries and positive evidence of the eye witnesses in the case whether the injuries found on the body of the deceased were or were not caused by the blast of hand grenade. Commission on the part of the Doctor to give an opinion about the nature of weapon that could cause the injuries sustained by deceased cannot be taken as contradicting or out weighing the positive evidence of the eye witnesses in this case. Commission on the part of the Doctor to give an opinion about the nature of weapon that could cause the injuries sustained by deceased cannot be taken as contradicting or out weighing the positive evidence of the eye witnesses in this case. Hence on the basis of the evidence of the eye witnesses and looking to the nature of the injuries received by the deceased we have come to the definite conclusion that the injuries found on the dead body of Gordhan were caused by blast of hand grenade which w as thrown by the appellant at him and others. 38. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand is that there must be specific evidence of an expert to establish that the injuries were caused by the weapon and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. To substantiate his contention, he placed reliance on the principles enunciated in the case of Mohinder Singh v. The State (1953 SC 415) wherein their Lordships have been pleased to observe. "In a case where death is due to injuries or wounds caused by a lethal weapon, it is always the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which and in the manner in which they are alleged to have been caused. It is elementary that where the prosecution has a definite or positive case, it must prove the whole of the case." 39. The circumstances in that case were of peculiar nature. Prosecution has examined three witnesses to substantiate its case that the deceased had sustained gun shot injuries. One of them was the brother of the deceased, other two witnesses were considered to be chance witnesses. Their lordships were of the opinion that there were certain puzzling features of the injuries of the deceased which could not be adequately explained by the oral evidence on record. It was doubtful whether the injuries which were attributed to the appellant were caused by a rifle or a gun. Their lordships were of the opinion that there were certain puzzling features of the injuries of the deceased which could not be adequately explained by the oral evidence on record. It was doubtful whether the injuries which were attributed to the appellant were caused by a rifle or a gun. It appeared to their Lordships that it was more likely that they were caused by a rifle then by a gun and the case of the prosecution was that the appellant was armed with a gun and in his examination it was definitely put to him that he was armed with the gun recovered from him. The puzzling features of the case noted by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case were as to what kind of bullet it was which, though it had blackened the area where it entered the brain showing that it had been fired from not far away, did not shatter the brain and also what kind of projectile which injured the body (which if the evidence is to be believed was fired at from a few feet at tire deceased ) and passed through it without shattering the inside of the chest or causing extensive damage therein. It was in view of those peculiar circumstances of the case that the above observations were made by their lordships. In our opinion it is not in all the cases that prosecution case should be thrown away because the Doctor has omitted to give opinion about the weapon of the offence. It depends on the facts and circumstances of the given case as to what part of the prosecution version is to be believed up to what extent. 40. Another argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that it cannot be said with certainty that the pellets extracted from the dead body of Gordhan were pieces of hand grenade is of no material significance. In view of the positive evidence of the eye witnesses that Gordhan also received injuries from the splinters of the same hand grenade which caused injuries to their persons. 41. There is the specific evidence of Amarsingh and Baluram that Gordhan had sustained grenade injuries on whole of his body. Baluram had further stated that the splinters of the grenade were like iron pieces. Dr. 41. There is the specific evidence of Amarsingh and Baluram that Gordhan had sustained grenade injuries on whole of his body. Baluram had further stated that the splinters of the grenade were like iron pieces. Dr. Jangid had stated that pellets taken out by him from the intestine of Gordhan were of different size. All these facts clearly go to prove that all the injuries of Gordhan were caused by the splinters of hand grenade, It is not a case in which the prosecution has came with a case of a use of particular weapon and in the evidence use of some different weapon has appeared. 42. It has come with a positive case that Gordhan had sustained injuries along with others from splinters of hand grenade thrown by Rameshwar and the evidence at the trial is consistent with the prosecution case as it stood initially. 43. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned trial judge has arrived at a correct conclusion about the guilt of the accused both for the offences under Sections 307 as well as Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 44. In this view of the matter we find no justification in interfering with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge based on good reasoning. 45. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant Rameshwar being devoid of force is dismissed. He is in jail. He will serve out the sentences awarded to him by the trial court. *******