JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by accused Pyara Singh is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bundi dated February 11, 1981, convicting the appellant under section 302, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/-; and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on October 12, 1979, PW 4 Charan Singh was sitting on a cot in-front of his house. Mahendra Singh, Gurubachan Kaur wife of Inder Singh and Mansingh were also sitting there. Accused Pyara Singh came out of his house and went towards the house of Awtar Singh, Pyara Singh went inside the house of Awtar Singh and remained there for about 15-20 minutes. Thereafter, both Awtar Singh and Pyara Singh came out. Awtar Singh remained standing on the same place and Pyara Singh went towards his house and came out with his son Suba Singh. Pyara singh then raised a loud voice and fired a shot in the air. Thereafter, Pyara Singh and Suba Singh came near the house of Awtar Singh. Suba Singh had a `barchhi' in his hand. At that time, Awtar Singh and Harbans Singh were standing outside their house. Harbans Singh was armed with Gandasi. Thereafter, all these four persons namely, Pyara Singh, Awtar Singh, Suba Singh and Harbans Singh came near the Panchayati House of Charan Singh and others. All the above-named four accused persons hurled abuse on Inder Singh. At that time, the accused-persons were standing at a distance of 100 ft. from Inder Singh and Charan Singh. Inder Singh tried to pacify the accused-persons and told that there was no dispute in between them. On this, Awtar Singh asked Pyara Singh to fire shot. Pyara Singh then fired a shot on Inder Singh from the gun (Art. 1). Inder Singh was injured on the left-side of shoulder and fingers. Inder Singh fell on the ground due to the gun-shot injury. When Charan Singh tried to lift Inder Singh, then, Suba Singh told Pyara Singh to fire on Charan Singh also. Awtar Singh also told to kill the two persons but thereafter none of the accused-persons injured any other person and all the four accused-persons went inside the house of Awtarsingh. Thereafter, Man Singh, Charan Singh and Gur bachan Singh came on the spot. Awtar Singh also told to kill the two persons but thereafter none of the accused-persons injured any other person and all the four accused-persons went inside the house of Awtarsingh. Thereafter, Man Singh, Charan Singh and Gur bachan Singh came on the spot. They brought a bullock-cart and took away Inder Singh to Police Station, Sadar, Bundi. Charan Singh lodged a first information report at 10.00 P.M., which was reduced into writing vide Ex.?. 11. PW 8 Anar Singh (S.H.O., Police Station Sadar Bundi) registered the case and sent Inder Singh for medical examination to General Hospital, Bundi. Dr. Krishna Kumar Kanjolia (PW I), examined the injuries of Inder Singh on October 13, 1979 and on clinical examination of Inder Singh found the following injuries: "1. Gun shot wound (lacerated wound) 1/4" x 1/4" x depth could not be ascertained on the left side of the abdomen 5" above and away from the umblicis. 2. Gun shot wound (lacerated wound) 1/4" x 1/4" x depth could not be ascertained on left later aspect of the abdomen 3" lateral to injury No. 1. 3. Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" x ⅛" on left lateral aspect of the back 43/4" away from the injury No. 2. 4. Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on dorsum of left and below the base of the ring finger. 5. Swelling 4" x 4" on dorsum of left hand. 6. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on posterior aspect of left forearm 3" below the left elbow. 7. Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4 x ⅛" on posterior aspect of left arm 1" above the left elbow. 8. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" ⅛" on lateral aspect of tip of little finger of right hand. 9. Lacerated wound 11/4" x 1/2" x 1/4" on medical aspect of right hand on palmer aspect about 11/4" away from the right wrist." According to Dr. Kanjolia, the general condition of Ender Singh was poor; the patient was restless; the pulse rate was 150 p.m.; B.P. was 70 m.m. This examination was done at 12.10 A.M. Subsequently, Ender Singh died at 8.30 p.m. on October 13, 1979 in the male surgical ward in the Hospital. Dr. Kanjolia, the general condition of Ender Singh was poor; the patient was restless; the pulse rate was 150 p.m.; B.P. was 70 m.m. This examination was done at 12.10 A.M. Subsequently, Ender Singh died at 8.30 p.m. on October 13, 1979 in the male surgical ward in the Hospital. Dr. Kanjolia conducted the autopsy of the dead-body of Inder Singh at 11.30 A.M. on October 14, 1979 and found that the external injuries were the came as described by him in injury report Ex.P. 1. He also found that there were two holes of about 2 to 5 m.m. diameter on posterior wall of the stomach, about I c.m. and 3 to 4 c.m. away from the greater curvature. The stomach was full of blood. These injuries in the stomach were the result of injuries No. I and 2 of Ex.P/I. During post-mortem Dr. Kanjolia also recovered two iron pieces from the right posterior aspect of lumber three and lumber four vertebrae. In the opinion of Dr. Kanjolia, the cause of death of Inder Singh was severe hemorrhage due to gastric perforation leading to shock. This was caused by injuries No. 1 and 2 of Ex.P/I. He also opined that injuries No. 1 and 2 of Ex.P I were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also advised X-Ray examination of injuries No. 1, 2, 4 and 5. The X-Ray plates were taken by the X-Ray Technician in the presence of Dr. Kanjolia and under his direction. In the X-Ray two shadows were found, one rounded and the other cresentic. The shadows were of bullets and were seen opposite the inter vertebrea space of L. 3 and L. 4 vertebrea near right side of mid line. There was also a fracture of lower metacarple bones of left-hand. Hence, injuries No. 4 and 5 were found to be grievous in nature. Dr. Kanjolia also stated that the pellets were recovered from the body of hider Singh and were duly sealed and forwarded to S.H.O. Sadar Bundi for necessary action. 3. The Police, then, prepared the inquest memo and recovered 12 bore gun (Art. 1), three cartriges of 12 bore and one cartrige S.B. and one knife from the possession of the accused Pyara Singh. 4. 3. The Police, then, prepared the inquest memo and recovered 12 bore gun (Art. 1), three cartriges of 12 bore and one cartrige S.B. and one knife from the possession of the accused Pyara Singh. 4. The Police, after investigation, field a challan against the above-named four accused persons: Pyara Singh, Harbans Singh, Awtar Singh and Suba Singh in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bundi. The Judicial Magistrate, Bundi sent the case for trial to the court of Sessions by order dated November 17, 1979. Thereafter, the case was tried by the Sessions Judge, Bundi. Pyara Singh was charged under sections 302 and 447, IPC, while the other three persons were charged for offences under sections 447, 302/34 and 302/114, IPC. All the accused persons denied charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined nine witnesses. Shri Prem Sagar Manocha, Assistant Director (Ballistics) State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, was also examined as CW 1. 5. The accused-persons in their explanation under s. 313, Cr.PC totally denied the incident and stated that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity. The accused-persons also examined four witnesses in defence. 6. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Awtar Singh, Harbans Singh and Suba Singh of all the charges levelled against them. He also acquitted Pyara Singh for offence under s. 447, IPC but convicted him under s. 302, IPC and gave a sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/-. Pyara Singh has now filed the present appeal. 7. The prosecution mainly relies on the dying declaration of Inder Singh (Ex.P 8) recorded by Shri Jai Singh Shiv Ram (PW 2), Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bundi; the testimony of two eye-witnesses: Charan Singh (PW 4) and Mansingh (PW 7); the recovery of Gun (Art. I) from the possession of Pyara Singh and the statement of Shri Prem Sagar Manochia (CW 1). 8. Ex.P 8 is the dying declaration of Inder Singh, which was recorded by Jai Singh Shiv Ram, Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bundi in the hospital at 12.40 P.M. in the night of October 13, 1979. In the aforesaid dying declaration, it has been mentioned that Dr. J.L. Pungalia had told that the injured was in a position to give his statement. Thereafter, the statement of Inder Singh was recorded in the form of questions and answers. 9. In the aforesaid dying declaration, it has been mentioned that Dr. J.L. Pungalia had told that the injured was in a position to give his statement. Thereafter, the statement of Inder Singh was recorded in the form of questions and answers. 9. The first question put to Inder Singh was as to who inflicted gunshot on him, to which under Singh gave a clear answer that Pyara Singh had fired the gun-shot. He did not know the father's name of Pyara Singh. Another question put to Inder Singh was as to on what account this altercation took place; to this, Inder Singh answered that he was going to his house and at that time no talk took place. Some days prior to the incident, he had gone to the house of Pyara Singh for taking his meals. At that time, the wife of Pyara Singh had objected as to why he had brought large number of persons. An altercation took place on this account and it was told that by bringing large number of persons, the prestige had gone down. On account of this enmity, Pyarasingh inflicted gun-shot on the day of incident. On the next question, Indersingh answered that apart from Pyara Singh, his son Suba Singh, Sukhdeo Singh and others were with him. Thereafter, the injured said that his statement may be recorded in the morning as he was feeling great pain. Then, in the same breath, he said that Atwar Singh and Kalyan singh were also there with Pyara Singh. Then, the last question was put to Inder Singh as to whether there was any other person apart from the above mentioned five persons; then Inder Singh answered that some children were also there, but he did not know their names. Thereafter, when the thumb impression of Inder Singh was taken on the above statement, he also deposed that Harbans Singh was also there along with the attackers. 10. The above statement has been proved by Jai Singh Shiv Ram (PW 2). He has stated that on the request of Police, he had recorded the dying declaration of Inder Singh in the General Hospital; Bundi. Dr. J.L. Pungalia was attending Inder Singh. He further stated that he had asked Dr. Pungalia whether Inder Singh was in a position to give his statement. On this, Dr. He has stated that on the request of Police, he had recorded the dying declaration of Inder Singh in the General Hospital; Bundi. Dr. J.L. Pungalia was attending Inder Singh. He further stated that he had asked Dr. Pungalia whether Inder Singh was in a position to give his statement. On this, Dr. Pungalia told that Inder Singh was in a position to give his statement. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Inder Singh vide Ex. P8, which contained the signatures : A to B. He had got the thumb impressions of hider Singh on Ex. P8 after recording his statement. Lx. P8 was recorded in his own hand-writing. On Ex. P8, Dr. Pungalia had put his note at portion C to D. Portion C to D in Ex. P8, reads as under : Jai Singh (PW 2) further stated that the portion C to D was written in his presence by Dr. Pungalia and bears the signatures of Dr. Pungalia at E to F. He further stated that Ex. P8 contains the signatures of Dr. Pungalia at G to H and the same were also made in his presence. He further stated that when he had recorded the statement Ex. P8, then, according to his opinion, the statement was given in a fit state of mind. Inder Singh had shipped while giving his statement but whatever he had replied, was quite clear. 11. In the cross-examination the above witness stated that he had not seen the bed-ticket of Inder Singh. Dr. Pungalia had a talk with Inder Singh before giving his opinion, but he had not examined his mental and physical condition. Doctor had not taken the blood-pressure of Inder Singh nor had recorded the pluse-rate. At that time, neither any blood nor any Glucose was given to Inder Singh. He did not have any idea whether any operation of Inder Singh was done or not prior to recording of his statement. He did not remember as to what talk took place between Dr. Pungalia and Inder Singh before Dr. Pungalia gave his opinion. Before recording Ex. P8, he asked certain questions to Inder Singh to ascertain his mental condition. He had put a question to Inder Singh whether he was in a position to give his statement and was told that he could do so. Pungalia and Inder Singh before Dr. Pungalia gave his opinion. Before recording Ex. P8, he asked certain questions to Inder Singh to ascertain his mental condition. He had put a question to Inder Singh whether he was in a position to give his statement and was told that he could do so. Jai Singh further stated that from this, he inferred that he was in a position to give his statement. He denied the suggestion that he recorded the name of Inder Singh, his father's name caste, and place of residence on the basis of the police record. On the contrary, he said that the above particulars were recorded at the instance of Inder Singh. He further Mated that he had not mentioned in Ex. P 8 that prior to recording of the statement of Inder Singh, he had asked him whether he was in a position to give his statement and he had told that he was in a position to give his statement. He did not think it necessary to mention the same in Ex. P 8. He further stated that when he had reached to record the statement of Inder Singh, then, 6-7 persons were attending on him, but he had separated them before recording his statement. He did not ask Dr. Pungalia whether the condition of Inder Singh after being admitted was improving or deteriorating, as it was not necessary to ask these questions. It was wrong to suggest that he did not observe the injuries of Inder Singh. He had seen the injuries on his stomach and head. At that time there was no bandage on his head and stomach. Prior to recording the statement of Inder Singh, nobody had told him that Inder Singh had been fired by gun-shot. When he had asked the name and address of Inder Singh, then he had disclosed about the gun-shot and as such the first question was put to him. He further stated that when he asked the name from Inder Singh, he told that he had been fired by gunshot. When father's name was asked, then also, he told about the gun-shot. Jai singh further stated that on this, he told Inder Singh that he would record statement regarding gun-shot subsequently, but first he should tell his own name and address. When father's name was asked, then also, he told about the gun-shot. Jai singh further stated that on this, he told Inder Singh that he would record statement regarding gun-shot subsequently, but first he should tell his own name and address. He did not record in Ex P 8 that Inder Singh was again and again telling about gun-shot. Inder Singh had given out the name of the accused and there was no question of any suspicion in this regard because he had recorded the same as was told by Inder Singh about the father's name of the accused. Inder Singh did not tell the name of father of the accused, and as such he did not ask any further question in this regard. Jai Singh further stated that Inder Singh used to answer every question after an interval of about one minute. He inferred form this that Inder Singh was giving answer after careful thinking. It was wrong to suggest that Inder Singh was replying after interruption as he was not in a position to give his statement and he might have told for not recording his statement. He had not made a note III Ex. P 8 that Inder Singh was giving his statement after interruption. After giving answer : K-L in Ex. P 8, Inder Singh had told to record his statement in the morning. At that time Inder Singh had said that he did not know about anything else and he was suffering from severe pain. Jai Singh further stated that after noting the answer-K to L, he did not stop recording the statement because Inder Singh had immediately told him that Awtar Singh and Kalyan Singh were also there. Thereafter, when the thumb impression of Inder Singh was taken, then also, he disclosed the name of one person and as such the same was also recorded. He further stated that about 15 minutes were taken in recording the statement Ex. P 8. It was wrong to suggest that the portion C to D was got written after recording the entire statement. The time when the Doctor gave his opinion, was not noted. It was wrong to suggest that Dr. Pungalia might have written portions : E to F and G to H simultaneously. He had recorded the time 12-45 correctly. 12. Mr. It was wrong to suggest that the portion C to D was got written after recording the entire statement. The time when the Doctor gave his opinion, was not noted. It was wrong to suggest that Dr. Pungalia might have written portions : E to F and G to H simultaneously. He had recorded the time 12-45 correctly. 12. Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has vehemently contended that the above statement Ex. P 8 cannot be relied upon as Dr. Pungalia has not been produced in evidence to prove the state of mind of Inder Singh. It has been further argued that even according to Jaisingh, Inder Singh was not giving answers directly but was giving answers after interval of one minute. It has been further submitted that Inder Singh himself had told that he was having severe pain and had made the request to record his statement in the morning. 13. In these circumstances, it is submitted that when Inder Singh was not in a fit state of mind, his dying declaration has no value and no reliance can be placed by the prosecution on such dying declaration. Reliance in this record is placed on Yogendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1979 Cr. LR (Raj.) 445 : Shahbuddin v. State of Rajasthan, 1972 WLN 648 and Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 SC 1566 . 14. We see no force in the above contention of Mr. Bajaj. 15. Jai Singh (PW 2) is a Judicial Magistrate and he had gone to the Hospital in the night of October 13, 1979 to record the statement of Inder Singh at the request of the Police. It has been clearly mentioned in Ex. P 8 that Dr. Pungalia had told that the injured was in a position to give his statement. Thereafter, the statement of Inder Singh was recorded. This dying declaration also contains a note C to D in the hand-writing of Dr. Pungalia himself that the patient was in a condition to give his statement. It also bears the singnatures of Dr. Pungalia at E to F and G to H. Jai Singh has clearly stated that C to D was in the hand-writing of Dr. Pungalia and contain the signatures of Dr. Pungalia at E to F and G to H and the same were made before him. It also bears the singnatures of Dr. Pungalia at E to F and G to H. Jai Singh has clearly stated that C to D was in the hand-writing of Dr. Pungalia and contain the signatures of Dr. Pungalia at E to F and G to H and the same were made before him. He has also clearly stated that he had ascertained about the condition of Inder Singh and had asked Inder Singh whether he was in a position to give hi: statement and Inder Singh had answered that he was in a position to do so. Though a lengthy cross-examination of Jai Singh has been done, but in our view, it cannot be said from his statement that he recorded the statement of Inder Singh even though Inder Singh was not in a fit condition to make his statement. 16. The entire tenor and manner in which the question have been I put and answers have been given, clearly go to show that it was only when the third question was answered, that Inder Singh had told that he was feeling severe pain and made a request for recording his statement in the morning. The witness Jai Singh is a Magistrate and he had correctly recorded what was said by Inder Singh and did not try to conceal anything and even recorded the fact that in answering the question No. 3, Inder Singh had told about severe pain and for recording his statement in the morning. This goes to show fairness and impartiality in recording the dying declaration. There was nothing unnatural on the part of Inder Singh to have given the answers after interval of about one minute, as he had suffered serious injuries by gun-shot. We are at present concerned with accused Pyara Singh and to the first question put to Inder Singh as to who inflicted the gun-shot, Inder Singh had clearly replied that it was done by Pyara Singh. 17. There can be no matter of dispute with the principles given in the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the defence, but each case depends on its own facts and circumstances. In the present case, we are fully satisfied that there is no infirmity in the dying declaration (Ex. P 8) and it lends clear support to the prosecution case. 18. In the present case, we are fully satisfied that there is no infirmity in the dying declaration (Ex. P 8) and it lends clear support to the prosecution case. 18. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined two eyewitnesses: Charan Singh (PW 4) and Man Singh (PW 7). The statements of these witnesses have been attacked by the learned counsel for the defence on the ground that they are interested witnesses; there are discripencies regarding the place of occurrence and certain inconsistencies have been pointed out in their statement given during trial and those recorded by Police during investigation. Merely because these witnesses are interested, there is no reason to discard their testimony altogether. Minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of even truthful witnesses by lapse of time. The learned Sessions Judge also considered their statements in detail and found no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the defence made before him regarding the testimony of these two witnesses. It would not be necessary to repeat the same infirmities pointed out before us, which have been fully dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge. 19. We have gone through the statements of the aforesaid two witnesses carefully and their statements clearly go to prove that they were present on the spot at the time of the incident and they had seen Pyara Singh firing from his gun, which hit Inder Singh and resulted in his death. These witnesses are admittedly residing in the close neighbourhood of Inder Singh and their presence at the time of incident was quite natural. 20. Mr. Bajaj, then, argued that the incident had taken place at about 7.00 P.M. and the shot was fired from a distance of 100 ft and even according to the prosecution case, there was no light and as such, it is argued that it was impossible for the witnesses to have identified the culprit from such a long distance when it was total darkness. We find no force in this argument. 21. The learned Sessions Judge has also dealt with this point in detail. The time of sun-set was 6.00 P.M. on 12-10-79, the date of incident. Though the time of sun-set was 6.00 P.M., the light of sun-shine remains upto 3/4hr. We find no force in this argument. 21. The learned Sessions Judge has also dealt with this point in detail. The time of sun-set was 6.00 P.M. on 12-10-79, the date of incident. Though the time of sun-set was 6.00 P.M., the light of sun-shine remains upto 3/4hr. even after sun-set and persons can be identified in such light, specially when the culprits are already known to the witnesses. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was impossible for the witnesses to have identified Pyara Singh at the time of incident. 22. The incident had taken place at about 7.00 P.M. and the report of the incident was lodged at the Police Station at 10.30 P.M., without any loss of time, as admittedly, the Police Station was at a distance of 8 kms. from the place of incident. 23. Mr. Bajaj has criticized the first information report Ex. P 11 on the ground that the Investigating Officer had interrogated the injured Inder Singh before recording Ex. P 11 at the instance of Charan Singh. It is submitted that when the SHO had already interrogated Inder Singh, then, he ought to have recorded the first information report in the manner as stated by Inder Singh and any report taken at the instance of Charan Singh, has no value. We find no force in this submission. 24. Even if some questions were put to Inder Singh, there was no question of recording the first information report, as admittedly, Inder Singh was brought to Police Station in an injured condition and it could not have been possible for him to narrate the entire incident. Charan Singh was an eye-witness and there was nothing wrong in lodging the first information report by him. 25. It was argued by Mr. Bajaj that PW 4 Charan Singh had stated that they used to take their meal at 8-9 P.M. in the night and sometimes it goes upto 10 P.M. In the statement given by him during investigation he stated that the incident was of 7.00 P.M. He along with his uncle Inder Singh his brother Man Singh were at their own house and were taking rest after taking their meals. It is submitted that though in the court statement during trial, PW 4 Charan Singh denied to have given such statement during investigation, but if the same is relied, it goes to prove that the time of incident must have been near about 9 or 10 P.M., as according to Charan Singh, they used to take their meals in the night at 8 or 9 P.M. and sometimes at 10.00 P.M. There is no force in this contention. 26. The witness Charan Singh has casually stated that they used to take their meals by 8 or 9 P.M. and it cannot be a necessary inference that on the date of incident also they had taken the meals at such late hours and if they were taking rest after taking meals, when such incident took place, then the time of incident should necessarily be taken to be after 8 or 9 P.M. Even in his above mentioned statement during investigation, he has clearly stated that the incident had taken place at about 7.00 P.M. We also do not find any force in the argument of Mr. Bajaj that the statements of Charan Singh and Man Singh should not be believed as they had tried to implicate three innocent persons, apart from Pyara Singh. 27. So far as these two witnesses are concerned, they had stated in unequivocal terms that it was Pyara Singh alone who had fired the gun-shot and according to Dr. Kanjolia (PW 1) also, the injuries found on the body of Inder Singh were of fire arm and in the dying declaration also Inder Singh has named Pyara Singh and as such so far as the accused Pyara Singh is concerned, the case of the prosecution is proved beyond any manner of doubt. 28. Apart from the above evidence, 12-bore gun with three cartridges, has been recovered from the possession of Pyara Singh vide Ex.P 14 and an empty cartridge was also recovered vide Ex.P 15. Mr. Bajaj has submitted in this regard that no reliance can be placed on such recovery as PW 5 Suba Singh, one of the witnesses of the alleged recovery, has admitted in the cross-examination that no search was taken of the police-men who had gone inside the house of Pyara Singh. He further admitted that the police had taken his signatures on the spot on a white paper. He further admitted that the police had taken his signatures on the spot on a white paper. Writing on such paper was done after coming back to the police station at Bundi. It is submitted that no witness of the locality was taken at the time of recovery and no reliance can be placed on the statement of Anar Singh (PW 8), in-charge of Police Station, Bundi, as he was interested in the prosecution. It may be pertinent to mention that apart from the recovery of the above gun, a licence of the gun (Ex.P 20) was also recovered from the house of Pyara Singh. This licence contains the photo of Pyara Singh and has been proved by the statements of Harbans Singh (PW 6) and Anar Singh (PW 8). Apart from that, Shri Prem Sagar Manocha (CW I), Assistant Director (Ballistics) State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur has stated that pellets which were recovered from the body of Inder Singh could have been fired from the Gun (Art. 1). It was submitted by Mr. Bajaj that make of the test cartridges was not the same as that of crime cartridges. In our view, that wilt not make any difference. 29. Shri Manocha has clearly made the following conclusions in his report: "(1) One 12-bore cartridge case (marked C/I) contained in packet 'E' has been fired from 12-bore SBBL gun (marked W/1) contained in packet 'D'. (2) One air cushioned wad and one Lead buck shot contained in packets 'C' and 'F' respectively could have been come out from 12-bore cartridge case (marked C/1)". 30. Mr. Bajaj submitted that the gun was recovered on 13-10-79 while the articles were sent to the ballistic expert on 17-11-79, and the delay has not been explained. Reliance has been placed on State of Rajasthan v. Manphool, 1975 WLN 281 and Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 526 . We see no force in the contention of Mr. Bajaj as no question was put to PW 8 Anar Singh to explain this delay. The only question put in this regard was that the Articles were sent for examination after obtaining a receipt from the office of the Superintendent, Police, but the said receipt has not been filed in the case. 31. Mr. Bajaj as no question was put to PW 8 Anar Singh to explain this delay. The only question put in this regard was that the Articles were sent for examination after obtaining a receipt from the office of the Superintendent, Police, but the said receipt has not been filed in the case. 31. Mr. Bajaj also submitted that though first information report was recorded on 12-10-79 at 10.30 P.M., there is no explanation as to why the same was sent to the concerned Magistrate after a long delay on October 15, 1979. In our view, there was no delay, as October 13, 1979 was second Saturday and October 14, 1979 was Sunday and both these days being holidays, the report was received on October 15, 1979 without any delay. 32. Thus, taking in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find no error in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge to call for any interference by this Court. 33. In the result, this appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******