S. I. JAFRI, J. ( 1 ) DAYA Ram and Chhunnu appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction under sections 302/34 and 307/34 I. P. C. and sentenced of life imprisonment and five years R. I. respectively recorded by Sri M. N. Asthana, Additional Sessions Judge, Banda by his judgment and order dated 23. 11. 1977 in Sessions Trial No. 160 A of 197. 5. ( 2 ) IN this case, Shanker Lodh is alleged to have been murdered by the appellants on 28. 11. 1974 at about 5. 15 pm. while he was inside his shop situate in village Prempur, Police Station Girwa, District Banda. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that Shanker Lodh deceased had been prosecuted for the murder of the father of Daya Ram appellant but he was acquitted of the charges. Lateron, one Ram Sajeewan Lodh was murdered and Shanker deceased lodged the First Information Report at the Police Station arraying Lala Bhaiyam the real brother of accused Daya Ram and others as the assailants of deceased Ram Sajeevan Lodh. Shanker Lodh deceased was also an eye witness of the occurrence and the case regarding the murder of Ram Sajeevan was pending against Lala Bhaiya and others at the time of the present occurrence. It was also alleged that the aforesaid Ram Sajeevan and Shanker Lodh had given beating to Chunnu accused earlier. The prosecution has alleged that Shanker Lodh deceased was done to death by the appellants on account of his being acquitted in the murder case of the father of Daya Ram appellant and also that he was complainant and an eye witness in the murder case of Ram Sajeevan against Lala Bhaiya, the real brother of Daya Ram appellant. Shanker deceased was also on inimical terms with Chunnu appellant and, therefore, both the appellants Daya Ram and Chunnu had ganged up and committed the murder of Shanker Lodh deceased. ( 4 ) IT is alleged by the prosecution that Shanker Lodh deceased was running a Parchunis Shop (Grocery) in a Kothari in his village Prempur on the day of occurrence. On 20. 11. 1974 at about 5. 15 p. m. while Shanker deceased was sitting inside his aforesaid shop, Daya Ram and Chunnu appellants equipped with single barrel guns, came in front of the shop of the deceased and they bad fired at the deceased. On 20. 11. 1974 at about 5. 15 p. m. while Shanker deceased was sitting inside his aforesaid shop, Daya Ram and Chunnu appellants equipped with single barrel guns, came in front of the shop of the deceased and they bad fired at the deceased. On hearing the sound of gun-fire, Ram Kumar P. W. 1, the son of the deceased who was at his house nearby at that time, rushed towards the shop and on reaching near the shop, he had witnessed that both the accused Daya Ram and Chunnu armed with single barrel guns were firing at his father. Consequently. Ram Kumar raised alarm and challenged the appellants whereupon Shiv Pal, Ram Autar, Maujilal and several other persons arrived near the shop who had also joined Ram Kumar in challenging the appellants. The appellant Daya Ram while retreating, fired a shot at Ram Kumar which hit him in his left thigh. The witnesses became frightened and gave up the chase and the appellant made good their escape from the place of occurrence towards south. Shanker Lodh breathed his last instantaneously on the spot inside the shop on receiving the gunshot injuries. Ram Kumar who had also sustained the gunshot Injuries, got a report of the occurrence described by his cousin Ram Autar P. W. 3 inside the said shop early in the morning at the time when the cock crows and he thereafter, left for the police Station Girwa in a bullock-cart where he handed over his written report Ex. Ka 1 to the Head Constable Sarjoo Prasad Shukla P. W. 11. The Head constable prepared a chik report Ex. Ka 13 on the basis of the aforesaid written report Ex. Ka 1 at 7 a. m. on 29. 8. 1974. He also registered a case against the appellants in the general diary of the Police Station, a copy of the same is Ex. Ka 14. Ram Kumar was medically examined by Dr. R. N. Gupta on 29. 11. 1974 at 1 p. m. Dr. Gupta found the following injuries on his person. 1. Thirty one gun shot wounds of entry 0. 4 cm x 0. 3 cm x skin to muscle deep sizes to 0. 5 cm x 0. Ka 14. Ram Kumar was medically examined by Dr. R. N. Gupta on 29. 11. 1974 at 1 p. m. Dr. Gupta found the following injuries on his person. 1. Thirty one gun shot wounds of entry 0. 4 cm x 0. 3 cm x skin to muscle deep sizes to 0. 5 cm x 0. 4 cm x skin to muscle deep size in area of 16 cm x 13 cm on the back and outer aspect of left thigh starting 5 cm above the knee, directed from backwards to forwards and downwards. No blackening and tattooing present. Five pellets palpable under the skin. 2. Two deep abrasion 0. 5 cm x 0. 4 cm and 1. 7 cm x 0. 3 cm in area of 0. 6 cm x 1 cm x 3 cm apart from each other situated on front and outer aspect of left thigh adjacent to the injury no. 1. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries were simple and were caused by fire-arm. The duration of the injury was about one day. The doctor also advised X-ray of the injuries. On Xray examination by doctor on 30. 11. 1974, multiple small defaced radio opaque shadows were found in the thigh of Ram Kumar. ( 6 ) R P. Singh P. W. 9 who was the station officer of Police Station Girwa was present at the police station at the time of the registration of the case and he initiated investigation into the case forthwith. The Sub-Inspector recorded the statements of Ram Kumar and Shiv Pal at the Police station and he thereafter reached village Prempur the next day at 9. 15 a. m. The Sub Inspector found the dead body of Shanker Lodh inside the shop in village Prempur. He prepared the inquest report Ex. Ka 3 on the dead body of the deceased and sent the same in sealed cover to the Hospital for post mortem examination through the constables. The Sub Inspector had taken into possession the blood stained Kurta, Bandi and Angocha Exts. 1 to 3 from the body of deceased Shanker Lodh at the time of inquest and prepared recovery memo Ext. Ka-4. He also found blood inside the shop at the place where the dead body was lying. The Sub Inspector had taken into possession the blood stained Kurta, Bandi and Angocha Exts. 1 to 3 from the body of deceased Shanker Lodh at the time of inquest and prepared recovery memo Ext. Ka-4. He also found blood inside the shop at the place where the dead body was lying. He took into his possession the blood stained and unstained earth and sealed the same in two containers and prepared recovery memo Ex. Ka 5. He also found 15 ticklies Ex. 4, one big shot and 30 small shots from the shop. Fifty small shots were also found embedded in Chabutra (Platform) of Raghunath Nai where Ram Kumar was allegedly standing when he had received gun shot injuries. He sealed all the recovered articles and prepared memo Ex. Ka 6. He also prepared site-plan Ex. Ka. 11 of the shop of Shanker Lodh deceased. ( 7 ) DR. S. C. Pandiya P. W. 10 conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Shanker Lodh on 30. 11. 1974 at 10. 45 a. m. and he found the following anti-mortem injuries on his person. 1. Six gunshot wounds of entry each about 1 cms diameter in an area of 5 cms x 5 cm x at 7 0 clock to the right nipple and 9 cms from it. Each wound was chest cavity deep. No tattooing or charring. 2. Gunshot wound of entry with tattooing 1 cm vide belt just about the inner and of the right clavicle 3 cms x 1 cm x chest cavity deep. 3. Gunshot wound of entry eight in number each about 1 cm diameter and muscle to chest cavity deep in an area of 9 cms x 5 cms right half of the inter scapular region on the right side. No tattooing or charring. Out of these one wound was 2 cms diameter. 4. Gunshot wound of exist five in number each about 1 cm diameter in an area of 5. 5. cms x 5 cms at 7 0 clock to left nipple and 12 cms from it. 5. Gunshot abrasions five in number each about 1. 5 cms x 3/4cm in an area of 9 cms x 6 cms on the front of the left elbow. 6. Gunshot wound of entry 1 cm. x 1 cm. x 6 cm. within the area of injury No. 5. 7. 5. Gunshot abrasions five in number each about 1. 5 cms x 3/4cm in an area of 9 cms x 6 cms on the front of the left elbow. 6. Gunshot wound of entry 1 cm. x 1 cm. x 6 cm. within the area of injury No. 5. 7. Gunshot wound of exit 1/2 cm. x 3/4 cm. x communicating with injury No. 6 on the back of the left elbow. ( 8 ) FOUR gunshot wounds of exit each about 1 cm. diameter in an area of 21/2 cms. x 2 cms. at 2 0 clock to left nipple 5 cms. away. ( 9 ) ABRASION 1 cm. x 1 cm. in front of the right arm in the middle part. ( 10 ) GUNSHOT wound of entry 1 cm. x I cm. in the eminence of the left hand with corresponding exit wound 1 cm. x 1. 5 cms. between thumb and index finger. ( 11 ) GUNSHOT wound of entry 1 cm. x 0. 5 cm. front of left wrist corresponding to gunshot wound of exit 1 cm. x 1 cm. back of the wrist. ( 12 ) PUNCTURED wound 2 cms. x 1/2 cms. upto the pelvic bone deep on the right buttock. There is soft part with ecchymosis to a minor degree around the wound. 8. According to the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 9. After concluding the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet Ex. Ka 12 against the appellants. Toe accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that they were falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity. 10. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses in all and out of them, Ram Kumar P. W. 1, Shiv Pal RW. 2 and Ram Autar P. W. 4 were examined as eye witnesses of the occurrence. 11. Ram Kumar is the son of the deceased Shanker Lodh. He deposed that the father of Daya Ram appellant was murdered and his father Shanker Lodh was prosecuted for his murder but he was acquitted. Lateran, Ram Sajivan of his village was done to death and a First Information Report of the occurrence was lodged by his father Shanker Lodh against Lala Bhaiya, the real brother of Daya Ram appellant and others as accused. Lateran, Ram Sajivan of his village was done to death and a First Information Report of the occurrence was lodged by his father Shanker Lodh against Lala Bhaiya, the real brother of Daya Ram appellant and others as accused. He also deposed that his father Shanker Lodh deceased and Ram Sajivan had beaten Chunu appellant prior to the present occurrence. He also stated that on the day of the murder of his father Shanker Lodh, the case against Lata Bhaiya and others for the murder of the aforesaid Ram Sajivan was pending and his father was an eye witness of the occurrence. He further deposed that he was in village Prempur at the time of occurrence inside his house and 00 hearing the sound of firing, he rushed near the shop of his father where he had seen the appellants firing at his father with single barrel guns. Besides him, the occurrence was also witnessed by Shiv Pal, Ram Autar and others who had arrived at the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm. It was also stated by him that, Daya Ram appellant fired at him causing injuries in his thigh while retreating from the place of occurrence. He further deposed that he had dictated the report Ex. Ka 1 to his cousin Ram Autar in the morning at the time when usually cock crows and, thereafter, he went to the police station Girwa where he handed down the report to the Head Constable. In cross-examination, he stated that he also lived in Shanker Purwa but at the same time, he stated that he lived in Prempur as well. However, he denied that he resided in village Nandpurwa. He admitted that he had dictated the report Ex. Ka 1 on 29. 11. 1974 to Ram Autar and when the report Ex. Ka I was shown to him which bears the date 28. 11 and 29. 11, be could not say as to how the change in the date from 29. 11 to 28. 11 took place in the Report Ex. Ka 1. 12. Ram Kumar is an injured witness and his presence at the time of occurrence cannot be held in doubt. On the other hand, the defence has not been able to point out any material infirmity in his evidence as to discredit his testimony. 11 to 28. 11 took place in the Report Ex. Ka 1. 12. Ram Kumar is an injured witness and his presence at the time of occurrence cannot be held in doubt. On the other hand, the defence has not been able to point out any material infirmity in his evidence as to discredit his testimony. He is no doubt the son of the deceased but his being closely related to the deceased, does not render his evidence to be disbelieved. Moreover, the Investigating Officer had stated that he had found fifty small shots embedded in the Platform of Ragunath Nai where Ram Kumar was allegedly standing when he was fired at by Daya Ram appellant. We, therefore, hold that Ram Kumar P. W. 1 has given a true account of the occurrence and he is a reliable witness and his evidence also inspires confidence. ( 13 ) SHIV Pal P. W. 2 has fully corroborated the statement of Ram Kumar P. W. 1. According to him at the time of occurrence, he was engaged in talks with his wife in front of his house when he heard the sound of gun-fire and the alarm raised by Ram Kumar whereupon he and his wife rushed towards the shop of Shanker Lodh and had witnessed that Daya Ram and Chhunnu, appellants were firing with their guns at Shanker Lodh who was inside his shop. He also claimed to have witnessed the firing at Ram Kumar P. W. 1 by Daya Ram appellant. He further stated that Shanker Lodh deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot inside the shop. It has come in his evidence that his house is situated at a distance of 40 to 45 paces from the shop of the deceased and there are houses of Ram Autar, Chandra Pal and Devi Din and others between his house and the shop of the deceased. According to him, Ram Kumar had dictated the report to Ram Autar at night in the shop 7 or 8 hours after the occurrence and Ram Kumar had left the village with Ram Autar on a Bullock-cart at about 5 or 6 a. m. for Police Station. He denied the suggestion that he bad not seen the occurrence. ( 14 ) THE evidence of Shiv Pal does not suffer from any infirmity which may render his testimony discreditable. He denied the suggestion that he bad not seen the occurrence. ( 14 ) THE evidence of Shiv Pal does not suffer from any infirmity which may render his testimony discreditable. He is a natural witness being neighbour of Ram Kumar as his home lies at a distance of 40 to 50 paces from the place of occurrence. The presence of Shiv Pal appears quite probable at the place of occurrence. The deceased had sustained six gunshot wounds of entry which appear to be the result of three separate shops. Ram Kumar has also sustained two gun-shot injuries by single barrel gun and therefore, the appellants must have re-loaded their guns thrice in causing six injuries to the deceased and as such during the period of firing the witnesses are expected to have reached near the place of occurrence on hearing the sound of firing. Shiv Pal is no doubt a close relation of Ram Kumar being his uncle, but he is a natural witness. There is no infirmity in his evidence as to discard his testimony. We, therefore, hold that Shiv Pal is also a reliable witness. ( 15 ) RAM Autar P. W. 3 has also lent full corroboration to the statement of Ram Kumar P. W. 1. He is a cousin of Ram Kumar. He deposed that at the time of occurrence, he was inside his house in village Prempur and on hearing the sound of firing and alarm raised by Ram Kumar, he rushed towards the shop of Shanker Lodh deceased and on reaching there, he saw both the appellants Daya Ram and Chhunnu standing with their guns in front of the shop who were firing at Shanker Lodh deceased. According to him, Ram Kumar was also fired at by appellant Daya Ram causing him gun-shot injuries. He further stated that he wrote down the report Ex. 1 on the dictation of Ram Kumar P. W. 1. In cross-examination, he said that he had put down 29. 11. 1974 as the date in the report Ex. Ka-1 and not 29. 11. 1 974. However, this discrepancy in the date is immaterial and carries no weight as the prosecution could not have derived any gain by changing the date from 29. 11. 1974 to 28. 11. 1974 as the said report was lodged at 7 am on 29. 11. 1974 at the Police Station. Ka-1 and not 29. 11. 1 974. However, this discrepancy in the date is immaterial and carries no weight as the prosecution could not have derived any gain by changing the date from 29. 11. 1974 to 28. 11. 1974 as the said report was lodged at 7 am on 29. 11. 1974 at the Police Station. I am Autar is also related to the complainant being his cousin, but the defence has failed to spin out any flaw infirmity in his evidence as to discredit his testimony. He resides close to the place of occurrence and, therefore, he is also a natural witness and his evidence can safely be relied upon. We, therefore, hold that Ram Autar is also a reliable witness. ( 16 ) DAYA Ram appellant bas admitted in his statement under section 313. Cr. P. C. that Shanker Lodh deceased was prosecuted for the murder of his father and he was acquitted. It has also come in his statement that Ram Sajeevan was murdered in which Shanker Lodh deceased was complainant and his brother was accused for the murder of Ram Sajeevan. Ram Kumar P. W. 1 also deposed that his father Shanker Lodh deceased had given beating before the occurrence to Chunnu accused. Therefore, both the appellants had strong motive to commit the murder of Shanker Lodh deceased and inflict injuries upon Ram Kumar complainant who is the son of the deceased. The prosecution has, therefore, fully succeeded in establishing that both the appellants had strong motive to commit the crime. The prosecution has also succeeded in proving satisfactorily the guilt of the appellants by examining Ram Kumar P. W. 1. Shiv Pal P. W. 2 and Ram Autar P. W. 3. As said above, these witnesses are natural witnesses as their houses lay in proximity of the place of occurrence. Ram Kumar P. W. 1 bad also sustained gunshot injuries during the occurrence. The occurrence bad taken place at about 5. 00 or 5. 15 p. m. i. e. in sufficient day-light within the abadi of the village Prempur and, therefore, there could not be any mistake in the identification of the appellants by the witnesses. The witnesses Shiv Pal and Ram Autar are no-doubt closely related to the complainant Ram Kumar but their evidence as held above, cannot be brushed aside merely on their being related to the complainant. The witnesses Shiv Pal and Ram Autar are no-doubt closely related to the complainant Ram Kumar but their evidence as held above, cannot be brushed aside merely on their being related to the complainant. We also do not come across any cogent reason or circumstances that would have impelled the witnesses to shield the real assailants and implicate the appellants falsely in this case. Moreover, the witnesses have fully stood the test of cross- examination and no material discrepancy in their evidence has been brought forth on the record by the defence which may render their testimony impeachable. We, therefore, hold that the eyewitness account given by the prosecution witnesses, is convincing and reliable which can safely be acted upon for the conviction of the appellants. ( 17 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that according to the prosecution case, both the appellants were armed with guns and on post mortem examination, the injuries Nos. 1 to 11 found on the person of the deceased Shanker Lodh were gun-shot injuries but the remaining injury No. 12 of the deceased was punctured wound 2 cm x 1 cm x upto pelvic bone deep on the right buttock and there was soft part ecchymosis to a minor degree around this wound. The learned counsel submitted that regarding the nature of the injury No. 12 which is a punctured wound, Dr. S. C. Pandiya who had conducted the post mortem examination has rightly opined that the said injury was caused by sharp pointed weapon and it was not caused by gunshot. Under the circumstance, the learned counsel bad contended that the oral testimony given by witnesses is believed by the medical evidence as none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that the deceased was also assaulted by any sharp edged pointed weapon. Before it is adjudicated upon whether injury No. 12 is the result of gunshot or it was caused by some sharp pointed weapon, it is worthy to note that according to the prosecution evidence all the three witnesses, namely, Ram Kumar P. W. 1, Shiv Pal P. W. 2 and Ram Autar P. W 3 had rushed to the scene of occurrence from their houses on hearing the gun-shot and as such the witnesses could not witness the earlier part of the assault on the deceased before arriving at the scene of occurrence. The assault admittedly took place inside the shop of the deceased. Consequently, the possibility that injury No. 12 was caused by sharp pointed weapon by the appellants or by one of their accomplice who had disappeared before the arrival of the witnesses at the scene of occurrence, cannot be ruled out. The witnesses have not stated that they had witnessed the entire incident from beginning to end. Therefore we hold that their testimony cannot be discarded merely because they have not been able to explain the nature of injury No. 12 found on the person of the deceased. The prosecution case cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity merely because the witnesses have not explained the injury No. 12. Under the circumstance we hold that the prosecution is not duty bound to explain as to how injury No. 12 was caused to the deceased. ( 18 ) HOWEVER, it is also probable that injury No. 12 found on the person of the deceased, could be the result of a gun-shot. According to medical science even the pellets inflict punctured wounds. A punctured wound caused by sharp pointed weapon and a punctured wound inflicted by the-arm, have similar appearances and unless the Doctor examines the injury in all its aspects and mentions all the important features of the injuries in his injury report or the post Mortem Report, he will not be in a position to recall in the court after a long lapse of time as to whether the particular punctured wound found on the person of the deceased or the injured was the result of the gunshot injury or by a sharp pointed weapon in the absence of datas in the injury or the Post Mortem Reports. ( 19 ) GENERALLY, the Medical Officers after examining the injured, note down the approximate weapons in the injury reports, with which the injuries on the person of the injured were caused but in the post mortem reports, the medical officers do not specify the approximate weapons with which the injuries on the person of the deceased were caused and instead, they simply opine as, to the cause of the death of the deceased. This omission on the part of the Medical Officers in not specifying the possible weapon of assault, sometimes render it difficult for the court to determine the nature of the injuries found on the person of the deceased and even for the medical officer who are sought by the prosecution of the defence during the course of evidence before the Trial court to give out their opinion about the nature of the weapon by means of which the injuries on the person of the deceased are caused specifically in cases of punctured or stab wounds. The opinion of the Doctor about the nature of the injuries based on his memory cannot be safely relied upon by the courts. Under the circumstances as shown above, it is highly desirable that the Medical Officers while preparing the Post Mortem Reports must specifically mention their opinion about the possible weapons used in causing the injuries on the person of the deceased. They must also mention sufficient dates in the Post Mortem Reports that may help them in explaining the nature of the injuries whenever they are called upon to do so by the prosecution or the defence in the witness box. They must also bear in mind while preparing the Post Mortem Reports of the injury reports that they may be asked to give out their opinion regarding the nature of the injuries on the facts observed on Post Mortem Examination and noted down by them in the Post Mortem Reports or the injury reports, in future during the course of trial. A Post Mortem Report is undoubtedly a very important document which not only aids the Medical Officer in determining the nature of the injuries during their evidence in the trial but also to the court in appreciating the evidence in the case. ( 20 ) IN this case, the Post Mortem Examination on the body of the deceased was carried by Dr. S. C Pandiya on 30. 11. 74. His statement was taken down before the trial court on 27. 9. 1977. i. e. after about a long gap of three years. Dr. ( 20 ) IN this case, the Post Mortem Examination on the body of the deceased was carried by Dr. S. C Pandiya on 30. 11. 74. His statement was taken down before the trial court on 27. 9. 1977. i. e. after about a long gap of three years. Dr. Pandiya deposed before the trial court that injury No. 12 found by him on the person of the deceased was the result of some sharp pointed weapon and was not the result of gun shot though he did not mention in the Post Mortem Report that injury No. 12 was the result of some sharp pointed weapon. He had described it in the Post Mortem Report as punctured wound He had simply opined in tr e Post Mortem Report that the death was due to syncope and haemmorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. We bad, therefore, summoned Dr. Pandiya and his evidence was recorded by us on 7. 10. 1985 i. e. after a long gap of 11 years in order to ascertain whether injury No. 12 was the result of gunshot or it was caused by some sharp pointed weapon. Dr. Pandiya reiterated his stand that injury No. 12 was caused by sharp pointed weapon and it was not the result of gunshot. However, it may be noted that Dr. Pandiya had not even noted down the characteristics or the special features of injury No, 12 in the Post Mortem Report which would have assisted him to recall whether the injury No. 12 was the result of gun shot or it was caused by sharp edged pointed weapon. ( 21 ) IT is not disputed that a punctured wound is produced either as a result of sharp pointed weapon or by a bullet or a gunshot. In punctured wound, the depth is greater in length of the wound but in case of a gun shot wound, the length of the wound is small and the depth of the wound is much larger in length of the wound it is, therefore, obvious that a gunshot may also produce punctured wound. Ecchymosis is also found in punctured wound whether they are caused by gunshot or sharp pointed weapon. In this case, it may be noted that the edges of the wound of injury No. 12 are not mentioned in the Post Mortem Report as sharp edged and Dr. Ecchymosis is also found in punctured wound whether they are caused by gunshot or sharp pointed weapon. In this case, it may be noted that the edges of the wound of injury No. 12 are not mentioned in the Post Mortem Report as sharp edged and Dr. Pandiya has also admitted in his evidence before us that be did not find any sharp edging inside the wound in injury No. 12, hence, we hold that injury No. 12 could not be said affirmatively that it was the result of sharp edged pointed weapon. The pellets and gunshots do not have the sharp edges, therefore, the absence of sharp edges in injury No. 12 clearly indicates that injury No. 12 was caused by gunshot. The only distinction between a punctured wound caused by sharp pointed weapon or by a gun shot as stated by Dr. Pandiya is that in case of gunshot wounds, there shall always be a dissolution of skin to some extent like a tennel. It may be pointed out again that Dr. Pandiya did not mention in the Post Mortem Report that there was any dissolution of skin in the wound of injury No. 12 and, there form we told that there was not sufficient data before Dr. Pandiya on which he could base his opinion that injury No. 12 was caused by sharp pointed weapon. Dr. Pandiya had himself conceded that he is not a Ballistic Expert. His opinion is based on the solitary circumstance that injury No. 12 did not cause the disappearance of skin though the said disappearance of the skin was not noted by him in the Post Mortem Report, hence the opinion of the doctor is based on his memory and it, therefore, deserves to be discarded merely on this score and no specific reliance can be placed on his opinion. Dr. Pandiya further stated that in punctured wounds, the depth becomes smaller and smaller as it goes deeper and deeper though he has not mentioned in the Post Mortem Report that the size of injury No. 12 was smaller at depth while it was broader at surface. Dr. Dr. Pandiya further stated that in punctured wounds, the depth becomes smaller and smaller as it goes deeper and deeper though he has not mentioned in the Post Mortem Report that the size of injury No. 12 was smaller at depth while it was broader at surface. Dr. Pandiya has stuck to his opinion despite the observation in Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 20th Edition at page 213 which is noted below: In a ease of a punctured wound perforating a part of the body there are two wounds, one of entry and the other of exit. The wound of entry is usually larger with inverted edges and the wound of exit is smaller and has averted edges. ( 22 ) DR. Pandiya, however, had conceded before us that there would be gapping between both types of punctured wounds whether caused by fire-arm or sharp pointed weapon but the said gapping in the wound has not been noted by him in the Post Mortem Report. As such, the opinion of opinion is not worth reliance. Dr. Pandiya did not agree that in gunshot wound, the size of entry wound is larger than the size of the bullet or pellet. This opinion of Dr. Pandiya also dissents with the opinion of Shri. Hatcher. The opinion of Shri Hatcher on 5th printing, page 203 is quoted below. Wound of entrance. The skin wound of entrance on the other hand, wounds in skin overlying bones or other highly resistant tissues may show openings exceeding the size of the bullet. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that no trace of any pellet or bullet was found inside injury No, 12 and there was also no exit wound. Therefore, it was urged that the injury No 12 was caused by sharp pointed weapon and not by a gun-shot. This argument has got no force merely because no trace of any bullet inside the injury No. 12 was found and there was also no exit wound, It cannot be necessarily inferred that injury No. 12 is not the result of fire-arm as there was no exit in it or no pellet or any foreign matter was found inside the wound. Sometimes, the pellet or the bullet is so deflected with bone that it passes out by the same orifice as it entered. Sometimes, the pellet or the bullet is so deflected with bone that it passes out by the same orifice as it entered. It may be noted that injury No. 12 was pelvic bone deep on the right buttock and the possibility that pellet might have got deflected with the pelvic bone and had passed out by the orifice as it entered, cannot be ruled out in the present case. In the Modis Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 20th Edition, Chapter 10, page 22 I, it is given as under: Fire-arms wounds generally produce two where a bullet by coming in contact with a bone is so defected as to pass out by the same orifice as it entered. We further place reliance on the opinion mentioned in Modis Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology on pages 224 and 226 which is quoted below; On page 224 - The ricochetting bullet may cause a penetrating wound or non-penetrating injuries. On page 226 - A bullet traveling at highly velocity produces a clean, circular punched out aperture or slit as in a stabbing wound and usually perforates the body. ( 23 ) THUS relying upon various authorities on medical Jurisprudence and also considering the nature of injury No. 12 we hold that the injury No. 12 was most probably caused by a gun-short and not by sharp edged weapon. The opinion of Dr. Pandiya that the said punctured wound was caused by sharp pointed weapon, cannot be implicitly relied upon and it deserves to be discarded. Dr. S. C. Pandiya had prepared the Post Mortem Report in a perfunctory manner which has rendered his opinion impeachable and not acceptable to us. ( 24 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the oral testimony of the witnesses regarding the occurrence is not belied by the Medical Evidence and as held above, the resultant injury No. 12 appears to have been probably caused by gun-shot. ( 25 ) THE prosecution has therefore, fully established its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. The order of conviction and sentences recorded by the trial court do not require any interference by us and deserve to be affirmed. ( 26 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentences recorded by the trial court are affirmed. The appellants are on bail. The order of conviction and sentences recorded by the trial court do not require any interference by us and deserve to be affirmed. ( 26 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentences recorded by the trial court are affirmed. The appellants are on bail. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentences. ( 27 ) BEFORE parting with the present case, we direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to Director, Medical Health U. P. for necessary action. Appeal dismissed. .