JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal of the accused appellant against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh dated 27-8-1981 whereby he has convicted the accused appellant under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of (P13BXj 3,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. 2. The facts giving rise to this case are that on 14-2-1960 one Totasingh resident of Hirnawali at about 8.40 p.m. presented himself before the Police Station Hanumangarh Junction and gave out an oral report that his elder brother Bhajansingh owed a sum of (P13BXj 100/- to accused Jangeer-Singh. Therefore, he demanded this sum of money. On this date in the after-noon there was a musical concert (Akhara) at about 3 p.m. and he had also gone to witness this along with his deceased brother Bhajan Singh and in this musical concert deceased Bhajan Singh demanded the money from accused Jangeer Singh. Thereupon the accused Jangeer Singh told him to come along with him at my house and payment would be made At about 5.30 p m. in the evening when the musical concert was over, he along with his brother and Jangeer Singh proceeded to the house of accused Jangeersingh. In the way, Bhajan Singh told the accused Jangeer Singh to kindly give a fixed date when the payment is going to be made so that he may not have to demand the money repeatedly. The accused Jangeersingh told him to come along with with to his house and they would settle it there. When they reached at the house of Jangeer Singh, Jangeer Singh went inside the house. At that time Bhajan Singh was standing in the street and Gakha Singh and Bikar Singh were also standing. Jangeer Singh went inside his house and closed the door and climbed on the terrace of his house. When he came on the terrace of his house, he was armed with a 12 bore single gun. Thereafter the accused Jangeer Singh challenged Bhajan Singh that he should get ready for sum of Rs. 100/-, Thereafter, Jangeer Singh fired on Bhajan Singh and that hit right side of the chest of the deceased Deceased Bhajan Singh fell down and died on the scene of occurrence. Thereafter the accused Jangeer Singh challenged Bhajan Singh that he should get ready for sum of Rs. 100/-, Thereafter, Jangeer Singh fired on Bhajan Singh and that hit right side of the chest of the deceased Deceased Bhajan Singh fell down and died on the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, Jangeer Singh also fired at him, but he could manage to hide himself behind the wall. It is further stated that Gakha Singh and Bikar Singh and Maniram have also witnessed the incident and the dead body of the deceased was lying at the scene of occurrence. On this basis, a case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the accused and the investigation was taken up. Two constables were sent at the scene of occurrence immediately. On 15-2-1980 the Investigating Officer, Shri Prahlad Rai, PW 5 Station House Officer, Hanumangarh Junction reached on the scene and prepared the site-plan and took the blood stained soil. The Panchnama of the dead body was also prepared the dead body was taken into custody and the same was sent for post mortem. The accued was arrested on 15-2-1980 and be produced one licensed gun along with empty. After close of the necessary investigation a challan was filed against the accused under Sections 302 and 307 Indian Penal Code and the accused was sent for trial to the court of Sessions. 3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined about 6 witnesses and got large number of documents exhibitted. The defence examined only two witnesses. The plea of the accused was that deceased Bhajan Singh had liquor contract and, on account of that he had enmity with other liquor contractors. The deceased has been murdered by some other person and Totasingh and other members of his family who had a land dispute with the accused therefore they want to wrongly rope in the accused deliberately in this case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after due trial found the accused guilty on basis of the testimony of PW 2 Totasingh and PW 3 Gakhasingh. He however disbelieved the testimony of PW 5 Jagarsingh. He further held that non-examination of Maniram and Bikarsingh is not fatal. Thus, he found the accused Jangeersingh guilty under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. He however disbelieved the testimony of PW 5 Jagarsingh. He further held that non-examination of Maniram and Bikarsingh is not fatal. Thus, he found the accused Jangeersingh guilty under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. However, he acquitted the accused under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved against this, the accused appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and have also perused the record. 5. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the testimony of PW 2 Totasingh and PW 3 Gakhasingh is unreliable and they should not be believed. Likewise, he also submitted that on account of non-examination of the eye-witnesses like Maniram and Bikarsingh an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. Lastly, he has contended that the distance between the place of firing and where the deceased was standing, the nature of injuries received by the deceased, does not tally and that improbablises the whole prosecution story. He has also levelled serious criticism regarding sealing of the blood stained soil from the scene of occurrence for sending it to the Chemical Examiner. He submitted that the report of the ballistic expert has not been filed. Therefore, adverse inference should be drawn. 6. PW 2 Tota Singh, who is the brother of the deceased arid who has accompanied the accused and his brother to the scene of occurrence has narrated the incident of firing by the accused from the terrace of his house and which caused a fatal injury to his elder brother and as a result of which he fell down on the ground. Thereafter from there he took to his heels and narrated the whole incident at the police station orally. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that this witness is not a reliable as in the First Information Report he has said that the deceased brother fell down but he did not mention whether he has died on the scene of occurrence or his body has been shifted from the scene of occurrence to his house by PW 4 Jagar Singh. He has also pointed out that he has remained through out at the police station as he was detained by the Station House Officer. As against this, PW 5 Prahlad Rai, Station House Officer has denied that he had not detained him at the police station. He further contended that in the First Information Report this witness has only said about the single fire but as against this in his statement before the court he has improved and has deposed that second shot was also fired at him and he could manage shelter behind the wall. We have gone through the statement of this witness and we are of the opinion that the testimony of this witness cannot be discarded on account of certain improvement or omissions. If we view the statement of this witness in the context of the whole story it does transpire that the incident took place on 14-2-1980 in the evening at 5.30 p.m. and at 8.40 p.m. he is able to reach at the police station and submitted an oral report which was reduced in writing at the police station. When oral report is given out then it is not always necessary that it shall contain all the minor details. Since this witness soon after the firing incident rushed away from the place therefore he was not in a position to say that whether deceased died on the scene or was still alive. He immediately rushed up to the police station and gave out the oral report of the incident. In that he has stated about the incident of firing. He has said in the report that the dead body was lying at the scence of occurrence. But next morning when the Station House Officer reached at the scene of occurrence he found that the dead body was shifted from the place of occurrence to the house of the deceased. At the time when this witness left the scene of occurrence he saw that the dead body was lying at the scene of occurrence and in his absence when the body was shifted to the house it cannot be said that on account of this he may be treated as unreliable one. At the time when this witness left the scene of occurrence he saw that the dead body was lying at the scene of occurrence and in his absence when the body was shifted to the house it cannot be said that on account of this he may be treated as unreliable one. It is just natural that this omission is bound to be there as he has left the scene of occurrence soon after the incident leaving the body of his brother at the scene of occurrence. But when the Investigating Officer reached on the next morning the dead body was shifted from the scene of occurrence to the house. Thus, this omission in the First Information Report was natural Similarly, it has been pointed out that according to the version given out by this witness he was detained in the police station. As against this PW 5 Prahlad Rai deposed that he did not detain him at the police station. This is not much material. What is material is the description of the incident and the subsequent act whether he was detained at the police station or he allowed to go and because of the terror he did not move out had any bearing on the testimony of this witness regarding the main incident. Lastly, coming to the question that in the First Information Report he did not mention about firing of second shot which he has improved during his statement and secondly no empties or pellets or wads were found from the scene of occurrence. We have gone through the First Information Report and in that it has been mentioned that the accused's son exhorted his father to fire so that other persons may not escape. Simply because the pellets were not found on that place on the next morning cannot render the testimony of this witness unreliable It is possible that the pellets may not have been found as the Investigating Officer would not have taken care to search the place for pellets and other wads This will not render the testimony of this witness as unreliable. Thus, we are of the opinion that the testimony of Totasingh PW 2 is reliable one. Similarly, learned Counsel has criticised the testimony of PW 3 Gakhasingh, who is one of the eye witnesses of the incident and his name finds mention in the First Information Report. Thus, we are of the opinion that the testimony of Totasingh PW 2 is reliable one. Similarly, learned Counsel has criticised the testimony of PW 3 Gakhasingh, who is one of the eye witnesses of the incident and his name finds mention in the First Information Report. It has been pointed out that he was relation and he was examined after three days of the incident by the police and no reason has been given that why he was examined by the police belatedly. We have gone through the statement of this witness as well and we do not find much substance in the criticism of the learned Counsel. Since name of this witness finds mention in the First Information Report and it is alleged that he has witnessed this incident along with other persons like Maniram and Bikarsingh from the shop of one Chhotu Singh. From the site plan also it appears that the place from where this witness was said to be standing makes it clear that he was in a position to witness the scene of occurrence. Soon after the incident he has left the place of occurrence as according to his testimony the body was taken away by PW 4 Jagarsingh from the scene and thereafter he left the scene of occurrence. Simply because his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer soon after the incident that alone will not render the testimony of this witness as unacceptable. The very fact that his name finds mention in the First Information Report which was filed within three hours of the the incident and his statement was recorded by the police after 3 days and he has stood the testimony in the trial unshaken. This shows that this witness is a reliable witness and on account of minor omissions and contradictions his testimony cannot be rendered as unreliable. Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly relied upon the testimony of this witness. 7. Learned Counsel has also tried to improbablise the prosecution story by reference to the injuries and from the place of occurrence where the shot was fired. According to the Doctor, the injuries were received by the deceased from an oblique direction. Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly relied upon the testimony of this witness. 7. Learned Counsel has also tried to improbablise the prosecution story by reference to the injuries and from the place of occurrence where the shot was fired. According to the Doctor, the injuries were received by the deceased from an oblique direction. The doctor has deposed that the cause of death in his opinion was massive laceration to the right lung tissues, upper and middle caused by pellets of bullet which was fired near about 10-12 feet distance in oblique direction causing massive haemorrhage in the right plural cavity. Here the direction is more relevant which accords with the prosecution story. The prosecution case is that the accused claimed on the terrace and fired from the terrace on the victim who was standing on the road and the nature of injuries and the direction show that the gun shot has been fired from a higher position and as a result of which all the six pellers have entered into the body of the deceased from a higher position and gone lower down in his body. Learned Counsel has emphasised that according to the site-plan the distance is said to be 28 feet. The distance may not be exact. They are always approximate. The variation of the two distances one given by the Investigating Officer after happening of the incident and the distance given out by the Doctor on the basis of the injury they are all approximation. But as against this when there are eye-witnesses they accord with the nature of injuries then there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of such eye-witnesses as against the approximation given by the Doctor or by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer, has also approximately counted the distance. Likewise, the Doctor has also approximately given out the distance on account of the injuries received. But the basic factor which lends assurance to the prosecution story is the direction of the firing and the injuries received by the victim. The case of the prosecution is that the accused fired from the terrace on the deceased who was standing on the road. This accords with the injuries received by the deceased and the six pellets which were recovered from his body. The case of the prosecution is that the accused fired from the terrace on the deceased who was standing on the road. This accords with the injuries received by the deceased and the six pellets which were recovered from his body. Thus, this variation in the distance between the testimony of site plan and the Doctor cannot render the testimony of the eye-witness unreliable. Learned Counsel has also made a grievance against the non-production of the ballistic expert report and improper sealing of the blood stained soil But in view of the fact that we have found the testimony of the eye-witnesses, namely, PW 2 Totasingh and PW 5 Gakhasingh as reliable, therefore, non-production of the ballistic expert report and improper sealing of the blood stained soil does not help the accused in any manner. 8. Thus, in the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the accused is confirmed.Appeal dismissed. *******