K.S. LODHA, J.—Tehalsingh has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar on 28. 10. 86. He has been convicted under sec. 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default, three years rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted under sec. 27.of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to five years regorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of which, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution story may be briefly stated here. There was a truck owners union at Ganganagar. Formerly, accused. Tehalsingh was the President thereof. According to the prosecution, he was removed from the President ship of that Union. However, according to the defence, he himself had resigned from that post. Be that as it may, it is admitted on both the sides that there had been dispute between accused Telialsingh and the prosecution witnesses Prithvi Raj and Kishanlal on account of the affairs ot the union. According to the Prosecution, on the fateful day i.e. 28.6.85, Prithvi Raj (P.W. 1) and Kishanlal (P.W. 2) who are the members of the union had reached the office of the. Union at about 6.00 P.M . on hearing the call for the trucks along with some other persons (truck owners). The other persons left the place after sometimes but Prithvi Raj and Kishanlal stayed back and they set down on the chairs lying near the bud tree in the compound of the union office. At about 6.30 P.M. Gurubux Singh Narang (hereinafter referred to as Narang) also joined them and they were having talks regarding the purchase of a truck in their partnership. It is alleged that while they were so talking, Tehalsingh whose house is towards the south of the union office came on his roof, called them out and told them that they were having groupism for the last so many days and saying so, he fired his rifle towards them. This fire hit Narang on the forehead over the right-eye He stumbled and fell down on the chair on which he was sitting. It is further alleged that Tehalsingh re-loaded his gun and wanted to fire another shot but, in the meantime, Prithvi Raj and Kishanlal ran away and took shelter in the office of the union. This fire hit Narang on the forehead over the right-eye He stumbled and fell down on the chair on which he was sitting. It is further alleged that Tehalsingh re-loaded his gun and wanted to fire another shot but, in the meantime, Prithvi Raj and Kishanlal ran away and took shelter in the office of the union. However, Tehalsingh fired the second shot while these persons were entering the office of the truck union. Prakash Chandra (PW 3) who was Munshi in the union office was present there and Prithvi Raj and Kishanlal told him of this incident and asked him to ring up to the police. Accordingly, Prakash Chandra informed the police station, Kotwali, Ganganagar on phone. After sometime, the police reached there. The case of the prosecution, further is that during this time also, Tehalsingh continued to be present on the roof of his house and he also fired his gun again in the air at the time the police reached there. The police surrounded the house of Tehalsingh under the leadership of Jilesingh (P.W. 10), S.H.O. He was asked to come down and was apprehended. He was still then holding the gun. Then, the statement of Prithvi Raj was recorded by Jilesingh (P.W. 10) and the same was sent to the police station for a case under sec. 302, I.PC. and s. 27 of the Arms Act to be registered. It may be mentioned here that on receiving the telephonic message, Shri Jilesingh took it down in the Rojnamcha vide Ex. P/24, copy of which is Ex. P24/A, but according to him, the information was not complete and was ambiguous. Therefore, the case was not registered on the basis of that information and was later registered on the basis of the statement of Prithvi Raj, recorded by Jilesingh at the spot. 3. Jilesingh, then inspected the dead-body of Narang and prepared a Panchayatnama (Ex. P/12). as also inquest report Ex. P/3. He also inspected the site and prepared a site plan Ex. P/4 and a site inspection note Ex. P 4/A. He also recovered the blood-stained as well as the control soil from the spot vide Ex. P/5. Pagri of the deceased as also the pair of the shoes and a sum of Rs. 427. Two cash-memos and a paper containing some account were also taken into possession by the police vide Ex. P/7. P 4/A. He also recovered the blood-stained as well as the control soil from the spot vide Ex. P/5. Pagri of the deceased as also the pair of the shoes and a sum of Rs. 427. Two cash-memos and a paper containing some account were also taken into possession by the police vide Ex. P/7. Accused Tehalsingh was formally arrested and the gun was taken possession of vide Ex. P/8. It is alleged that he gave information vide Ex. P/I6 in respect of three empties of 315 bore and two live cartridges of 315 bore and in pursuance of that information the same were recovered. He also produced a bag containing 58 live cartridges of 315 bore vide Ex. P/9. A metallic object, i.e. part of the bullet was also found lying near the Northern wall of the compound of the union office and that also was taken in possession vide Ex. P/10. The clothes of the deceased Narang were also recovered vide Ex.P/11. Some photographs of the spot were also got taken, which are Ex P/12 to Ex. P/21 and their negatives are Ex. P/12A to P/21A. The dead-body of the deceased Narang was got examined by the medical jurist Dr. Rajendra Kumar (P.W. 9) and post-mortem report (Ex. P/22) was prepared by him. According to this report, he had found the following injuries on the person of Narang: "i) Lacerated wound 1" x 1 J" Brain deep on the occipital region Right side post. Margins inverted. ii) Lacerated wound 6" x 3" x Brain Matter coming out on the Rt. fronto Pareto Temporal region. Bones fractured. Margins everted." He also found the vault of skull and base of the skull on the Right side fractured in the multiple pieces. Brain and membranes lacerated in pieces. Infra cranial haemorrhage present. According to him, both the injuries were due to fire arms. Injury No. 1 was wound of entry and injury No. 2 was wound of exit. There was no blackening tatteing and scorching present around the wound According to him. the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to brain due to firearm. He had also opined that the distance of the firearm was more than 2-3 yards. The recovered gun. cartridges, empties and the metallic object were sent for examination by ballistic expert. the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to brain due to firearm. He had also opined that the distance of the firearm was more than 2-3 yards. The recovered gun. cartridges, empties and the metallic object were sent for examination by ballistic expert. After completing investigation, a challan was put up against the accused and he was committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar, from where it was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar. Charges for offences under sec-302, I.P.C. and s. 27 of the Arms Act were framed against him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced a number of documents. In his statement under sec. 313, Cr.P.C, the accused denied the prosecution story. He urged that while he was the President (Pradhan) of the truck union, Prithvi Raj, Kishanlal, Loola Ram etc. tried to get their trucks loaded out of turn and he did not allow them to do so. Therefore, they were inimical towards him, although he did not have any grude against them. He later left the post of Pradhan. He also stated that the prosecution witnesses are inter-related and Prakash Chandra was a man belonging to the group of Prithvi Raj and Kishanlal and, therefore, be had given a false statement. His case further, was that the roof of Jarnelsingh was lower by 2-3 feet from his own roof and in between, there was a telephone wire and therefore, it was not possible to come to Jarnelsinghs roof from his own roof. It was stated by him that he was arrested by the police on that day at about 10 or 10.30 P. M. His rifle and cartridges were also recovered by the police, but they were not sealed. However, he did not produce any evidence in defence After considering the material on record and hearing the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced Tehalsingh as aforesaid. 4. We had had the advantage of hearing the learned arguments of Mr. A.N. Mulla appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also carefully examined the record. 5. It was vehemently urged by Mr. 4. We had had the advantage of hearing the learned arguments of Mr. A.N. Mulla appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also carefully examined the record. 5. It was vehemently urged by Mr. Mulla that the prosecution story is not at all reliable and the incident could not have taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. According to him, the alleged eye-witnesses Prithvi Raj and Kishanlal were not at all present at the time of this incident and had not seen the same, but had later been introduced on account of. the animosity, against the accused. He also contended that the medical evidence contradicts the direct evidence and it also appears, according to Mr. Mulla, that the prosecution has tried to change its version after the post-mortem examination from the one that had been stated in the first information report as also in the Panchayatnama of the dead-body. In support of his contention, he had given a number of reasons. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the finding of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions. We Shall now proceed to consider the contentions raised by Mr. Mulla. 6. It may be convenient to state here before we deal with the contentions, that the prosecution story rests upon the evidence of two eye-witnesses Prithvi Raj and Kishanlal, supported by the evidence of Prakash Chandra (P.W. 3). Corroboration is sought to the direct evidence by the recovery of gun, cartridges, empties etc. and the report of the ballistic expert. It is also alleged that there was motive for the accused to have acted in the manner alleged by the prosecution. 7. Attacking the evidence of the two witnesses, Mr. Mulla urged that according to the version given by Prithvi Raj in his statement recorded by Jile Singh at the spot, the bullet from the rifle had hit Narang on his forehead over the right eye, whereas now both the eye witnesses tried to state before the court that the bullet did not hit in this manner and prosecution case as brought out in the post-mortem report is that the bullet had hit the occipital region of the deceased and had come out of his forehead. In other words, according to the earlier version given by Prithvi Raj the fire must have been from the front of Narang whereas, according to the medical evidence, it must have been from the back and that is why now, the prosecution witnesses have changed their version. It was also pointed out in this respect that the time of the occurrence was about 6.45 P.M. in the month of June when there must have been clear day light and visibility must have been quite good and, therefore, there was no reason for the eye-witnesses if they were at all present at that time, not to be able to see as to on what part of the body of Narang the bullet had hit. In this connection it may be pointed out that although in the statement Ex. P/25, Prithvi Raj had stated that the bullet had hit over the right-eye on the forehead of Narang while, as a matter of fact, it appears from the post-mortem report that the bullet had hit the occipital region and had come out from the forehead which suggests that the fire must have been from the back of Narang, but on a careful examination of the statement of Prithvi Raj Ex. P/22 as also his statement before the court and the site inspection note as well as the plan, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that the prosecution has tried to change its version given in Ex. P/22 or that there is any real conflict between the story given in Ex. P/22 and that sought to be proved before the court. A perusal of Ex. P/4 (site plan) along with note Ex. P/4A would make it clear that the main gate of the compound of the union office is towards East. At the time of this incident the deceased Narang and the eye witnesses Prithvi Raj and Kishanlal were Sitting on the chair near a bud tree which is towards little South of the main gate as well as the central point of the compound. According to both the eye-witnesses, Narang was sitting on the chair A, Kishanial on Chair B and Prithvi Raj on Chair C. It is also clear that the house of accused Tehalsingh is towards South of the compound of the union office separated by a road. According to both the eye-witnesses, Narang was sitting on the chair A, Kishanial on Chair B and Prithvi Raj on Chair C. It is also clear that the house of accused Tehalsingh is towards South of the compound of the union office separated by a road. The house of the accused is shown at mark 12 and the adjoining 10 house of the accused is a workshop of Jarnel Singh, which is towards East of the house of the accused and has been shown at No. 13 in the plan. It has been stated by Prithvi Raj (P.W. 1) that when they were so sitting on the chairs, he was facing South-West; Narang was facing him and his face was a little towards the main gate, which has been shown at point M in the site plan, while Kishanial was facing North-East. Now, if we carefully analise this position, then, it would clearly appear that if Narang was facing Prithvi Raj and his face was also towards the main gate, then, he must have had his back or, atleast most part of it, towards the house of the accused and if fire was made from that site, it could certainly have hit the back part of the head of Narang, specially on the right side as has been found by the doctor in this case According to both Prithviraj and Kishanial, this fire was made while they were talking and on receiving the injury Narang stumbled and fell down from the chair and they both ran towards the union office. Naturally, in such a state, they could not have precisely noticed as to on what part of the body of Narang, the injury had been accused. However, they further state that after the police had arrived at the spot, they came out and saw the dead-body of Narang and at that time they noticed that there was a wound on the forehead of Narang over his right eye. However, they further state that after the police had arrived at the spot, they came out and saw the dead-body of Narang and at that time they noticed that there was a wound on the forehead of Narang over his right eye. Narang at that time was lying on the ground on his back and, therefore, they at that time had only noticed the injuries on his forehead and could not have noticed the injuries on the back of the head and therefore, Prithviraj must have stated before the S.H.O. Jilesingh, in his statement Ex P/25, that the gun-shot had hit the forehead of Narang, but later when the inquest report was prepared and the dead-body of Narang was properly examined by Shri Jilesingh in the presence of the witnesses it was noticed that, as a matter of fact, there was an entry wound on the occipital region of Narang and this fact finds mention in the inquest report We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that Prithvi Raj must, under bona-fide belief, have stated that the injury had been caused on the forehead of deceased Narang in his first statement before the police and, therefore, now before the court if he states that the injury had been caused to the head of Narang and does not specifically state it to be on forehead, it cannot be said that he has improved upon his version given in Ex.P/25. 8. Mr. Mulla also vehemently urged that, as a matter of fact, before the post-mortem examination was carried out, the prosecution witnesses as also the Investigating Officer were under the impression that the injury on the forehead was the only injury caused on account of the alleged fire by Tehalsingh that is why, not only in Ex. P/25, but also in the Panchayatnama of dead body vide Ex. P/2, the injury on the forehead was mentioned, and it was after the post-mortem examination that the injury on occipital region was found out. We are not satisfied that there is any force in this contention. P/25, but also in the Panchayatnama of dead body vide Ex. P/2, the injury on the forehead was mentioned, and it was after the post-mortem examination that the injury on occipital region was found out. We are not satisfied that there is any force in this contention. It would appear, as already stated above, that till the dead-body was properly examined by the Investigating Officer at the time of preparing the inquest report, the witnesses and specially Prithvi Raj may have been under the impression that the injury must have been caused on the forehead only, but at the time of the examination of the body while preparation of the inquest report, the injury on the occipital region had already been noticed and there is no reason to think that the inquest report was prepared after the post-mortem examination. A reference to Ex. P/2 and Ex. P/3 would make the position clear. In Ex. P/2, Panchayatnama, only a cursory examination of the dead-body appears to have been made and only the injury on the forehead over the right eye has been noticed in this Panchayatnama and since the injury by gun-shot was clearly visible on the forehead, the panchas as also Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the cause of death was gun-shot injury. However care has been taken to further mention in Ex. P/2 that the inquest report was being separately prepared. Now, this inquest report Ex. P/3, which was prepared along with Ex. P/3. the dead-body of Narang was fully and critically examined by the Investigating Officer and greater details, which were not mentioned in Ex. P/2 find place in Ex. P/3 and in the detailed examin-ation, it has been mentioned that the dead-body was lying with its face upward near the chair and that there was a hole on account of gun-shot on the back-part of the head and that there was no other hole over the right eye on the forehead. The dimension of the hole has also been mentioned It has been further mentioned that brain matter was coming out and was lying out he ground along with blood. The description, in the manner the dead-body was lying, has also been given in detail in Ex. P/2 as to where, how and in what position of the fingers were, so also the position of the legs, shoes, clothes, worn by the deceased. The description, in the manner the dead-body was lying, has also been given in detail in Ex. P/2 as to where, how and in what position of the fingers were, so also the position of the legs, shoes, clothes, worn by the deceased. Such details have not been mentioned in Ex. P/2 and all that is mentioned in it is- ftldh ykk dk fujh{k.k mijksä iapku ds :c: fd;k x;k ^lh* Jhxqjcflag dh nkfguh vka[k ds Åij flj esa xksyh yxdj Nsn gqvk gSA ^Mh* Hkstk rFkk [kwu ckgu fudy dj tehu ij fc[kjk gqvk gS eDrwy ds ftLe dk Hkyh izdkj fujh{k.k djus ds ckn iapku dh ekSr dh ckcr~ jk; pkgh xbZ rks lHkh us ,d jk; ls dgk fd xqjcDlflag dh ekSr xksyh dh otg ls gqbZ gSA eS lh-vkbZ- Hkh iapku dh jk; ls lger gwW ysfdu fQj Hkh flj esa xksyh dk irk djus rFkk MkDVjh jk; izkIr djus gsrq iksLV ekVZe djkuk vko;d le>rk gwWA ykk dks kuk[r Jh i`Fohjkt djrk gSA QnZ lwjrgky ykk tqnkxkuk efrZc dh tk jgh gSA The manner in which the two documents have been prepared, leaves no room for doubt that Ex. P/2 was basically prepared in order to ascertain the opinion of the panchas without going into the details of the position of the deadbody, whereas the full details of the injuries, the position of the various parts of the dead-body etc. have been recorded in Ex. P/3. It is, of course, stated in Ex. P/2 that the dead-body was properly examined while the panchas gave their opinions, but that appears to be more of formal and routine observation. As already stated above, the detailed examination has been carried out vide Ex. P/3 and not Ex. P/2. Further, the fact that in Ex. P/2. it is clearly mentioned that the inquest memo was being prepared separately, goes to show that Ex. P/3, inquest memo, was also prepared along with Ex. P/2 and, therefore, the details may not have been recorded in Ex. P/3 is, thus, found to have been prepared while Ex P/2 was also being prepared on 28 6.85, it cannot be assumed that Ex. P/3 had not been prepared till the post-mortem examination had taken place on 29.6.85. Prithvi Raj has come out with an honest and convincing explanation in that respect. P/3 is, thus, found to have been prepared while Ex P/2 was also being prepared on 28 6.85, it cannot be assumed that Ex. P/3 had not been prepared till the post-mortem examination had taken place on 29.6.85. Prithvi Raj has come out with an honest and convincing explanation in that respect. He states that before the police he had stated that Narang had received an injury on the forehead over right-eye because when the police came, he came out from office and saw the dead-body and observed only the injury on the forehead and that when the bullet had actually hit Narang on the head, at that time, he was running towards office and, therefore, he could not exactly notice as to where it had hit, whether on the forehead or any other part of the head. We are, therefore clearly of the opinion that the prosecution cannot be accused of changing its version from the one given in Ex. P/2. 9. In this connection, it was also pointed out by Mr. Mulla that if the inquest report Ex. P/3 had already been prepared before the post-mortem report, the name of the accused could also have found mention in the memo prepared by medical jurist vide Ex. P/23, but strangely enough, the name of the accused does not find mention in the same. We are unable to conclude form this that Ex. P/23 was not prepared before the post-mortem examination. It will be relevant to note that before the memo Ex. P/23 was sent to the Medical Jurist, the case had already been registered and F.I.R. No. 202 dated 28.6.85 under sec. 302, I.P.C. and s. 27 of the Arms Act, clearly finds mention in that memo. Not only this, if the police had reached the spot on receiving the telephonic message from Prakash Chandra and in that message itself the name of the accused. Tehalsingh had already been mentioned, as would be clear from Rojanamcha Ex. P24A : therefore, the absence of the name in the memo Ex. P/23 is not at all material and does not lead to the conclusion that the inquest memo had not been prepared by the time the post-mortem examination took place. 10. In this connection, still further, it was contended by Mr. P24A : therefore, the absence of the name in the memo Ex. P/23 is not at all material and does not lead to the conclusion that the inquest memo had not been prepared by the time the post-mortem examination took place. 10. In this connection, still further, it was contended by Mr. Mulla that according to the prosecution story, the gun had been fired from the roof of either the house of the accused or from the roof of the adjoining work shop of Jarnelsingh while the deceased Narang was sitting in the compound of the union office on chair, i e. gun had been filed frorn the higher position and in that case, it should have caused injury with a downward trend, but according to Dr. Rajendra Kumar, there was no down trend injury and, therefore, contends Mr. Mulla, that the story put forward by these two eye-witnesses cannot be accepted in view of this medicalevidence. We are unable to agree with this contention also. It is true that Dr. Rajendra Kumar had statd that the injury had no down trend, but that does not by itself in the circumstances of the case, shows that the gun shot could not have been fired in the manner alleged by the eye-witnesses. It may be noticed that the height of that roof, according to Ex. P/4A was about 10 ft. 2 inches. Deceased Narang was sitting on a chair. Therefore, the height on which his head had been at that time, must be about 5ft. The distance between the two places is about 96 ft. because the southern wall of the compound of the union office is 44ft. away from Jarnelsinghs house and the chair on which Naran was sitting was about 52 ft. away from this southern wall, when the fire is made from such a distance, downward trend of the missile would be lessened considerably: specially when the height of the roof was only 10 1/2 ft. and Narang was sitting on a chair the downward trend of the injury would still be much lesser. Not only this, when the bullet hits a hard substance, i.e. the bone of occipital region, its downward trend may be deflected and it can easily pass" through in almost in a straight line from the forehead. Dr. and Narang was sitting on a chair the downward trend of the injury would still be much lesser. Not only this, when the bullet hits a hard substance, i.e. the bone of occipital region, its downward trend may be deflected and it can easily pass" through in almost in a straight line from the forehead. Dr. Rajendra Kumar admits that it was quite possible that the bullet entering from the back of the head after striking against the bone, may have fractured the bone and passed towards the front. No further cross-examination in this respect was carried out and it was not put to the doctor whether such an injury could not have been possible if fire was made from the given place and the given position of the deceased and only in the end, a vague opinion from him has been taken to the effect that the bullet did not have any downward trend. In these circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the medical evidence is in contrast to the direct evidence. 11. It was, further, argued that it has been admitted by Jile Singh as also Dr. Rajendra Kumar that at the time of the post-mortem examination Jile Singh had enquired from the doctor if the bullet had been found in the dead-body of the deceased and this, according to Mr. Mulla, goes to show that by the time of the post-mortem examination, the Investigating Officer was not in know of the two injuries on the head of the deceaed, viz. the entry wound on the occipital region and the exit wound on the forehead; otherwise there was no occasion for him to enquire from the doctor if the bullet had been found in the dead body. According to us, this query by the Investigating Officer from the doctor may be innocuous and does not necessarily go to show that the two injuries were not within the knowledge of the Investigating Officer till the time of the post-mortem examination. It may be mentioned here, that according to the prosecution story put-forward by Prithvi Raj and Kishanlal, a number of shots had been fired by Tehalsingh; the first hit Narang, the second hit the wall of the compound of the union office and still one more which is said to have been made in the air. It may be mentioned here, that according to the prosecution story put-forward by Prithvi Raj and Kishanlal, a number of shots had been fired by Tehalsingh; the first hit Narang, the second hit the wall of the compound of the union office and still one more which is said to have been made in the air. Even if the Investigating Officer had already noticed the exit wound on the head of Narang, thereby showing that one of the bullets must have come out of his head, he may have further enquired if there was any bullet or part of it found in the dead-body Not only this, it is also clear from Ex P/10 that piece of metallic object only had been found at the spot near the wall of the compound There fore, Jilesingh may have made a query from the doctor if any part of the object still remained with the dead-body and, therefore, merely because he made such a query from the doctor, we cannot jump to the conclusion that he was not in know of the fact that the bullet had already come out from the body from the exit wound and could have not remain in it. 12. Apart from the contention that the prosecution story is believed by the medical evidence, Mr. Mulla pointed out a number of other circumstances, which according to him, make the presence of the eye witnesses at the spot wholly doubtful and according to him, even the F.I.R., on the basis of the statement of Prithvi Raj vide Ex. P/25 had not been recorded at the time alleged but was a post investigative document We, shall therefore, now consider those circumstances pointed out by Mr. Mulla. 13. It was contended by Mr. Mulla that, as already stated above, the incident had taken place at a time when the visibility was very clear and admittedly, so far as deceased Narang was concerned, he had no particular animocity with Tehalsingh. Therefore, he would not have fired at Narang. This contention does not appeal to us. It is not the case of the prosecution that Tehalsingh had aimed only at Narang or that he was a crank shot. Therefore, he would not have fired at Narang. This contention does not appeal to us. It is not the case of the prosecution that Tehalsingh had aimed only at Narang or that he was a crank shot. On the other hand the witnesses had stated that before making fire, he made Lalkara saying that these witnesses were spreading groupism in the union and this could clearly refer to Prithvi Raj and Kishanlal only because they were only the members of the union. Narang was not the member and therefore, the possibility is that on seeing both, these witnesses, sitting along with Narang, Tehalsingh may have fired at the group and unfortunately, it hit Narang. 14. Then, it was contended by Mr. Mulla that having fired the gun, there was no reason for Tehalsingh to stay on his roof any further and he would not have kept standing there in any, case till the policy arrived whereas the case of the prosecution is that he even fired in the air after the arrival of the police as if to proclaim his presence. This contention also does not appeal to us. It is the case of the prosecution, that even before firing the first shot,. Tehalsingh had given out the Lalkara. Then, the fire made by him had hit Narang, who was not his real, target and the real target Prithviraj and Kishanlal were escaping it was then that he fired the second shot,but fortunately for the two witnesses, they could escape it by taking shelter into the union office. Tehalsingh still may have expec-ted that these witnesses would come out and, therefore, he continue staying on his roof and giving out Lalkara. It has been mentioned in, Ex. P/-24A that while Prakash Chandra was talking to the police on. phone, Tehalsingh was still on the roof and was firing and, therefore, in. these circumstances, it cannot be said that his presence on the roof after the first fire was. made was not in the, natural course Not only this , sometimes even in order to scare the police party or the persons who want to capture a culprit, he may still fire even in the air in order to deter them and, therefore also, we do not find anything unnatural in the-conduct of Tehalsingh in firing in the air even after the; arrival of the police at the spot. 15. 15. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that accord-ing to the prosecution story, the accused had given out lalkara before making fire and his house was towards the South and the Lalkara must have attracted Narang and both the eye-witnesses and therefore, they must have looked towards South and in that case, the shot could not have hit Narang on his occipital region. According to us, this contention is only on the basis of conjectures or surmises. On hearing the Lalkara it is not always necessary that the person should look towards the side from which Lalkara comes, because sometimes the reaction is that we have to turn on different sides in order to find out from which direction the voice has come and that does not necessarily must be towards the side from which the voice had come, may be in the first instance, on the other direction. Not only this, the calling of Lalkara and the firing would not have taken much of time and must have taken place within second and in that case on hearing the Lalkara while looking towards the gate of the compound, Narang may have received the injuries and fallen down. Therefore, it cannot be said that the story that the accused had given lalkara and then fired, cannot be true. In this connection, it was further urged that it was uncommon that accused would have called out Lalkara before firing in order to disclose his identity. But in this connection, it may be pointed out that in Punjab as also in the adjoining district Ganganagar, it is common knowledge that the person attack their enimies after accosting them and, therefore, this lalkara also cannot be said to be unnatural or uncommon. 16. It was again urged by Mr. Mulla that the presence of the two eye-witnesses at the spot appears to be doubtful and in any case, the presence of Kishanlal is destroyed by the statement of Jilesingh, the Investigating Officer himself. It was pointed out that according to the prosecution evidence, these two "witnesses had reached the spot on hearing the call For the trucks at about 6.00 P.M. All other truck owners who had assembled there, had already left and there was no occasion for these two eye witnesses to have stayed at the truck union office after the call was over. The contention appears to be devoid of substance inasmuch as it is riot in dispute that Prithviraj and Kishanlal are the members of the Union and, therefore, at the time the call for the trucks was made, their going to the union cannot be said to be unnatural. The case of the two eye-witnesses is that they along with Narang wanted to purchase a truck in partnership and, therefore, they were sitting even after the other truck owners had left and Narang came and joined them in those talks. Since both these witnesses were the members of the truck union and their going to the union office when call was made was natural, it appears that they may have asked Narang to meet them there so that the talks regarding the purchase of the truck in partnership, could be carried out. It is common knowledge that when people go to their place of work, they may call their other friends or persons, with whom they transact business, at that place, so that the talks may conveniently be held there and, therefore, the presence of these two eye witnesses along with Narang at the spot at that time, cannot be said to unnatural. The police had immediately reached the spot after hearing the telephonic call and at that time, Prithvi Raj was there and his statement had been recorded by the S. H. O. Therefore, his presence further finds Corroboration from this fact and should not be doubted. So far as Kishanlal is concerned, it has, of course, been stated by Ji!e Singh that he saw Kishanlal only at 11.30 P.M. On that day When he recorded his statement, but this appears to be a little slip oh his part because, as observed by the learned trial court, the case diary shows that Kishahlal had gone to the hospital along with the dead body of Narang and, therefore, he may have not been available at the spot between the time the dead body was sent to the hospital and later the Statement of Kishahlal was recorded at 11.30 P.M. 17. It was also pointed out Mr. It was also pointed out Mr. Mulla that although Prithvi Raj had attested a number of memoes prepared at the spot, Kishanlal had not been made the attesting witness Of any of these documents, and that also goes to suggest that Kishanlal was not present at the time of this incident and had been later called there from the house at about 11.30 PM. But, this also does not appear to be correct, Inasmuch as, as already stated above, Kishanlal had gone to the hospital along with the dead-body and therefore may not have been available at the time of preparation of the memoes. In the second place Prithvi Rajs statement had already been recorded by Jile Singh at 8.30 PM on that very night and in that, the presence of Kishanlal had clearly been mentioned. Not only this, it Was not obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to have rnade kishanlal also an attesting witness; when Prithvi Raj and other motbirs were already there. As a corrollary to the Contention that Kishahlal was not present and has been made a false witness thereafter, it was contended by Mr. Mulla that the whole prosecution story must be thrown out because in that case, it will become doubtful and tainted investigation, as a false witness appears to have been introduced, but when Kishahlals presence is hot doubtful, this contention must naturally fail. 18. Learned counsel, then, urged that the copy of the first information report was not sent to the Magistrate immediately on that very night, but was sent to him on the next morning at about 9.00 AM, which goes to show that the F.I R. was not recorded at the time when it is alleged to have been recorded and it also appears to be a later fabricated document. In this connection, reference has been made to Ishwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. (1) and Balaka Singh V. State of Punjab (2). We have given out due consideration to this contention also, but in the circumstances of the case, do not find any force in it. The incident had taken place at about 6.40 PM. The telephonic message had reached the police at 6.50 PM. Then S.H.O. Jile Singh along with the police party reached the spot. Accused was still present menacingly and it took sometime to capture him. The incident had taken place at about 6.40 PM. The telephonic message had reached the police at 6.50 PM. Then S.H.O. Jile Singh along with the police party reached the spot. Accused was still present menacingly and it took sometime to capture him. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Prithvi Raj and sent it to the police station for the case being registered and he himself got busy with the other investigation of the case. The statement of Kishanlal, according to him. had been recorded at about 11.30 PM and, thus, it would go to show that the police had been busy almost upto the midnight. In these circumstances, if the copy of the F.I.R. had not been sent to the Magistrate at the dead of the night on that very day, but was sent to him early in the morning at about 9 00 AM it cannot be said that there was undue delay in sending the copy of the F.I.R. to the Magistrate. No adverse inference can, therefore, be drawn against the prosecution on this score. There are no circumstances other than the mere alleged delay, to drive us to the conclusion that the F.I.R. had not been recorded at the time when it was so alleged to have been recorded and, therefore, the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel are of no avail in the circumstances of the case. 19. The next contention of Mr. Mulla was that as a matter of fact, Ex. P/24, i.e. the report recorded in the Rojnamcha on the basis of the telephonic message should have been treated as an FIR and in that case the statement of Prithvi Raj recorded by Jile Singh later would be hit by sec. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the prosecution cannot take any advantage from that statement. Learned counsel places reliance upon Randhir Singh vs. State (3) in this respect. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned Public Prose-cutor that as a matter of fact, this telephonic message could not have been treated as an FIR nor it was actually treated as such and, therefore, the statement of Prithvi Raj vide Ex. P/25 could not be hit. In this connection, he relied on Babulal vs. State (4) We have bestowed our careful consideration to the controversy raised before us. P/25 could not be hit. In this connection, he relied on Babulal vs. State (4) We have bestowed our careful consideration to the controversy raised before us. We may state at the outset that it depends upon individual facts and circumstances of each case as to which information would constitute FIR in a given case. If any authority is required for this proposition, reference may be made to Tapendra Singh vs. State (5). 20. There is a divergence of opinion on the question whether a telephonic message can at all be treated as an FIR or not. The Court of Judicial Commissioner of Goa and Delhi Court have taken the view that a telephonic message in respect of commission of a cognizable offence, given orally on telephone to an officer-in-charge. of a police station and duly reduced into writing can be treated as an FIR Reference may be made in this connection, to Jagdish vs. Union Territory (6) and Randhir Singhs case (supra). As against this view Travancore Kochin, Saurashtra and Punjab High Courts have taken the view that a telephonic message may not he treated as an FIR. Reference may be made in this connection to C.V. Dewakulty vs. State (7), Nirmal Kumar vs. State (8) and Sarup Singh vs. State (9). 21. To us, it appears that whether a telephonic message can be treated as an F.I.R. or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this connection. If the telephonic message has been given to officer - in - charge of a police station, the person giving the message is an ascertained one or is capable of being ascertained, the information has been reduced into writing as required by sec. 154, Cr.P.C. and it is a faithful record of such information and the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and is not cryptic one or incomplete in essential details, it should constitute an F.I.R. An anonymous information, or information which is vague or cryptic and lacks in essential details or an information which has not been faithfully recorded, would not constitute an F.I.R. Sec. 154, Cr.P.C. requires that the oral information given to the officer-in-charge of a police station shall be reduced into writing and shall be read over to the first informant and shall be signed by him. Now, reducing into writing of the information is mandatory; it should be reduced into writing by the officer-in- charge of and police station or by any person under his direction. It should be a true a faithful record of the information given to the officer-in-charge by the informant. Whether it has been read over to him or not or whether it has been signed by him or not would be mere matters of form and not of substance. The ideas behind reading over the information reduced into writing and obtaining signatures of the first informant thereon are intended to ensure that what has been reduced into writing is a true and faithful version of the I information given to the officer-in-charge of the police station. Our veiw is supported in a good measure by the observation in the case of Jagdish (supra), in which it has been held that obtaining signatures of the first informant is a mere technicality of form and does not alter the basic charactor of the information. 22. Now, in this case. Jile Singh (P.W. 10) states that he had heard the telephonic message. Thereafter, he had gone to the other room where Rojna-mcha was kept and there he recorded the message on the basis of his memory, but does not state to have recorded it verbatim, This information was not even read over to Prakash Chandra after it had been so recorded and the recorded report in the Rojnamcha was not even got signed by Prakash Chandra in order to fasten the authorship and authenticity of the information to him Therefore, in the circumstances of this case, this report cannot be deemed to be an F.I.R. The later statement of Prithvi Raj, which was recorded by the S.H.O. on reaching the spot would, therefore, be deemed to be an F.I.R. in the terms of s. 154, Cr.P.C. It will also be worth-while to note that in Ex. P/24, it has also been mentioned that the report is vague and, therefore, the case was not being registered on the basis thereof. It is true that the name of the assailant, victim and the commission of a cognizable offence had been mentioned in this information on telephone, but even at that time, the incident was in progress and had not been over and thus the report was not complete. It is true that the name of the assailant, victim and the commission of a cognizable offence had been mentioned in this information on telephone, but even at that time, the incident was in progress and had not been over and thus the report was not complete. Therefore, the Investigating Officer may not have been satisfied on the basis of the report in order to proceed to record it as a First Information Report in the manner required by sec. 159. Cr,P.C. and it cannot be said that he was wholly unjustified in that respect. When Ex P/24 cannot be deemed to be an F.I.R. in these circumstances Ex P/25 would not be hit by sec 162, Cr.P.C. and can be relied upon as an F.I.R. 23. Regarding the veracity of the telephonic message, it was contended by Mr. Mulla that Kishanlal himself was a graduates, he could have, having witnessed the incident, reported the matter on phone and need not have asked Prakash Chandra to ring up to the police. According to us, it was not necessary for Kishanlal himself to ring up to the police merely because he was a graduate. The fact remains that Prakash Chandra was a Munshi of the office of the truck union and Kishanlal had reported the matter to him. Therefore, it was only natural that Prakash Chandra should have rang up the police. It was also contended that the names of these eye witnesses Prithviraj and Kishan lal had not been mentioned to the police on telephonic talk as they did not find place in Ex. P/24. In this respect there is a statement of Prakash Chandra and he says that he did inform the police about the presence of these eye-witneesses. However, in Ex. P/24, the names of the eye-witnesses did not find place, but it is stated by Jile Singh that he had recorded this information only on the basis of memory and not verbatim, as already stated above and, therefore, the omission of the names of the eye-witnesses in Ex. P/24 does not give rise to the inference that Prakash Chandra had not disclosed the names of these two persons on telephonic talk. P/24 does not give rise to the inference that Prakash Chandra had not disclosed the names of these two persons on telephonic talk. No question had been put to Jile Singh whether the names of these eye-witnesses had been disclosed to him on telephone and, therefore, the defence cannot take any advantage from the mere absence of the names of these eye-witnesses in Ex. P/24. 24. Mr. Mulla, still further, contended that according to the initial story, fire had been made by Tehalsingh while he was on his own roof, but later on, now the story is being changed so as to show that it was from the roof of Jarnel Singhs work-shop that the fire was made and this also goes to show that these eye-witnesses were not at all present or are false witnesses. To us, this contention also does not hold water, inasmuch as, so far as these eye-witnesses are concerned, they do not say even now that fire was made from the roof of Jarnelsinghs workshop. It was only in the site inspection note and the plan that Jarnelsinghs work - shop has been shown as the place from where fire was made. So far as this document is concerned, it cannot be taken as substantive evidence unless some witnesses state to it and as already above, none of the two witnesses state so. The inference must, therefore be that Jile Singh summised that it was from the Jarnelsinghs woik-shops roof that fire was made, on the basis of the facts that empties and cartridges were found on the roof on Jarnelsingh. Not only this, it appears that the two roofs are adjoin-ing to each other. The witnesses were in the compound which has a parapet wall about 6 ft high. There were trees also in between. Then, there was a road between the union office and the houses of Jarnel Singh and Tehalsingh. Therefore, from the place where the witnesses were, they could justifiably be con* fused whether it was the roof of Jarnelsingh or that of Tehalsingh. It is also clear that there is no partition wall in between the two roofs and one can easily come from one to the other and in these circumstances, it hardly matters whether it was the roof of Jarnelsingh or Tehalsingh from which fire was made. 25. It was also urged by Mr. It is also clear that there is no partition wall in between the two roofs and one can easily come from one to the other and in these circumstances, it hardly matters whether it was the roof of Jarnelsingh or Tehalsingh from which fire was made. 25. It was also urged by Mr. Mulla that if the fire was made from the roof of Tehalsingh, it could not have hit Narang at the place where he was sitting because there was tree in between and in order to show that the fire could, thus, hit, the branches of the tree had been cut at the time of the investigation, We are not impressed by this contention also There is no direct proof about the cutting of the brauches in order to show that the fire could have been made from the roof of Tehalsingh. On the other hand, on a careful perusal of the photographs on the basis of which this contention was raised by the learned counsel, it clearly appers that even at the time of the incident, the branches were as they were at the time of the site inspection, even on the next day when some of the photographs were taken. Having regard to all these circumstances, we are satisfied that the evidence of the two eye-witnesses Prithvi Raj and Kishanlal is believable and it establishes that it was Tehalsingh who had caused the gun-shot on the person of deceased Narang. 26. The evidence of these eye-witnesses is further supported by the corroborative evidence regarding the recovery of the gun, empties and the metallic object and the report of the ballistic expert, which shows that the rifle recovered from Tehalsingh was serviceable and had been fired sometime before it was recei-ved in the laboratory i.e. 1.8.85. It also establishes that the three cartridge cases marked C/l to C/3 recovered from Jarnel Singhs roof had been fired from the said rifle, which has been marked as W/l and that the piece of lead marked B/1 could be part of 315 bore cartridge and could have been fired from rifle W/l. The presence of these cartridge cases at spot and the piece of lead (metallic object), goes to show that what the eye-witnesses have stated is a fact. Learned counsel, however, challenged the evidence of the recovery of the rifle as also empties and the metallic object on the ground that Kulwant Singh (PW 4) only has been produced as a motbir in whose presence these recoveries were made and this Kulwant Singh cannot be said to be an independent person or a respectable resident of the locality inasmuch as i\ appears that his house was 1 or l-1/4 kms away from the place of the incident and his shop was also about 1/2 Km. away and he appears to be a close relation of deceased Narang On a careful perusal of the statement of Kulwant Singh, we are of the opinion that he cannot be discarded on the grounds pointed out by Mr. Mulla. The place of incident is the office of the truck owners union, which is situated near the main market. It is stated by the eye-witnesses as well as Jile Singh that after the incident, a large number of persons had arrived there from the market. Kulwant Singh was one of them. His shop is only about 1/2 km away from the spot and, therefore, his reaching the spot along with other persons on hearing of this incident cannot be deemed to be unnatural. It has not been shown in any way that he was not a respectable person and the fact that a motbir should be a respectable resident of the locality does not necessarily mean that he must be a resident of a very limited locality, A person residing about 1/2 km. away from the place like the office of the truck owners union, cannot be said to be a person, who does not fall within the term, resident of the locality where it is not in dispute that the market in which Kulwant Singhs shop is situated is nearby. So far as his being close relation of deceased Narang is concerned, it does appear that there is some relationship between them, but it cannot be said to be a close relationship. Kulwant Singh states that he knew deceased Narang, but he did not have any relationship with him. The deceased was of Narang sub-caste of Arora Sikh, whereas he is of Makar sub-caste of that caste. He, further states that he used to call the deceased as Mama, but he was his Mama only in a remote relationship. Kulwant Singh states that he knew deceased Narang, but he did not have any relationship with him. The deceased was of Narang sub-caste of Arora Sikh, whereas he is of Makar sub-caste of that caste. He, further states that he used to call the deceased as Mama, but he was his Mama only in a remote relationship. There is no evidence to rebut this statement of Kulwant Singh. It has not been in any way-shown that the relationship, between them was very close. It is not unusual that even in distant relations people call each other Mama-Bhanja and Uncle-nephew Such distant relation, therefore, cannot be unduly interested in the deceased so as go to the extent of falsely implicating the accused with whom the witness has no animosity or any other reason for falsely implicating him. 27. It was then pointed out that there is vital discrepancy in the state-meat of Kulwant Singh and Jiley Singh (Investigating Officer) as to the place from winch gun was recovered. Jiley Singh says that the gun was recovered from the person of Tehalsingh as he was holding the same when he was captured, where as Kulwant Singh says that the gun was produced by Tehalsingh from his house before the police. We do not find any contradiction between the two statements in asmuch as even according to Jiley Singh, the accused was on the roof of house when the house was surrounded and later he was made to come down and then, he was captured and he was holding the gun at that time. That means whan Tehal singh came out of the house, he brought the gun with him and when Kulwant Singh. say that the accused himself produced the gun before the police form his house, it cannot be said to be in contradict with the statement of Jiler Singh, rather it supports the story put-forward by Jile Singh; the difference may only be on account of expression of the fact by the two different persons. 28. It was also urged that admittedly many other persons had already collected at the spot by that time, but the Investigating Officer chose to take Kulwant Singh only as a Motbir of the various memos, prepared at that time including the recovery of gun, cartridges empties etc, that goes to show that the invest gation was a partisan one. 28. It was also urged that admittedly many other persons had already collected at the spot by that time, but the Investigating Officer chose to take Kulwant Singh only as a Motbir of the various memos, prepared at that time including the recovery of gun, cartridges empties etc, that goes to show that the invest gation was a partisan one. This contention also cannot be accepted because it appears that apart from Kulwant Singh one Gurdayal Singh was also taken as a Motbir to these recoveries as would be apparant from the memos Exs. P/8, P/9, P/10 and P/ll; of course, only Kulwant Singh has been produced as a witness in the court. However, it is not necessary that all the witnesses to the memos have to be examined in the court, if the prosecution story is unfolded by one or more of them. Here, when Kulwantsingh has been examined and he proved these memos, it was not at all necessary for the prosecution to examine any other attesting witness of these memos and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for the non-examination of the Gurdayal Singh. 29. An argument was also raised by Mr. Mulla that the report of the ballistic expert should not have been relied upon inasmuch as the recovered gun, empties and cartridges etc. had been sent to the ballistic expert after undue delay of almost a month. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon Santa Singh Vs. State of Punjab (10). We have given our careful consideration to this aspect of the matter. In the circumstances of the case, we are not satisfied that the delay of about a month in sending the recovered gun, empties etc. must be deemed fatal to the prosecution case. In Santa Singhs case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel the medical evidence was contrary to the eye witnesses and, therefore, the eye witnesses were not relied upon and with it the delay in sending the recovered articles to the ballistic expert was also taken as one of the grounds to hold that the investigation was not fair. In Santa Singhs case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel the medical evidence was contrary to the eye witnesses and, therefore, the eye witnesses were not relied upon and with it the delay in sending the recovered articles to the ballistic expert was also taken as one of the grounds to hold that the investigation was not fair. It was also one of the suggestion of the defence that the empty cartridge sent to the ballistic expert was not the one recovered from the scent of occurrence, but one fired at the police station, from out of those recovered from the appellants residence and in these circumstances, this ground also weighed with the court. But, in the present case, as already stated above, the direct testimony is reliable and is not in conflict with the medical evidence also In these circumstances, the mere fact that the recovered gun, cartridges and empties etc. were sent after some delay to the ballistic expert cannot weigh so heavily as to discard the whole prosecution story. 30. We must, of course hasten to add that all care should always be taken to send the recovered articles for the expert opinion as early as possible without any avoidable delay. Thus, this evidence of the recovery of gun, cartridges and empties also lends considerable support to the evidence of the eye-witnesses. 31. The accused also had motive to fire at the group of three, namely, deceased Narang, Prithviraj and Kishanlal, although he had no specific graudge to fire particularly at Narang. As already stated in the beginning of the judgment, admittedly there was ill-will between Prithviraj and Kishanlal on the one hand and the accused Tehalsingh on the other, on account of the affairs of the union. According to the prosecution, the accused had been removed from the post of President (Pradhan) of the union, through according to the accused, he himself had resigned and the cause of that resignation was annoyance on account of the effort on the part of Prithvi Raj and Kishanlal to get their trucks employed out of turn, which was resisted by Tehal Singh. Thus the fact remains that Tehal Singh had to quit the office of the Pradhan of the union either by removal or by resignation on account of ill will between the parties and when he found Prithviraj and Kishan Lal deliberating with Narang on that day in the compound of the Union, he took an opportunity to teach them a lesson and therefore, he fired at them; may be, he may have aimed at Prithviraj and Kishanlal, but, unfortunately it hit Narang. All the same the act of firing, in these circumstances, would clearly bring the case of the accused under sec. 302, I.P.C. and it is not in depute before us that Narang had died on account of the gun shot injuries received by him in this incident. Thus, the charge under sec. 302, I.P.C. has clearly been brought home to the accused and his conviction for that charge appears to be fully justified. 32. Learned counsel did not specifically challenge the conviction of the appellant under sec. 27 of the Arms Act. When offence under sec. 302, I.P.C. is established against the accused and it is proved that he had used the firearm in this manner, the conviction under sec. 27 of the Arms Act, was quite justified. 33. The sentences awarded to the appellant on the aforesaid two counts also appear to be appropriate and do not call for any interference. 34. The result, therefore, is that this appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed.