Judgment VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by Hanuman is directed against the judgment dated 12-11-82 of learned Addi. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh exercising jurisdiction in the Court of Sessions, Ganganagar whereby the appellant has been convicted of offences under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Under the first count, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. Under the second count he has been sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The judgment has further directed confiscation of rifle along with a cartridge and licence thereof recovered at the instance of the appellant. ( 2 ) THE gist of the prosecution story is that on 19-4-82, P. W. 1 Mani Ram r/o Jakhadawali had gone to Suratgarh to attend hearing of a criminal case pertaining to murder of one Indian son of Magha Rani, a co-accused and father of the appellant. In this case besides Mani Ram, there were 12 other accused persons. Deceased Phoosa Ram uncle of Mani Ram was also one of them. He had also gone to attend the hearing of the said case in the court of Munsif and Adi. Magistrate Suratgarh along with P. W. 2 Devi Lal his nephew. The prosecution story is that the hearing of the case was over by 11 a. m. and thereafter P. W. 1 Mani Ram P. W. 2 Devi Lal and deceased Phoosa Ram went to the place of one Dr. Agarwal to obtain certain medicine. They received medicine from the place of Dr. Agarwal and started for the house of Birbal Ram, also known as Pradhan. The other coaccused of Mani Ram in that case had sometime earlier gone to the house of the said Pradhan by a jeep but these three persons, namely, Mani Ram, Devi Lal and deceased Phoosa Ram logged behind because they had to go to the place of Dr. Agarwal. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case further is that at about 11. 30 a. m. , Mani Ram, Phoosa Ram deceased and Devi Lal reached the square known as Dr. Goyals Square. Agarwal. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case further is that at about 11. 30 a. m. , Mani Ram, Phoosa Ram deceased and Devi Lal reached the square known as Dr. Goyals Square. Mani Ram and Devi Lal were going bit ahead while Phoosa Ram was following them at a distance of about ten steps. All of a sudden Magha Ram and Devi Lal heard a lalkara Dekhta kya hay Dusman ja rahe hai Maar Goli. On this lalkara; both of them, namely, Mani Ram and Devi Lal turned back and saw that accused persons Magha Ram, Birbal, Hazari along with present appellant Hanuman were standing at the back of the deceased Phoosa Ram. As soon as Magha Ram and Devi Lal turned back, accused Magha Ram, Birbal and Hazari exhorted Hanuman to fire at Phoosa Ram. On this appellant Hanuman, who was already armed with a gun, placed the barrel of the gun at the back of Phoosa Ram and fired a shot with the result that Phoosa Ram fell down and dead at the spot. The appellant and his co-accused Magha Ram, Birbal and Hazari ran away. Mani Ram and Devi Lal chased them for some distance however, they could not catch hold of the appellant and his companions and therefore came back to the spot where Phoosa Ram was lying dead. The incident was also witnessed by one Ram Chandra r/o 34 MOD. Devi Lal stayed with the dead body of Phoosa Ram while Mani Ram went to Police Station, Suratgarh, which is situated at a distance of about 1 km. from the spot. Mani Ram lodged an oral report the same day at 11. 55 a. m. with P. W. 4 Bhajan Singh, Station House Officer. Bhajan Singh himself scribed this report Ex. P. 1. He read over the same to Mani Ram and obtained signatures of Mani Ram thereon. Upon this report, he registered a case under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of Indian Arms Act. He, thereafter, immediately proceeded to the scene of occurrence. Mani Ram also followed him. Bhajan Singh saw the dead body of Phoosa Ram lying in the market place of Suratgarh Town some distance away from the Square known as Dr. Goyals Square. He prepared a site plan Ex. P. 2 with regard to such inspection. At the time of inspection,. He, thereafter, immediately proceeded to the scene of occurrence. Mani Ram also followed him. Bhajan Singh saw the dead body of Phoosa Ram lying in the market place of Suratgarh Town some distance away from the Square known as Dr. Goyals Square. He prepared a site plan Ex. P. 2 with regard to such inspection. At the time of inspection,. Bhajan Singh found an empty brass cartridge at a distance of about 80 from the place where Phoosa Rams dead body was lying. He recovered and sealed the same vide memo Ex. P. 5. Bhajan singh examined the dead body and found that at the site where the bullet had hit the body of the deceased the wearing apparel of the deceased were burning. Bhajan Singh extinguished this lire and prepared memo Ex. P. 3 as also Panchayatnama Ex. P. 4. From near the scene of occurrence, some blood stained soil was recovered by Bhajan Singh vide Ex. P. 6. Control soil was also duly recovered and sealed vide Ex. P. 7. The deceased at the time of his death was apparently carrying a 12 bore gun and a bag of cartridges, which were recovered by Bhajan Singh vide Ex. P. 8. Four teeth belonging to the deceased were also lying at this scene of occurrence near the mouth of the dead body. Bhajan Singh duly recovered and sealed them vide Ex. P. 9. ( 4 ) THE post-mortem examination of the dead body of Phoosa Ram was carried out by Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma (P. W. 3) the same day at Suratgarh Hospital where the dead body had been Sent Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma found that Rigor mortis was present and the pupils of the eyes of the deceased were dilated and fixed He found one wound of entry on the left side of the back just below inferior angle of scapula. This was a lacerated wound measuring 1. 5cm. x 1. 5cm communicating with three wounds of exit described below: Exit Wounds: 1. Lacerated wound of 5 cm. x 2 cm. oval in shape averted bruised margins on left side of chest 5 cm. above left nipple. 2. Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. oval in shape averted bruised margines four cm. above left nipple. 3. Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. irregular margines just below left nipple. Lacerated wound of 5 cm. x 2 cm. oval in shape averted bruised margins on left side of chest 5 cm. above left nipple. 2. Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. oval in shape averted bruised margines four cm. above left nipple. 3. Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. irregular margines just below left nipple. On examining the body, the doctor found blackening and tatooing all around the wound and further found slight black discolouration of skin on upper half of the back due to burning of wearing apparel. He found that this wound was directed forward and obliquely upward in the thoracic cavity with aforesaid wounds of exit. He found that most of posterior part of shirt and baniyan of the deceased had been burnt while anteriorly there were two holes in the shirt and baniyan corresponding with exit wounds No. 2 and 3. He further found that three upper incisors and one lower central incisor were absent from the sockets. Clotted blood was present in the sockets. In the opinion of Dr. Sharma the cause of death was fire arm injury leading to rupture of heart. ( 5 ) AFTER the post-mortem examination Shri Bhajan Singh recovered the wearing apparel of the deceased and duly sealed them vide Ex. P. 10. He arrested appellant Hanuman on 30-4-1982 vide Ex. P. 15. On 1-5-1982, appellant Hanuman volunteered an information about a rifle to Bhajan Singh which was recorded by him in Ex. P. 16. In pursuance of the information a rifle was recovered from the possession of appellant Hanuman on 2-5-1982 and was duly sealed vide Ex. P. 11. Bhajan Singh also recovered four live cartridge and an licence in respect thereof vide Ex. P. 11. co-accused Hazari was arrested on 30-4-1982 vide Ex. P. 17 and in pursuance of the information volunteered by him (Ex. P. 18) a rifle was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P. 19. ( 6 ) ON the basis of aforesaid investigation appellant Hanuman along with co-accused Hazari, Birbal and Magha Ram were challened before Munsif and Judi. Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh, who in his turn committed all the four accused persons to stand trial for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code to the learned Trial Judge. P. 19. ( 6 ) ON the basis of aforesaid investigation appellant Hanuman along with co-accused Hazari, Birbal and Magha Ram were challened before Munsif and Judi. Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh, who in his turn committed all the four accused persons to stand trial for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code to the learned Trial Judge. ( 7 ) LEARNED Trial Judge framed charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27, Arms Act against the present appellant Hanuman. He framed alternative charges under Sections 302/109 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against rest of the accused persons. An the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed Trial. ( 8 ) AT the trial the prosecution examined P. W. 1 Mani Ram, P. W. 2 Devi Lal, P. W. 3 Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma and P. W. 4 Bhajan Singh. In their statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, all the accused persons denied the prosecution story and stated that they had been falsely implicated because of enmity. They examined D. W. 1 Uda Ram and D. W. 2 Moola in defence. ( 9 ) AFTER due consideration of, the evidence learned trial Judge was of the view that charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Indian Arms Act had been brought home beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant. He found that charges against Magha Ram, Birbal and Hazari had not been established beyond shadow of doubt. He accordingly, acquitted Magha Ram, Birbal and Hazari and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. ( 10 ) AGGRIEVED appellant Hanuman has filed this appeal. In the present appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant has seriously criticised the judgment of the learned Trial Court and has contended that the prosecution has failed miserably to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. He has criticised the prosecution evidence on a number of counts. As against this learned Counsel for the complainant as also the learned P. P. have supported the judgment and finding of the learned Trial Court. ( 11 ) WE have carefully considered the rival contentions and have perused the record of the learned court below with due care and caution. We have already reproduced the gist of the testimony of alleged eye witnesses. ( 11 ) WE have carefully considered the rival contentions and have perused the record of the learned court below with due care and caution. We have already reproduced the gist of the testimony of alleged eye witnesses. Ram and Devi Lal while setting out the prosecution story and need not repeat the same. Both of them have unanimously supported the prosecution version delineated above. ( 12 ) THE first contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the incident was witnessed by one Ram Chandra also. According to the prosecution itself, Ram Chandra was the only independent eye-witness of the incident. Ram Chandra has not been examined and no explanation has been given for his non-production. Hence, the only inference is that had he been produced he would not have supported the prosecution story. As against this, learned P. P. submits that there is a history of criminal litigation between the deceased on one hand and the appellant and his father on the other hand. P. W. 1 Mani Rams father was murdered as back as 5-2-75. Idan brother of present appellant Hanuman was one of the accused persons figuring in that case. Later on, this Idan was murdered and deceased Phoosa Ram as also P. W. 1 Mani Ram and P. W. 2 Devi Lal were facing Criminal Proceedings for murder of Idan. Due to this bitter relationship, between the two groups Ramchandra would not come forward to appear as a witness and risk his own life. Hence if in these circumstances Ram Chandra was not examined by the prosecution no blame should lay upon it. ( 13 ) WE have carefully considered this contention. This is true that Ram Chandra allegedly was the only independent eye-witness of this occurrence. This is also true that he was not examined in support of the prosecution story. This is also true that no explanation has been given for his non- examination. Under normal circumstances an adverse inference would be drawn that had Ram Chandra been examined, he would not have supported the prosecution story. But we cannot lose sight of the fact that this murder was borne out on long standing enmity between two factions In such circumstances Ram Chandra might have been reluctant to come forward as a witness. Under normal circumstances an adverse inference would be drawn that had Ram Chandra been examined, he would not have supported the prosecution story. But we cannot lose sight of the fact that this murder was borne out on long standing enmity between two factions In such circumstances Ram Chandra might have been reluctant to come forward as a witness. In our opinion, non-examination of Ram Chandra in this case should not be a ground for rejection of the evidence of Mani Ram and Devi Lal, if it is otherwise cogent trust worthy and reliable of course, if we arrive at the conclusion that evidence of Mani Ram and Devi Lal is not trust worthy, then we would be perfectly justified in drawing such an inference. We are supported in our opinion by the observations of the aiex Court in State of UP. v. Anil Sincih1 wherein it was observed as follows: Of late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases the prosecution version is rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In some cases the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is therefore not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is other wise true and acceptable. Hence, non-examination of Ram Chandra by itself should not be fatal to the prosecution story in any way if we find that the testimony of Mani Ram and Devi Lal is otherwise reliable. ( 14 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in this case an empty cartridge was recovered near the scene of occurrence. A gun was also seized at the instance of the appellant. ( 14 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in this case an empty cartridge was recovered near the scene of occurrence. A gun was also seized at the instance of the appellant. However the empty and the gun have not been lined and, therefore it should be held that the appellant did not use the gun in question in committing this crime rather it should be held that the appellant did not at all commit this crime. It is true that in this case the gun and the empty have not been linked by expert evidence. This is why the Trial Court did not utilise the recovery of the gun as a circumstance against the appellant. We also do not propose to use the circumstance of recovery of the gun as a piece of incriminating evidence against the appellant. However this infirmity in the prosecution case is neither here nor there. Non-linkage of the empty with the gun recovered from the appellant cannot be a good ground for rejecting the testimony of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 if the same is otherwise found to be trustworthy. But, we can not help observing that prosecution has failed in its duty in not producing the evidence pertaining to linkage of the empty with the gun recovered from the appellant, particularly when it was alleged that the empty had been left at the spot by the appellant (please see Ex. P. 5 in this regard ). There is no explanation for withholding this material evidence and we deprecate this conduct of the prosecution. ( 15 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that both Mani Ram and Devi Lal had improved upon their previous versions given before the police and had tried to show that two lalkaras had been given before the deceased was shot dead. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court had disbelieved the story of these lalkaras and on this ground it should be held that Mani Ram and Devi Lal are not very truthful witnesses. ( 16 ) WE do find that Mani Ram and Devi Lal have improved upon their previous versions given to the police by introducing the story of a second lalkara. Presumably this was done with a view to rope in Magha Ram, Birbal Ram and Hazari. This does introduce an infirmity in the evidence of these witnesses. ( 16 ) WE do find that Mani Ram and Devi Lal have improved upon their previous versions given to the police by introducing the story of a second lalkara. Presumably this was done with a view to rope in Magha Ram, Birbal Ram and Hazari. This does introduce an infirmity in the evidence of these witnesses. But, it may be remembered that the doctrine falsus in gno falsus in omnibust does not apply to India. Such embellishments are not uncommon in this country and should not go to destroy the basic fabric of the prosecution case if otherwise the evidence of the eye-witnesses is reliable with regard to the basic substratum of the prosecution case. ( 17 ) WE are alive to the situation that Mani Ram and Devi Lal both are inimical witnesses and their evidence has to be read with good deal of care and caution. Their statements have to be taken and accepted only if independent corroboration is available. So far as the main prosecution story is concerned the statements of Mani Ram and Devi Lal are quite consistent. There is nothing unnatural in their testimony when they depose that they along with deceased Phoosa Ram went to the place of Dr. Agarwal as Phoosa Ram had to obtain some medicine. All the three of them went to the place of Dr. Agarwal and after procuring medicine, proceeded towards the house of Birbal on foot. This is in the prosecution evidence that these witnesses were going a bit ahead while deceased was following them by 10-15 steps. When they reached near the shop of Dr. Goyal, they heard one lalkara Dekhta kya hay Maar Golit On this lalkara both of them turned back and saw that the appellant had placed the barrel of the gun on the back of Phoosa Ram and fired the same with the result that Phoosa Ram fell down face wards. So far as the story of first lalkara is concerned, it finds mention in the F. I. R. and the testimony of Mani Ram and Devi Lal receives support from the F. I. R. , which had been promptly lodged after the occurrence. Of course, the story of second lalkara or exhortation is an improvement and after thought and the same deserves to be rejected to this extent. Of course, the story of second lalkara or exhortation is an improvement and after thought and the same deserves to be rejected to this extent. This is true that in this case the other co-accused persons were acquitted by the learned Trial Court and none of them was held guilty for exhorting the appellant. In our opinion, even though the story of first exhortation is reliable and believable yet conviction of die co-accused persons of the appellant could not have been recorded on the basis of such exhortation because it is not clear as to which of the three other co-accused persons had given the first exhortation, which has been referred to in the F. I. R. It may be stated that the State has not come in appeal against the acquittal of the other co-accused persons of the appellant and hence we have not deemed it proper to enter into a more detailed discussion on this aspect of the matter. Suffice it to say that we accept the statements of the two eye witnesses when the depose that when they reached near the shop of Dr. Goyal, they heard one lalkara Dekhta Kya Hay Maar Golit and on this lalkara both of them turned back and saw that the appellant had placed the barrel of the gun at the back of Phoosa Ram and had fired the same with the result that Phoosa Ram fell down dead at the spot. ( 18 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that it was a broad day light murder. The market place where this murder took place is a busy locality of Suratgarh and there must have been a lot of people in between the deceased and the alleged eye witnesses Mani Ram and Devi Lal. This thick throng of people must have obstructed the vision of Mani Ram and Devi Lal and they must not have been the appellants actually firing the shot. Hence, their testimony deserves to be discarded when they say that they saw the appellant firing the deadly shot. We are afraid this argument is not very convincing. This thick throng of people must have obstructed the vision of Mani Ram and Devi Lal and they must not have been the appellants actually firing the shot. Hence, their testimony deserves to be discarded when they say that they saw the appellant firing the deadly shot. We are afraid this argument is not very convincing. True that the murder took place in broad day light and there might have been some people on the road when the incident took place but it is not possible to assume that Mani Ram and Devi Lal could not have seen the occurrence at all because of a thick throng of people between the deceased and these witnesses. No proper material has been brought forth in cross-examination of Mani Ram and Devi Lal in support of this contention. The contention is based on surmise and conjecture and hence deserves to be repelled. ( 19 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has contended that even the Trial Court had its reservations regarding the claim of Mani Ram and Devi Lal that they had readily seen the appellant firing the fatal shot. He has invited our attention to the observations made by the learned Trial Court: Yadi thodi der ke liye yah man ha jaye ki unhone goli chalane ki bad peeche dekha to bhe wey abhiyukta Hanuman ko Foosa Ram ke peeche bandook liea huea khade dekhte athava uske bhagne ki tayyari mai hone ko dekhene ki isthiti mey the. Goli chalane ki awaj per yadi en gavah ne ak dhum peche mud kar dekha tho nishchit roop sey wey abhiyukt Hanuman co kathle karte dhekh sakate tha isliye yeah manna uchith nahi sanuljhata ki en ghavahan nekoyee bakya na dheka ho. To our mind, the aforesaid observations Cannot be Construed to mean that the learned Trial Court entertained any doubt about participation of the appellant in the crime or witnessing thereof by Mani Ram and Devi Lal. By making the above observations learned Trial Court was only considering an alternative submission of the learned Counsel for the accused persons that the two witnesses might not have seen the appellant firing the shot We have carefully gone through the statements of Mani Ram and Devi Lal and to our mind, there is no reason to doubt their statements when they say that they had seen the appellant firing the shot at the deceased. ( 20 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant laid much stress on the circumstance that when Shri Bhajan Singh reached the spot be found the wearing apparel of deceased Phoosa Ram burning at the site where the charge of the gun had pierced the clothes and had entered the body. It is submitted that had Devi Lal remained at the spot after the murder, he would have definitely not allowed this fire to burn the clothes of the deceased, who was his very near relation. He submits that this circumstance goes to show that Devi Lal must not have been present when this incident took place. Learned P. P. contends that reaction of an individual to a particular situation depends upon his mental frame work. Devi Lal was not asked to explain this circumstances and hence, his testimony cannot be thrown over board on the ground that he kept on watching the wearing apparel of his uncle burning after he had been shot dead May be he was scared or he did not think it proper to interfere with the corpus delicti, which was an important piece of evidence in the case. In our opinion, the criticism cannot legitimately be advanced against the witness when he was not subjected to any cross-examination on this aspect of the case. Had he been cross-examined on this aspect, he could have offered some explanation good bad or indifferent and then this could have examined the explanation on merit. But since, this has not been done the criticism is of no avail. ( 21 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has contended that according to Devi Lal he had gone on foot to the police station while according to Bhajan Singh, Devi Lal had gone to the police station on a jeep. It is submitted that Devi Lals statement is contradicted by the positive evidence of Bhajan Singh It is submitted that if Devi Lal really went to police station on a jeep and not on foot as claimed by him, then he must have procured the jeep from somewhere. If he got opportunity of procuring a jeep he must have got ample opportunity to consult others to concoct a false case. If he got opportunity of procuring a jeep he must have got ample opportunity to consult others to concoct a false case. The possibility that Devi Lal went to Birbal Rams place to obtain a jeep and consulted his companions, who had already gone to Birbal Rams place in concocting this story cannot be ruled out. We find that Mani Ram was not at all subjected to cross-examination when he stated that he had gone to the police station on foot. This is true that Bhajan Singh has stated that Mani Ram had come to the police station on a jeep. Mani Ram has of course admitted in his cross-examination that from the police station he had gone to the scene of occurrence in a jeep which belonged to the Subinspector. Bhajan Singh has contradicted this statement. This does suggest that Mani Ram may have gone to Birbal Rams place to obtain the jeep and may have gone to police station on the jeep. But this circumstance does not show that he got sufficient opportunity of consulting his people at the place of Birbal Ram. No proper foundation has been laid for such criticism by making adequate cross-examination and therefore, we are unable to persuade ourselves that Mani Ram had time to concoct a false story. ( 22 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that in all probability Phoosa Ram might have been all alone at the time of the incident and Mani Ram and Devi Lal might have learnt of his murder at the place of Birbal Ram and then might have gone to the scene of occurrence and thereafter Mani Ram might have gone to the police station to lodge the report in a jeep. Suffice to say that no foundation has been laid by cross examining Devi Lal and Mani Ram on this aspect of the matter and as such, the contention is only conjectural. ( 23 ) IT may be re-called that the incident took place at 11. 30 a. m. The First Information Report was lodged at 11. 55 a. m. The police station was at a distance of 1 km. from the scene of occurrence. The First Information Report reached the Magistrate the same day at 1. ( 23 ) IT may be re-called that the incident took place at 11. 30 a. m. The First Information Report was lodged at 11. 55 a. m. The police station was at a distance of 1 km. from the scene of occurrence. The First Information Report reached the Magistrate the same day at 1. p. m. The promptitude with which the First Information Report was lodged goes to show that there was no opportunity for Mani Ram or Devi Lal to concoct a false story against the appellant. ( 24 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that according to Mani Ram and Devi Lal the appellant was seen running away along with Hazari, Magha Ram and Birbal from the scene of occurrence. It is submitted that Hazari is said to have been armed with a gun at that time. Bhajan Singh recovered a gun at the instance of Hazari also. The possibility that Hazari might have shot at the deceased cannot be ruled out in the circumstances of the case. It is possible that the attention of Mani Ram and Devi Lal might have been attracted by the gun shot and they might not have actually seen the appellant shooting at Phoosa Ram but might have seen the appellant Hazari and their other companions running away and on this basis appellant may have been named as the principal culprit. We have already pointed out that the story of first exhortation or lalkara has been consistently deposed to by Mani Ram and Devi Lal both. The same finds ample corroboration by the F. I. R. also wherein the story of this first lalkara has been recited. When it is so there is no difficulty in accepting the evidence of Mani Ram and Devi Lal that they on hearing this first Lalkara must have turned back and must have seen the appellant shooting at the deceased. This part of the testimony of these witnesses is natural and trustworthy. This is true that the story of second lalkara or exhortation was falsely introduced by Mani Ram and Devi Lal. But because of this, we are not persuaded to held that the story of first lakara was also false. This part of the testimony of these witnesses is natural and trustworthy. This is true that the story of second lalkara or exhortation was falsely introduced by Mani Ram and Devi Lal. But because of this, we are not persuaded to held that the story of first lakara was also false. ( 25 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that if the appellant was holding his gun touching the back of the deceased, there was no occasion for this companions to give any lalkara at all and on this ground also the story of first lalkara is doubtful. To our mind this contention is not very sound. Sometimes a lalkara is given so as to encourage a faltering companion. Even after the appellant had placed the barrel of his gun at the back of the deceased he could have wavered at the last moment and if his companions or anyone of them gave such a lalkara, it could not be said to be unnatural in the circumstances of the case. ( 26 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in this case the appellant is said to have fired a single shot at the deceased by a rifle. However the doctor found three pellets causing three exit wounds into the body. He submits that non-linkage of the empty found at the spot with the gun recovered from the appellant gains considerable significance in this back ground and may be that the two witnesses might not have seen the occurrence at all and some unknown person might have committed this murder. The argument appears to be that actually a rifle might not have been used at all and a 12 bore gun might have been used. Learned Trial Court has met this argument in two ways. It has pointed out the possibility of the bullet spilitting up after it caused a fracture of the rib. This view accords with the medical evidence and appears to be a proper one and we accept the same. The second argument was that the appellant may have got recovered a gun, which was not used by him at all. To us this view does not appeal at all. This view accords with the medical evidence and appears to be a proper one and we accept the same. The second argument was that the appellant may have got recovered a gun, which was not used by him at all. To us this view does not appeal at all. ( 27 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant laid considerable stress on the fact that the doctor used the expression pellet pieces and not pieces of bullet while referring to the mettalic pieces recovered from the body of the deceased. He submits that the doctor must have known the difference between the pieces of a bullet and pellets. Hence it must be held that a rifle was not used in this case, as claimed by Mani Ram and Devi Lal. To our mind this contention has no force. The doctor is not a ballistic expert so as to know the difference between pieces of a bullet of a rifle and pellets fired from a 12 bore gun. The doctor has candidly accepted this fact in cross-examination. Hence we do not find any merit in this contention. ( 28 ) TO sum up, we find that the appellant has been convicted on a proper appreciation of evidence and we do not find any good reasons to interfere with the same. It is not every doubt in the mind of a Judge which entitles an accused to an acquittal. The doubt must be a reasonable one entertained by a man of common prudence. We are not persuaded to accept that there is any reasonable doubt about the guilt of the appellant in the present case. We are of the view that in this case, the testimony of Mani Ram and Devi Lal is cogent and trustworthy when they say that they saw the appellant firing the fatal shot at the deceased Phoosa Ram and also saw him fleeing away with his companions with a gun in hand. ( 29 ) NO other point is urged before us. ( 30 ) IN view of the above discussion this appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.