JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - This is an appeal by a convict from jail having been convicted u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Appellant had also been prosecuted u/s 27 of the Arms Act, but has been acquitted of the charge. It is the case of the prosecution that the Appellant and deceased Raghunath Mohapatra were neighbors, and that their Baris were adjoining each other. There were previous litigations between the parties for which they were in inimical terms. On the date of the occurrence, i.e. 14-2-1982 at 2.00 p.m. the deceased along with his wife P.W. 7 and daughter P.W. 1 was sitting in his Bari cleaning arum. The back of the deceased was to the South in which direction the house of the Appellant is situated. To the immediate north of the house of the deceased is the house of P.W. 2, his brother. In between the houses of the deceased and the Appellant there was an incomplete wall of about four feet high. P.Ws. 1 and 7 were sitting with the deceased cleaning the arum facing each other. While they were at the work, P.Ws. 1 and 7 heard a gun shot sound. They immediately looked up at the direction of the sound and found' the muzzle of a gun resting on the wan with the Appellant behind it and the muzzle emitting smoke. It is the P.W. 7's version that the Appellant immediately sank down noticing P.W. 7 looking at him. Both P.Ws. 1 and 7 then heard the groan of the deceased telling that he was dying and he died instantly because of the gun shot wound. Alarm was raised which brought several people to the spot. The villagers surrounded the house of the Appellant but the Appellant threatened them stating that he had shot the deceased and would shoot others also. Later on the, Officer-in charge of Banpur P.S. arrived by evening and arrested the Appellant. He also seized the gun from the house of the Appellant. F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 5, the son of the deceased, who is not an eye-witness. After investigation was completed the charge sheet was submitted. In the post-mortem examination of the deceased two pellets were recovered from his lungs. The pellets as also the gun were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory at Rasulgarh for examination and in its report Ext. After investigation was completed the charge sheet was submitted. In the post-mortem examination of the deceased two pellets were recovered from his lungs. The pellets as also the gun were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory at Rasulgarh for examination and in its report Ext. 13 it was stated that the pellets were possible to have been fired from the gun M.O. II. In the autopsy conducted by P.W. 12 it was found that the deceased had suffered a lacerated injury at the posterior aspect of his neck one c.m. below the mastoid region on the left side 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. x tissue deep, another lacerated injury on the upper 1/3rd of the left side of the back chest and scattered injury marks numbering about 14 to 15 on the left side of the back. On opening the chest it was found that the muscles had been lacerated and there was fracture of the fourth rib, laceration of the left lung and the lower lobe of the lung congested with dark blood clots. The cause of death was found to be the gun shot injuries resulting in respiratory failure. The gun shot which was ante mortem in nature had entered the neck and had reached the lungs. The injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 2. The prosecution case was sought to be established through P.Ws. 2, 1 and 7 respectively the brother, daughter and wife of the deceased. The daughter P.W. 1 though has given a graphic picture of the entire case of the prosecution, yet her evidence is sought to be assailed on the ground that she had not been examined by the police during investigation even though admittedly according to her statement as also the statement of P.W. 7 she was present at the spot cleaning arum along with her father and mother. The evidence of the two investigating officers, P.Ws. 10 and 11, also does not show that they had examined the witness during investigation. It has of course been pointed out by the learned Addl. The evidence of the two investigating officers, P.Ws. 10 and 11, also does not show that they had examined the witness during investigation. It has of course been pointed out by the learned Addl. Government Advocate that in the case diary the statement of P.W. 1 appears to have been recorded, but however since such fact has not been deposed to by the I.Os., we are not in a position to accept the submission and would proceed on the footing that she had not been examined by police. 3. It has been strenuously contended by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate that it was not necessary or mandatory for the police to examine all the witnesses and that it was possible for the prosecution to even examine witnesses at the trial stage though such witnesses were earlier not shown in the charge-sheet nor were examined by the police. Such statement of the learned Counsel has no relevance to the question at issue since it is well-settled that the Court at its discretion may summon witnesses who are not shown in the charge-sheet or even those who have not been examined by police. But the question for consideration is the evidentiary value of the witnesses who though were admittedly eye-witnesses and were available for their statements to be recorded by the police, yet were not interrogated and no explanation is coming forth for the lapse on the part of the investigating agency. There may be cases where even though a witness has not been examined by the police earlier nor has been shown as a witness in the charge-sheet, yet may be a vital or relevant witness and may be examined by the Court to throw light upon the case, but however it must be held that ordinarily when a witness who is supposed to be a vital one and yet was not examined by police at all though was all the time available for the purpose, his evidence has to be considered with greatest caution and is not safe to be relied upon this the sole basis for conviction unless corroboration to the same is available otherwise. Even when a witness has been examined belatedly, the veracity of such witness is open to grave doubt and is ordinarily not to be relied upon. Such question has considered by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 166/85 Prafulla Jena and Anr. Even when a witness has been examined belatedly, the veracity of such witness is open to grave doubt and is ordinarily not to be relied upon. Such question has considered by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 166/85 Prafulla Jena and Anr. v. State decided on 21-12-1988 where relying upon Subhash and Another Vs. State of U.P.. and Bhagwan and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, as also 1984 C.L.R. (Cri) 345 Gunduchi Patnaik and Anr. v. State of Orissa, the evidence of the eye-witnesses who had been examined belatedly without any explanation therefore had not been relied upon. In that view of the matter, before any reliance !s placed on the evidence or P.W. 1 it has to be seen whether bereft of her evidence, substantive independent evidence is available against the Appellant. 4. P.W. 7 is the widow of the deceased. Reading her evidence as a whole as narrated above, it is found that there is absolutely no discrepancy therein intrinsically. P.W. 2 is the brother of the deceased and 'his house and Bari are to the immediate north of the house of the deceased. It is his evidence that the Baris of the Appellant, that of the deceased and his own all adjoin and that a stone wall of about 4 feet high and 40 cubits long separate the land of the Appellant and the land of the deceased. The Baris are separated by fences. As he was standing in his Bad he heard, a sound like gun shot from the southern direction for which he looked at that direction and saw the Appellant armed with a gun entering into his house by the side of the wall. Immediately after the gun shot he saw his brother lying in his Bari with bleeding injuries and had been shot with a gun. A hulla was raised and the villagers assembled at the spot immediately after the occurrence. The witness shouted that the Appellant had shot his brother to which the Appellant shouted back from his house that he would also shoot the witness and others. Ultimately on arrival of the Officer-in-charge, the Appellant came out of his house and was arrested. The police also removed the dead body of the deceased and seized the gun from the house of the Appellant. 5. Mr. Ultimately on arrival of the Officer-in-charge, the Appellant came out of his house and was arrested. The police also removed the dead body of the deceased and seized the gun from the house of the Appellant. 5. Mr. S.B. Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has urged, assailing the conviction, that the evidence of the eye-witnesses is not believable since so far as P.W. 2 is concerned, he could not have been in a position to see the Appellant going inside his house with the gun as he was at a distance and there was a wall of four feet high and it was the evidence of P.W. 7 that after the gunshot the Appellant had sank down behind the wall. We are not prepared to accept such submission since a wall of the height of only four feet would not arrest the vision of a person standing at sufficient distance there from so as to see the Appellant going back to, his house. It is the evidence of P.W. 2 that the Appellant had an incomplete house with walls of four feet high on all sides and that the Appellant went back to that incomplete house. The witness also specifically refuted the suggestion that if a man would stand inside that room he would not be visible to his Bari. Since the evidence of the eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 2 and 7, is clear and consistent, we would also find such evidence to have sufficiently corroborated that of P.W. 1 who has not stated anything differently. 6. It is however the submission of Mr. Chowdhury that all the witnesses are grossly interested ones being the widow, daughter as also the brother of the deceased and although admittedly independent persons had assembled, they were not examined. It is the case of the prosecution that there I were no independent witnesses to the actual occurrence and hence it was not necessary for the prosecution to examine the villagers. It is the case of the prosecution that there I were no independent witnesses to the actual occurrence and hence it was not necessary for the prosecution to examine the villagers. As regards the surrounding by the villagers of the house of the Appellant and the latter shouting that he would also kill others is not relevant so far as the death of the deceased is concerned and at any rate it is the evidence of P.W. 2 that there were litigations between the villagers and the Appellant on one hand and the deceased and others on the other in, respect of a well situated in the Bari of the deceased and hence it might not have been thought prudent by the prosecution to examine such villagers. 7. Mr. Chowdhury also assails the fact of recovery of the gun from the house of the Appellant. The defence of the Appellant was a, complete denial of the occurrence. So far as recovery of the gun is concerned, besides the statement of P.W. 2 that the gun was recovered from the house of the Appellant, the two other witnesses to the recovery are the seizure witnesses P.W. 3 and the O.I.C P.W. 11. P.W. 11 made the statement that after the Appellant opened the door to them and was arrested he led the O.I.C. and the witnesses saying that he had kept the gun in his house and pointed at the same kept in one of the rooms which was seized under the seizure list, Ext. 1. Mr. Chowdhury has rightly contended such evidence u/s 27 of the Evidence Act as not acceptable since P.W. 2 has not breathed a word about the Appellant giving any information regarding the gun kept in, his house. On the contrary, P.W. 3 who is a Gramarakshi, has stated that the O.I.C. and he entered the house and one Ananta Pradhan remained in the outer room of the Appellant's house. They brought out, M.Os. II and III from the inner room of the Appellants house. This would clearly rule out any case of the Appellant giving recovery of the gun and supplying the information therefore. Even though such evidence is rejected u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, the fact remains that the gun was seized from the house of the Appellant which is the consistent evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. This would clearly rule out any case of the Appellant giving recovery of the gun and supplying the information therefore. Even though such evidence is rejected u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, the fact remains that the gun was seized from the house of the Appellant which is the consistent evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. It is a common feature of the prosecution cases these days to attempt supply of additional props to the case with the help of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but merely because the evidence u/s 237 fails, there is no reason why the evidence regarding seizure of the gun should fail. There being consistent evidence regarding seizure of the gun from the house of the Appellant we must hold that the gun was in fact seized from his house and that he was in possession of it and further that the gun was used for perpetration of the crime. 8. It has also been submitted by Mr. Chowdhury that since the Appellant has been acquired of the charge u/s 270 the Arms Act, which was a charge of the Appellant possessing an unlicensed fire-arm, the seizure of the gun from his house cannot be believed. The submission has no force. A perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court shows that he believed the gun to have been used by the Appellant in shooting the deceased, but he acquitted him of the charge u/s 27 of the Arms Act being of the view that the prosecution had failed to establish the gun to be not a licensed one. We are not able to endorse such view of the learned Sessions Judge since once the gun was found in possession of the Appellant, it was for him to satisfactorily account for the same as being a licensed one since that was a fact' within his own special knowledge and the onus could never be on the prosecution to establish that the gun was not a licensed one. But however since the Appellant has been acquitted of that charge, there cannot be any interference regarding it in this appeal though the submission on that basis by Mr. Chowdhury must be repelled. 9. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. J.M. Mahapatra, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed