B. L. YADAV, J, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 650 of 1979 has been filed by Gandharv Singh Whereas Criminal Appeal No. 674 of 1979 has been filed by Rajendra Singh and Asha Ram. Both these appeals are directed against the ORDER and order dated 13/2/1979 passed by Sri. J. N. Tandon, III Addi, Sessions Judge, Mainpuri convicting the appellants under see 302 read with 149 I. P. C. and un4er Sec. 148 I. P. C. The appellants were awarded sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under sec. 302/149 I. P. C. and two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 148 I. P. C. Both the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. By the same ORDER and order the other accused persons namely Jai Dayal, Radhey Ratan Singh and Smt. Sumitra were given the benefit of doubt for the charges under sec. 302 read with 149 I. P. C. and they were consequently acquitted. ( 2 ) THE occurrence has taken place on 26/3/1976 at the time of sun set and the First Information Report was lodged on 27/3/1976 at about 8. 30 A. M. at police station Kotwali, district-Mainpuri. The distance of village Burrah, where the occurrence has taken place, was 12 miles from the police station Kotwali. Suresh aged about 15 years was the deceased. ( 3 ) THE First Information Report contains the prosecution story. It was lodged by Nawab Singh (P. W 2 ). It was to the effect that on the date of occurrence Suresh was driving bullock-cart keeping the harvested crop of wheat. When it reached near the naali of tube well of Bachchan, Suresh deceased came down from the bullock cart to drink water. In the meanwhile Rajendra armed with country made pistol (Tamancha), Gandharv, armed with a gun, Jai Dayal and Asha Ram armed with country made pistols; whereas Smt. Sumitra and Ratan Singh armed with lathis and Radhey armed with Kanta came there. Smt. Sumitra exhorted the accused to kill the deceased with the fire-arm so that her husbands murder may be compensated. Immediately thereafter the appellants fired from their respective weapons upon Suresh, which hit near his eye and he fell down. He was in the bullock cart when he raised alarm. Thereafter Kayam Singh, Gulab Singh and Indra Jeet came there and saw the occurrence. Immediately thereafter the appellants fired from their respective weapons upon Suresh, which hit near his eye and he fell down. He was in the bullock cart when he raised alarm. Thereafter Kayam Singh, Gulab Singh and Indra Jeet came there and saw the occurrence. The other details have been given in the impugned ORDER and order. The three eye witnesses namely Kadori (P. W. 1) (At page 12 of the paper book), Nawab Singh (P. W. 2) and Kayan Singh (P. W. 3) have been examined in support of the prosecution version. Whereas Dr. B. K. Mishra (P. W. 5) has been examined who conducted the post mortem examination and ascertained the ante-mortem injuries. The injuries found on the body of the deceased are mentioned as follows, as are noted in the postmortem report conducted on 28/3/1976: 1. Fire arm wound of entrance 1. 5 cm x 1. 8 cm. x whole skull deep through and through, corresponding to wound of exit given below on head left side 3. 5 cm behind the left ear at 3 otclock position margins inverted, no blackening, tattooing or scorching seen. Margins contused. 2. Fire arm wound of exit 2. 5 cm. x 3. 0 cm. x whole skull deep, through and through, corresponding to wound of entrance, given above, on face right side, just below the right eye, margins averted and no blackening tattooing or scorching seen. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. Ram Dutt Dixit (P. W. 6) and Vikram Singh (P. W. 7) were the investigating officers. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon. the Statements of prosecution witnesses and has accorded the conviction and sentence as indicated above. ( 4 ) SRI Ravindra Singh the learned counsel for the appellant urged that on the same evidence, on Which the other four persons namely Jai Dayal, Radhey, Ratan Singh and Smt. Sumitra have been given the benefit of doubt and have been acquitted, the appellant has been convicted. This may be taken into accounts. On the same evidence with- out any distinguishing feature the appellant has been discriminated against and has been acquitted. ( 5 ) IT was next urged that from the nature of injuries as given in the post mortem report and as also stated by P. W. 5 Dr. B. K. Mishra, injury No. 1 fire arm wound of entrance 1. On the same evidence with- out any distinguishing feature the appellant has been discriminated against and has been acquitted. ( 5 ) IT was next urged that from the nature of injuries as given in the post mortem report and as also stated by P. W. 5 Dr. B. K. Mishra, injury No. 1 fire arm wound of entrance 1. 5 cm x 1. 8 cm. x whole skull deep, injury No. 2 was fire arm wound of exit 2. 5 cm x 3. 0 cm x bone skull deep through and through just below the right eye. It was stated by P. W. 5 Dr. B. K. Mishra that the injury No. 1 was caused from the back side on the head left side whereas injury No. 2 was the exit wound just below the right eye; whereas the prosecution case was that the wound of entrance was caused just below the right eye. It means, the medical report is contrary to the prosecution version panicularly the statements of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3, and also the statement of P. W. 5 Dr. B. K. Mishra. There is one other aspect of the matter. There was no blackening tattooing or scorching seen as reported by P. W. 5 Dr. B. K. Mishra. This could be possible only when the injury was caused with very close range putting the weapon close to the body and the skin. , Whereas P. W. 2 Nawab Singh has stated (at page 22, of the paper book), that the appellants were standing at a distance of the steps from the deceased Suresh (vide Para-33), whereas under para - 37 it has been stated that all the accused have given the shot simultaneously and at that time the face of deceased S uresh was in front of the accused. This leads to the inference that the shot was given below the right eye and not on the back side of the head. It was apparent from the medical report and the statement of the doctor. The reference is that the statements of the witnesses do not support the injuries as medically examined by the doctor. The learned counsel for the State Sri Dwivedi has supported the impugned ORDER and order. He urged that there was immediate motive for having caused murder. It was apparent from the medical report and the statement of the doctor. The reference is that the statements of the witnesses do not support the injuries as medically examined by the doctor. The learned counsel for the State Sri Dwivedi has supported the impugned ORDER and order. He urged that there was immediate motive for having caused murder. The injuries as indicated by the doctor could have been caused by the accused. The statements of P. Ws. 1,2 and 3 were reliable, and there was no infirmity. He urged that there could be no blackening and tattooing even if the shot was given from a distance of ten steps, as stated by P. W. 2 Nawab Singh (Vide para-33 of page 22 from paper book ). ( 6 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we are of the opinion that the appeal must succeed. The post mortem report would indicate that the first injury was caused by fire arm from the left side of the head and injury No. 2 was exit wound on the right side of the face just below the right eye. P. W. I Kadori has stated (in para 10 at page 13 of the paper book) that as soon as Suresh deceased stood after drinking water, the accused gave a shot directly near his eye. SURESH PAANI PEEKAR KHADA HUA TO SURESH KI SEEDHI AANKH KE PASS GOli LAGI VA SURESH GIR GAYE VA MAR GAYE. GANDHARV, AJENDRA VA ASHA RAM NE FIRE KIEYTHE. It means injury No. 2 was not exit, rather it was an entrance wound. Similarly P. W. 2 Nawab Singh stated (in para - 8 at page 19 of the paper book) eye of Suresh deceased; SUMITRA KE HUKM KE ANUSAR RAJENDRA ASHA RAM VA GANDHARV NE FIRE KIYE USME SE GOLI SURESH KI DAAIN AMISH KE NEECHE SANE SE LAGI VA PEECHCHE NIKAL GAl AUR SURESH ZAMEEN PAR GIR GAYE. VA MAR GA YE. P. W. 3 Kayan Singh has stated (under para - 5 at page 24 of the paper book) that appellants fired below the eye of Suresh deceased. VA MAR GA YE. P. W. 3 Kayan Singh has stated (under para - 5 at page 24 of the paper book) that appellants fired below the eye of Suresh deceased. To precise the words are: SURESH PAANI PEEKAR KHADE HUA TO GMIDHARV RAJENDRA VA ASHA RAM NE FIRE KIYE TO SURESH KI SEEDHI AANKH KE NEECHE SAAMNE SE GOLI LAGL SURESH V ANHI PAR GIR KAR VAN HI MAR GAY AT The Statements of P. Ws 1,2, and 3 lead to the inference that injury No. 2 was entrance wound, whereas injury No. 1 was exit wound. We are accordingly of the opinion that the ocular testimony was contradictory to the medical evidence in the nature of injuries received by the deceased. As regards the medical evidence that there was absence of blackening, tattooing and scorching it appears that the shots were given from a very close range. In Taylors Principles Practice of Medical Jurisprudence (Thirteenth Edition by A. Keith Mant, page-245) there is following statement about fire-arm wounds: Powder tattooing; The size and intensity of the surrounding powder tattooing will depend upon the constituents of the propellant charge, Le. , black powder or smokeless, and the distance between the skin and the muzzle. , Wounds are usually classified by their external appearance as: 1. Close contact 2. Near contact 3. Distend Close Contact: - In these wounds, by definition the muzzle is held in close contact with the skin. The projectile or projectiles, gases of the propellant charge under great pressure, unburned powder and any wads will all enter the body. If the gun is fired into a body cavity such as Lie chest or abdomen the cavity will contain the gases, even if there is no exit wound, and the entry wound will be circular. Near Contact: - In these wounds the nuzzle is an inch or so away from the skin when fired. The entry wound is circular and the surrounding skin is blackened by smoke and unburned powder. In Modis text book of medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twentieth Edition), Page 228 Moreover these signs (i. e. blackening scorching and tattooing etc.) may be absent when the weapon is pressed tightly against the skin of the body, as the gases of the explosion and the flame smoke and particles of gun powder will all follow the track of the bullet in the body. ( 7 ) WE are, accordingly of the opinion that in case the fire arm is pressed to the body or in case the muzzle is held in close contact with the skin there shall be no blackening, scorching or tattooing as the projectile gases of the propellent, un burnt powder and flame smoke and particles of gun powder will all enter the track of the bullet in body. In the present case the post mortem report indicates that fire arm wound of entry there was no blackening, tattooing or scorching. It means the injury was caused when the weapon or muzzle was pressed to the body or was in very close Contact. The prosecution case is that the muzzle was held or the weapon was pressed from a distance of ten steps (Le. about fifteen feet) from the deceased, vide the statement of the P. W. 2 Nawab Singh (page - 22 Para 33 of Paper Book ). We are of the view that the prosecution case was not reliable and the fire arm injuries were not caused as alleged by the prosecution. ( 8 ) AFTER considering the evidence or record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not come with clean hands and the statements of P. Ws. 1,2 and 3 are contradictory to the medical evidence. The nature of injuries has also been given otherwise than recorded by the doctor. The prosecution witnesses are not stating the truth correctly. The ocular version was contrary to the medical evidence. Under these circumstances we have no option but to hold that on the basis of statements of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 no conviction can be recorded against the appellants. In view of the premises aforesaid, the ORDER and order rendered by the learned additional sessions Judge cannot be sustained. ( 9 ) IN the result the appeals succeed, and are allowed. The appellants are acquitted from the charges under Sections 302 read with 149 I. P. C. and under Sec. 148 I. P. C. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender. Criminal Appeal No. 650 of 1979 is the leading case. A copy of this ORDER be placed in connected Criminal Appeal No. 674 of 1979, as both these appeals being disposed of by a common ORDER. Appeal allowed. .