K. C. BHARGAVA, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 8-3-1979 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow con victing the appellant, Mohammad Siddique under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code to imprisonment for life. 2. According to the prosecution one Suresh Chandra Shukla (PW 3) who is the son of deceased lodged a first information report against two accused persons, Mohammad Siddique, the present appellant and one Abdul Majeed (acquitted by the trial court ). The allegations contained in the first information report disclosed that there was enmity between the family members of Krishna Mohan Shukla, the deceased and Abdul Majeed and Mohammad Siddique, accused persons. On 39-10-1979 at about 11. 00 a. m. Krishna Mohan Shukla, deceased, was sitting at his field, At that time paddy crop was being irrigated. Mangal Pasi, Debi Din (PW 2) and Shiva Raj (PW 1) were cutting the paddy crop on the other portion of fie field. The deceased, Krishna Mohan Shukla, was sitting on the Mend of the plot and was plucking the Urad Phalis. In the field on the Mend of which the deceased Krishna Mohan Shukla was sitting there was maize crop. The accused persons all of a sudden came out of a maize crop and on seeing the accused persons coming towards him he raised alarm and started running towards the western side. Thereupon Mohammad Siddique, appellant, fired a shot at the deceased, Krishna Mohan Shukla, which hit at his buttock on account of which the deceased fell in the plot which was being irrigated at that time. Thereafter both the accused persons came near the deceased who was lying and fired with their respective weapons at him. At that time Moham-raaa Siddique was holding a gun and co-accused Abdul Majeed was holding a Tamancha. Thereafter the accused persons ran away. la the meantime on alarm being raised the witnesses came to the spot. When the com plainant reached the place where the deceased was lying he saw him in a seriously injured condition. Thereafter he was taken to Lucknow on a cot and when they reached near Railway Station Nigohan, Krishan Mohan Shukla was found dead. la the meantime on alarm being raised the witnesses came to the spot. When the com plainant reached the place where the deceased was lying he saw him in a seriously injured condition. Thereafter he was taken to Lucknow on a cot and when they reached near Railway Station Nigohan, Krishan Mohan Shukla was found dead. It is further stated that when these persons reached near village Bhaironpur, Dinesh, Babu Lal (PW 5) and Rama Kant (PW 4) met them and told them that both the accused persons have also murdered Vinod Kumar Misra at about 12. 00 noon in the grove of Raj Narain. Thereafter the complainant went to the police station and the first information report Ext. ka 1 was lodged there. 3. After usual formalities the case was registered against both the accused persons. The investigating officer conducted the investigation and other formalities were also gone into. Thereafter the accused persons were charge-sheeted. 4. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the accused persons. During trial the prosecution examined in all nine witnesses out of which five witnessts were of fact. Out of them Shiva Raj (PW 1) Debi Din (PW 2) and Suresh Chandra Shukla (PW 3) have witneseed the occurrence in which Krishna Mohan Shukla was murdered. The other two witnesses of fact related to the murder of Vinod Kumar Misra with which we are at present not concerned. 5. As indicated above the learned Sessions Judge after recording evi dence and perusing the file came to the conclusion that the murder of Krishna Mohan Shukla has been committed by the present appellant, Muhammad Siddique only. Abdul Majeed, co-accused, was acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mohammad Siddique and the learned Additional Government Advocate have been heard in support of their respective contentions. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very beginning attacked the time of the occurrence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the post mortem examination reports of both the deceased, namely Krishna Mohan Shukla and Vinod Kumar Misra, go to show that the murders took place sometime in the early hours of the morning and not at 11. 00 a. m. as stated by the prosecution witnesses. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the post mortem examination reports of both the deceased, namely Krishna Mohan Shukla and Vinod Kumar Misra, go to show that the murders took place sometime in the early hours of the morning and not at 11. 00 a. m. as stated by the prosecution witnesses. A perusal of the first information report will go to show that according to the prosecution the incident in which Krishna Mohan Shukla was murdered, took place at 11. 00 a,m. This is the case of the prosecution during the course of evidence also. It will be worthwhile to look into the post mortem examination report of Krishna Mohan Shukla which was conducted on 20th October, 1977 at 5. 00 p. m. The condition of the abdomen contents as far as it is relevant is being reproduced as under : (6) Stomatch and its contents : Empty. (7) Small intestine and its contents : Empty. (8) Large intestine and its contents : Full of faecal matter and gases. 8. According to the condition all the contents of stomach, small intes tine and large intestine which were found at the time of the post mortem examination, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as the stomach was empty it appears that the deceased had not taken any thing within 5 to 6 hours. He has further argued that the large intestine with its contents goes to show that it was full with faecal matters and gases indi cating that the deceased had not eased himself by the time of the occurrence. According to the learned counsel in the villages it is common practice that the persons before going to the fields in the morning case themselves and take so me food. The incident, as stated above, is alleged to have taken place at 11 -00 a. m. This means that the deceased had not taken any thing after 5 or 6 a. m. which is against the normal habits of the persons living in the village. There is no evidence on record to suggest that on the day of incident the deceased had not taken any thing in the morning before going to the fields sad had also not eased before that time. There is no evidence on record to suggest that on the day of incident the deceased had not taken any thing in the morning before going to the fields sad had also not eased before that time. Had this been the case of the prosecution that the deceaeed could not case himself in the morning then the time of the incident as stated by the prosecution should have been relied upon. It is not necessary to cite any instance from the medical jurisprudence for the proposition that the food passes the stomach within 5 to 6 hours. It is a fact which is well known and cannot be disputed. This as a matter of fact has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State that the stomach becomes empty within 5 to 6 hours of taking food. This also establishes that if a person has eased himself in the morning then the large intestine will not contain the faecal matter and gases. They will also pass at the time when the person eases himself. Therefore this fact clearly goes to establish that the deceased had not taken any thing 5 to 6 hours before his death and had also not eased himself in the morning. In this case it has also been alleged that Vinod Kumar Misra has also been murdered after some time by the same set of accused persons. His post mortem examina tion was also dope on the same day at 2. 30p. m. The contents of all three organs of Vinod Kumar Misra are exactly the same as that of Krishna Mohan Shukla. This reference has only been made in order to show that the stomach condition of both the deceased persons was the same. The case of the appellant is that both the deceased have been murdered some time in the early morning and the prosecution has changed the time of occurrence and has planted the case against the appellant and the co-accused Abdul Majeed. The condition of the stomach lend support to the defence version and belies the theory put up by the prosecution. 9. The next question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased, Krishna Mohan Shukla, do not support the version set up by the prosecution. The condition of the stomach lend support to the defence version and belies the theory put up by the prosecution. 9. The next question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased, Krishna Mohan Shukla, do not support the version set up by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the story set up in the first information report and the story narrated by the so-called eye witnesses are in direct conflict with the medical evidence. According to the first inform ation report only three shots were fired. The first shot was fired by Moham mad Siddique, appellant, towards the deceased, Krishna Mohan Shukla, which hit him on his hip. Thereafter both the accused persons fired two shots from their respective weapons towards the deceased when he had fallen. Thus the prosecution version as disclosed in the first information report is that only three shots were fired. The same story has been repeated by the three eye witnesses which have been produced by the prosecution to prove the murder of Krishna Mohan Shukla. As indicated above the post mortem examination of the body of deceased Krishna Mohan ?hukla was done on 20th October, 1977. At that time the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination found six ante- mortem injuries on the person of the deceased, Krishna Mohan Shukla. Injuries Nos, 1 to 4 are gun shot injuries. Accord ing to the learned counsel for the appellant these four injuries could not have bean caused by three shots. On this point the learned counsel for the State has argued that injury Nos. 1 and 2 are from one shot while the other two injuries are of two different shots. The ante mortem injuries c f Krishna Mohan Shukla for the sake of convenience are reproduced as under : (1) Entrance wound.-6- cm. X 5 cm. fire-arm wound, 7 cm. above the umbilicus, 10 cm. away from the left nipple on the abdomen, margins inverted, one cork recovered with two pieces. (2) Entrance wound.-15 cm. X 7 cm. fire-arm wound, 1-J cm. above injury No, 1 below the lower end of the-sternum, 12 cm. away from nipple, margin inverted, one cork recorved with two pieces. (3) Multiple punctured wound on the abdomen in the area of 28 cm. X 8cm. which is 13 cm. (2) Entrance wound.-15 cm. X 7 cm. fire-arm wound, 1-J cm. above injury No, 1 below the lower end of the-sternum, 12 cm. away from nipple, margin inverted, one cork recorved with two pieces. (3) Multiple punctured wound on the abdomen in the area of 28 cm. X 8cm. which is 13 cm. away from the right nipple 1-J cm. lateral to injury No. 2 right side. (4) Entrance wound.-3 cm. X 2 cm. X bone deep on the left hip (fire arm wound} 22 cm. away from left posterior iliac spine on the left side, margins inverted collorring, present blackening around the margin, one cork with one piece recovered, 20 small pellets also recovered. (5) 8 cm. X 6 cm. rupture wound in the small intestine which is 95 cm. away from the junction of the small intestine with stomach. (6) 6 cm. X 6 cm. rupture wound in the large intestine which is 60 cm. away from the junction of the small intestine with large intestine. 10. A perusal of injury No. 4 will go to show that it is on the hip. According to the prosecution this injury was caused by the shot fired by Mohammad Siddique. The prosecution witnesses have stated that this shot was fired from a distance of 8 to 10 paces. This means that this shot was fired from about Islets. If we closely examine this injury then it will be found that blackening around the margin is present. One cork with one piece was recovered from the wound and 25 small pellets were also recovered from the wound. This shows that the shot has been fired from a close range of say about six feets. The presence of cork inside the wound also suggests that the shot was fired from a very close range. Modi in Medical Jurispru dence and Toxicology, twentieth edition, at p. 230 has mentioned that if over shot crawdad is found in the wound it indicates that the shot was fired from less than two yards while its absence suggests more than two yards. On p 227 in the last line Modi says that blackening is found if a firearm like shot gun is discharged from a distance of not more than 3 feet and a revolver or pistol discharged within about 2 feet. On p 227 in the last line Modi says that blackening is found if a firearm like shot gun is discharged from a distance of not more than 3 feet and a revolver or pistol discharged within about 2 feet. In the Parikhs Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 4th Edition on p, 276 it is men tioned that when a shot gun is fired from distances close to the upto 2 yards or so, the usual close distance firing phenomena of scorching, blacken ing and tattooing are observed. Upto about 1 yard, the shot enters encases ; upto 2-3 yards, the shot produces an entrance hole with individual pellet hole around the periphery. On p. 279 the characteristic of shot guns and injuries of various ranges have been indicated. If a shot is fired from a distance of one yard then there will appear a single hole and there will be singeing, blackening, tattooing and wads. The presence of blackening around the margins and the cork which has been recovered inside the wound, in injury No. 4, shows that this shot was fired from a close range and not beyond six feet in any case. This belies the prosecution case that first shot which was fired by Mohammad Siddique towards the deceased was fired from a distance of S to 10 paces. 11. With respect to injuries Nos, 1 and 2 learned counsel for the appel lant has argued that both the injuries are the result of two independent shots of entrance. They are 3 separate wounds and their dimensions also verv. Hs has argued that the presence of a cork inside both the wounds also goes to show that both the injuries were caused by separate shots. According to the learned counsel for the State both these injuries have been caused by one shot and is the result of dispersal of pellets. It may be mentioned that these injuries could not have been the result of dispersal of a single shot. The dimensions of wounds are different. Injury No 1 is 6-J cm X 5 era. while injury No. 2 is 15 cm. X 7 cm. inside both these injuries one cork was recovered with two pieces each. Had these injuries been the result of dis persal the dimensions of both the injuries should have been the same. The dimensions of wounds are different. Injury No 1 is 6-J cm X 5 era. while injury No. 2 is 15 cm. X 7 cm. inside both these injuries one cork was recovered with two pieces each. Had these injuries been the result of dis persal the dimensions of both the injuries should have been the same. As they differ in size the possibility of both these injuries having been caused by a single shot can be safely ruled out. The presence of independent pieces of wads inside the injuries suggests that these injuries have been caused by means of separate shot, According to the learned counsel for the appellant only one cork is present inside one cartridge age white according to the learned counsel for the State more than one cork can be present inside one cartridge. In Guptas Law and Principles of Forensic Ballistics at p. 44 that felt, card board of ordinary paper are used as wads. When a shot is fired these wads are forced out in the direction in which the arm is aimed. Generally the shape of a wad is like a circular disk. In order that the shots of the cartridges may not drop out wads are used which are placed between the powder and shot cartridges. There is also a thin wad of cardboard which is placed on the top of the shot charge. At p. 45 it is mentioned that wads in show gun ammunition are propelled along with the rest of the charge and if they do not meet any obstruction they strike the target upto three meters and sometimes enter into it ; from five meters they disperse upto a long distance. 12. Even if there are more than one wads in one cartridge then in one shot they will not enter into the body at different places. Their wads will enter into one wound which is caused by one shot. It has also been tried to argue by the learned counsel for the State that even if there is one wad it may break into pieces and can cuter into more than one wounds. This argu ment of the learned counsel for the State cannot be accepted upon that both these injuries, injury Nos. It has also been tried to argue by the learned counsel for the State that even if there is one wad it may break into pieces and can cuter into more than one wounds. This argu ment of the learned counsel for the State cannot be accepted upon that both these injuries, injury Nos. 1 and 2, are the result of one shot and that one cork divided into two pieces and one piece entered into one wound and the other piece entered into the other wound. Dr. M. Mughani (PW 6) has stated in para 1 at p. 45 of the paper book that one wad in two pieces was recovered from injury No. 1 Krishna Mohan Shukla, the deceased. This goes to show that both these pieces were of one wad. It cannot be said that one wad was divided into many pieces and some of them entered into injury No. 1 and others in injury No. 2. In the last but one para in his cross-examination the doctor has stated that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be caused by the same shot. If the prosecution wanted to prove that one cork would have been divided into four pieces out of which two pieces entered into injury No. 1 and the remain ing two pieces entered into injury No. 2 then specific question should have been asked from the doctor. It was not asked that one cork was divided into four pieces out of which two pieces were found in injury No. 1 and two pieces were found in injury No. 2 of Krishna Mohan Shukla. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the doctor could not have told this fact because he was not a ballistic expert and he has not opined correctly in this matter. If it was so then the prosecution should have examined a ballistic expert in order to prove that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 of Krishna Mohan Shukla were caused by a single shot and that the four pieces of cork found inside these two injuries were of the same shot. The ballistic expert would have been the best person to show as to how many corks were inside one cartridge and how the dispersal of the cork from the cartridge done when a shot is fired from a close range or distance. The name of injuries Nos. The ballistic expert would have been the best person to show as to how many corks were inside one cartridge and how the dispersal of the cork from the cartridge done when a shot is fired from a close range or distance. The name of injuries Nos. 1 and 2 of Krishna Mohan Shukla shows at they are independent injuries and could not have been sustained by the dispersal of one shot. Had these injuries been the result of one shot they would not ;have been independent injuries If they had been caused by the dispersal of the shot then the dimensions of both the injuries would have been the same and it would have been mentioned in the pest mortem examination report that these injuries have been caused in an area of such and such centi meters mentioning both the injuries as one injury. 13. A perusal of injury No. 3 will go to show that it is in abdomen and with an area of 28 cm. X 8 cm. This shows that this injury is the result of dispersal of one shot because the area covered by this injury is the large and the pellets have entered into an area of 28 cm. X 8 cm. But no such descrip tion of this type has been given in injuries Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore it is clear that the doctor was aware of the distinction between the injury caused by dispersal of the pellets and the injury caused by one shot. 14. The prosecution has also not explained as to how injury No. 3 was caused on the body of the deceased. The prosecution witnesses are silent on this point. This also goes to show that the prosecution witnesses have not seen as to how this injury was caused. 15. It is an admitted fact that both the witnesses who have been examined in this case from the side of the prosecution, leaving aside the complainant, are inimical in nature and they are partisan witnesses as admitted by both of them. No doubt the statement of partisan and inimical witness cannot be outrightly rejected on this ground alone but his statement should be scrutinised very cautiously and minutely in order to find whether his statement finds support from the other evidence present on the record. No doubt the statement of partisan and inimical witness cannot be outrightly rejected on this ground alone but his statement should be scrutinised very cautiously and minutely in order to find whether his statement finds support from the other evidence present on the record. As indicated in the earlier part of the judgment the nature of injuries on the body of the deceased Krishna Me ban Shukla belies the occular version given by these witnesses. These witnesses have not been able to indicate in their statements as to how injury No. 3 on the body of Krishna Mohan Shukla, deceased, had been caused. They have stated that only three shots were fired but there are four gun-shot injuries on the person of the deceased. Injury No. 3 remains unexplained. They have stated that injury No. 4 was caused from the shot which was fired from a distance but the blackening present around the margin of this injury and the presence of cork inside the injury suggest that it had been caused by a shot which was fired from a very close range. Besides this, as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, the time of the occurrence which has been disclosed by the prosecution as 11. 00 a. m. is belied by the medical evidence. The contents of stomach, small intestine and the large intestine of the deceased fully belie the statements of the prosecution witnesses that the occurrence took place at 11. 00 a. m. The occurrence, as appears from the facts on record, took place some time in the early morning when none of witnesses was present and they had not seen the occurrence as they claim to have seen it. 16. Therefore, in view of what has been said above it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant and the appellant, Mohammad Siddique, is entitled to be acquitted of the charge. 17. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order, dated 8-3-1979 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 1978, is set aside and the appellant Mohammad Siddique is acquitted of the charges for which be has been convicted. The appellant is on bail and he need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled. Appeal allowed. .