JUDGMENT 1. - Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, has convicted accused appellant Ram Prasad of offences under Sections 302 and 333, IPC, and has further convicted him for offences under Section 27 of the Arms Act. For offence under Section 302, IPC, the accused appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. For offence under Section 333 of the IPC, the accused appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. For offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the accused appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. All substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved, Ram Prasad challenges the correctness and propriety of his conviction and also challenges the correctness propriety and legality of the sentences passed against him. 2. Police Station, G.R.P. Kota, witnessed a gruesome incident on the night of 29.3.1988 when Sub-Inspector, Hanif Khan, attached to the said Police Station was fired at by a firearm resulting in fatal injuries causing his death. The appellant was posted at the said policestationas a constable. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.3.1988 during the day at about 4.30 p.m. roll-call of the staff was taken by Head Constable Ashok Kumar (PW-8). At this roll-call Hanif Khan made an observation that people should not gossip in the office. At this, accused- appellant Ram Prasad is said to have retorted that Hanif Khan was inviting people for tea and hence the people used to assemble. At this, Hanif Khan told Ram Prasad and he would not ask Ram Prasad to bring tea. It is alleged that at this Ram Prasad retorted that he would not bring tea for him. Thereafter, Badri Lal, ASI, (PW-1) observed that there is no peon attached to the police station and he was also bringing tea and likewise constables and the Head Constables were also bringing tea and, as such, it was common cause of all. Thereafter, the roll-call ended. Thereafter, Badri Lal, ASI, (PW-1) observed that there is no peon attached to the police station and he was also bringing tea and likewise constables and the Head Constables were also bringing tea and, as such, it was common cause of all. Thereafter, the roll-call ended. At that time Ashok Kumar Sharma assigned Ram Prasad to the sentry duty of the police station, which was to commence at 6.00 p.m. and was to be effective till 1.0.00 p.m. 3. The prosecution story further is that Ram Prasad came to the sentry duty at 6.00 p.m. and Har Dayal (PW-12) handed over to Ram Prasad a rifle bearing butt No. 226 and ten life cartridges of 303 bore. A report Ex. P/13 was recorded regarding this fact and the same was signed by Ram Prasad and Har Dayal. 4. The prosecution story further is that the same day at about 7.00 p.m. Hanif Khan checked constable Ram Prasad and found that there was no 'frockie' (cover) on the bayonet of the gun. At this, a report Ex. P/9 was entered in the daily diary by which Hanif Khan called for the explanation of the Head Moharir of the police station as to where the cover of the bayonet was. He also called the explanation of Ram Prasad as to why he had taken incomplete charge. 5. The prosecution story further is that at about 9.00 p.m. Ashok Kumar Sharma (PW-8) came to the police station after having a round of a temple. He was accompanied with constable Bhaeron. Lai (PW-6). When these two persons came to the police station, they found that Nawal Kishore (PW-13) and Nehru Singh (PW- 5) constables were sitting on a bench in the room of Ashok Kumar. Badri Lai (PW-1) was sitting in the room of the second officer, while Ram Prasad was standing at his post (place meant for sentry duty). Ashok Kumar was followed by Hanif Khan deceased and shortly afterwards Hanif Khan occupied the chair meant for Ashok Kumar, in the room of Ashok Kumar. Soonafter, a gun shoot was heard. Upon which all the employees of the police station got up and saw Ram Prasad totting his gun. All of them came out of the police station, upon which, Ram Prasad moved towards room of the S.H.O. 6. Soonafter, a gun shoot was heard. Upon which all the employees of the police station got up and saw Ram Prasad totting his gun. All of them came out of the police station, upon which, Ram Prasad moved towards room of the S.H.O. 6. The prosecution story is that Ashok Kumar and his companions tried to catch hold of Ram Prasad, upon which Ram Prasad aimed his gun towards these people and threatened to shoot them. At this, Ashok Kumar ran out of the police-station and went towards platform No.1, where he met Shri Vijai Singh Shekhawat (PW- 16), Station House Officer of this police station. The case of the prosecution further is that Vijai Singh was accompanied with Ram Avtar Vyas, Head Constable (PW-14). Prior to Ashok Kumar meeting Vijai Singh, Vijai Singh was informed by some people at platform that some gun shots had been fired in the police station, upon which he had started for the police station. On the way he met constables Balbir Singh (PW-2) and Bhanwar Singh (PW-7). They informed Vijai Singh that Ram Prasad had shot Hanif Khan dead. At this, Vijai Singh rushed towards the police station by climbing the stairs when he heard one gun shot being fired from the side of the police station. Vijai Singh reached police station and saw Ram'Prasad constable, standing at the bit of the sentry and he further saw Hanif Khan, Sub-Inspector, lying in the door of his office. The prosecution story is that Hanif Khan was bleeding profusely from the injury received by him. The prosecution story is that Vijai Singh, Balbir Singh and Bhanwar Singh over- powered Ram Prasad and took his rifle in pos session which had a bayonet on and which also carried a scabbard. 7. The prosecution story is that at the time of incident Roop Singh, Driver, was standing in the lobby of the police station. At that time one Pramod Chandra Mishra (PW-3) was standing in the lock up of the police station having been detained in some other case. According to the prosecution, PW-1, Badri Lai, PW-3 Pramod Chandra Mishra, PW- Roop Singh, PW-5 Nehru Singh, PW-6 Bhairu Lai and PW-8 Ashok Kumar Sharma had seen the occurrence. The prosecution story is thatbesides these persons PW-15 Sageer, PW-18 Khalil Khan and PW-23 Ismile, all coolies on the railway station, had seen the occurrence. According to the prosecution, PW-1, Badri Lai, PW-3 Pramod Chandra Mishra, PW- Roop Singh, PW-5 Nehru Singh, PW-6 Bhairu Lai and PW-8 Ashok Kumar Sharma had seen the occurrence. The prosecution story is thatbesides these persons PW-15 Sageer, PW-18 Khalil Khan and PW-23 Ismile, all coolies on the railway station, had seen the occurrence. The prosecution story is that Badri Lai submitted a written report of the incident, namely Ex. P. 1 to Vijai Singh, who registered a case under Section 302, IPC. 8. The prosecution is that the body of Hanif Khan was immediately dispatched to M.B.S. Hospital, Kota. The body was accompanied with PW-1 Badri Lai Joshi, Bhanwar Singh (PW- 7) and one Radhey Shyam (PW-9). The prosecution story is that the doctor on duty declared Hanif Khan dead. The prosecution story is that when Ram Prasad was overpowered, his gun with bayonet and scabbard was recovered and a memo Ex. P/19 was prepared in this regard. Ram Prasad was put under formal arrest and memo Ex.P/20 was prepared in this regard. The gun had the magazine in it and when the magazine was opened one empty cartridge was recovered. The rifle and cartridge were duly sealed and so also the bayonet and the scabbard were also duly sealed. 9. The prosecution story isthat Dy. Supt. of Police, G.R.P., Kota (PW-22) was informed of this occurrence. Mr. Mohd. Shaffi reached the M.B.S. Hospital, Nayapura, Kota, at the same night at 11.30 p.m. He found that dead body of Shri Hanif Khan was lying in the mortuary of M.B.S. Hospital. The Dy. S.P. examined the dead-body and prepared panchayatama Ex.P/3 in this regard. Various witnesses named in this panchayatnama were asked to attest the Panchayatnama, which they did.'The dead body had as many as eight wounds as described in panchayatnama. 10. the prosecution story further is that PW-24 Chunni Lai, Additional Supdt. of Police, Railway, Ajmer, was informed of the incident and he reached Kota on 303.1988. On reaching Kota, he took investigation of the case in his hands. He inspected the scene of occurrence on 30.3.88 at 11.00 a.m. and prepared a detailed site plan Ex.P/4. In thedoor of a room marked as 'A' in the site plan he found a lot of human blood. Some blood stains were found on the two shutters of the door and also inside of the wall of the room. He inspected the scene of occurrence on 30.3.88 at 11.00 a.m. and prepared a detailed site plan Ex.P/4. In thedoor of a room marked as 'A' in the site plan he found a lot of human blood. Some blood stains were found on the two shutters of the door and also inside of the wall of the room. The room itself was shown in the site plan by No. 1. In this very room he found a wooden bench nearer to the eastern wall of the room and the eastern wall of the room had also blood stains on it. On inspection of another room, namely, room of Head Moharir marked as No. 2 in the site plan the Additional Supdt. of Police found that two tables, some chairs, a bench and an almehra alongwith some record were lying in the room. One bullet piece was lying on the floor of this room at the point marked V. In this another piece of bullet was found at place marked 'F'. In this very room he found that one of the shutters had a hole showing that a bullet had pierced the shutter. This was at point marked 'G' in the room. 11. The Additional Supdt. of Police found that behind the room of the Head Moharir marked as No.2 an empty cartridge of 303 bore was lying at the place marked as point'H'. The Addl. S.P. found that a glass panel of the window had been damaged and some piece of glass were embedded in the wooden frame of the window. This glass had a bullet hole in it. The I.O. marked this spot as I in the site plan. 12. On inspection of the Verandha of the police station two empties were recovered by the I.O. from the places marked 'C' and 'D'. The I.O. also found that at point J' in room marked as No. 6, some plaster had been damaged and it appeared that the wall had been hit by a built. This was marked as point 'J' by the I.O. The I.O. seized the pieces of the bullet as also the cartridges and he duly sealed them vide memo Ex. P/5. The I.O. collected sample of blood lying on the spot vide memo Ex. P/6. The pieces of glass and the damaged plaster were collected from the spot and were scaled vide memo Ex. P/ 27. P/5. The I.O. collected sample of blood lying on the spot vide memo Ex. P/6. The pieces of glass and the damaged plaster were collected from the spot and were scaled vide memo Ex. P/ 27. 13. The Investigating Officer in this case recorded the statements of various witnesses. 14. Post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased Hanif Khan was conducted by Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta (PW-19). Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta found as many as 14 injuries on the person of the deceased and he prepared post-mortem report Ex. P/45 in this regard on 30.3.1988 at about 7.00 a.m. According to Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta the deceased was a stout bold person. Rigor mortis was present on the body. Decomposition had not started. The dead body was identified by Head Constable Jagdish Singh, Cl, Vijai Singh and Mohd. Shaffi, Dy. S.P. The pupils of the eyes were found shut. Following external injuries were noticed by Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta in the post-mortem report: 1. Gun shot wound 1/2" x 1/2" on forehead in the centre. Margin of wound charred the underlying bone has hole of the size 1/2" x 1/2". This wound is the would of entry. 2. Lacerated wound 3" x 2" over Rt. Parietal region just lateral to midline underlying bone is broken into pieces and brain matter is coming out. This injuryis' , ound of exit to injury No.1. 3. Gun shot lacerated wound 11/2" x 1/2" over left temporal region 11/2" above pinna of left ear. The margin of wound was charred. Underlying bone having hole of the size 1/2" x 1/2". This is the wound of entry. 4. Lacerated wound 11/2 x 3/4" on the Rt. parietal temporal region. The underlying bone is broken into pieces. The brain matter is coming out of the wound. This is the wound of exit to injury No. 3. 5. Gun shot wound 1/4" x 1/4" charred margin underlying bone humerous is broken into pieces. This wound is placed on posterio lateral aspect of left upper arm near insertion of deltoid muscle. 6. Lacerated wound 5" x 4" on the anterior axillary fold of left arm. The muscles of the fold are lacerated. This would is the wound of Exit for injury No. 5. 7. Lacerated wound 2" x 2" on dorsum of Rt. forearm near wrist with charred margins fracture of Rt. Radius at lower 1/4. 8. 6. Lacerated wound 5" x 4" on the anterior axillary fold of left arm. The muscles of the fold are lacerated. This would is the wound of Exit for injury No. 5. 7. Lacerated wound 2" x 2" on dorsum of Rt. forearm near wrist with charred margins fracture of Rt. Radius at lower 1/4. 8. Lacerated wound burnt margins 4" x 3" on epigastric region loops of intestine coming out. 9. Lacerated would 1" x 1/4" on bypass thinner exinence and the little finger of left hand. 10. Lacerated wound 3/4" x 1/4" in the centre of palm. The Bullet is located on the radial border of 2nd meta carpal bone. The Bullet is taken out sealed. (Note-it seems that injuries Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 are caused by single bullet). 11. Lacerated wound 3/4" x 1/4" on lateral aspect of right forearm just above wrist joint. 12. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" just near & ventral to injury No.11. (Note-It seems that injury Nos. 11 & 12 are caused by spicularof bones (fractured). 13. Lacerated wound 3/4 x 1/2" x 1/4" on the dorsal aspect of left hand in the web space between 2nd and 3rd meta carpal bone. 15. Lacerated wound 11/4" x 3/4" in the perional region just right and posterior to and orifice wound was going deep posteriorly upto the margin of sacrum. The margin of sacrum was broken with chip fracture."Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta was not sure about injury No.14 so he got the dead body X-rayed. However, no metallic shadows were seen on the dead body. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased had died due to the two bullet injuries found on the head of the deceased. According to him, injuries Nos. 1, 3 and 5 were individually and collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of things. It is unfortunate that the doctor did not care to state if the injuries found on the person of Hanif Khan were antemortem in nature. 16. The various things collected from the spot as also the articles recovered from the possession of the accused were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, from where reports Exs. P/53 and P/54 were received. 17. 16. The various things collected from the spot as also the articles recovered from the possession of the accused were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, from where reports Exs. P/53 and P/54 were received. 17. After due completion of the formalities of investigation, the accused was challaned to the court of Railway Magistrate, Kota, who duly committed him to stand trial for the various offences, to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kota. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against accused appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 333 of I.P.C. and for the offence under Section 27 read with Section 3 of the Arms Act. The accused pleased not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, who completed the same. 18. During the course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses in support of its case. 19. The accused appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution story and his stand was that at the time of the alleged occurrence he was on sentry duty at police station G.R.P., Kota. Two passenger trains had come on the station and there was a lot of crowd near the police station. 4-5 persons with muffled faces came towards the police station started indiscriminate firing at the police personnel attached to the police station, upon which the police personnel ran helter and skelter. Sub Inspector Hanif came out of the room towards Verandah when he was hit by a bullet of an unknown assailant At this, he (accused appellant) started firing at the assailants and chased them for some distance behind the police station. The assailants fired some shots resulting in damage to the glass panels of the windows. According to the accused-appellant he had fired four shots towards the assailants. He denied that he had fired any shot at deceased Hanif Khan. According to him, he had handed over the magazine with empty cartridges to the Circle Inspector. In support of his defence, the accused appellant examined DW-1 Om Prakash DW-2 Munna Lai. There was a further examination of the accused appellant by the learned trial Judge on 12.3.1991 wherein the accused appellant denied the prosecution story and claimed to be innocent. 20. In support of his defence, the accused appellant examined DW-1 Om Prakash DW-2 Munna Lai. There was a further examination of the accused appellant by the learned trial Judge on 12.3.1991 wherein the accused appellant denied the prosecution story and claimed to be innocent. 20. The learned trial Judge after hearing both the sides was of the view that none of the alleged eye witnesses namely, Badri Lal (PW-1), Pramod Chancier (PW-3), Roop Singh (PW-4), Nehru Singh (PW-5), Bhairon Lai (PW-6), Ashok Sharma (PW-8), Nawal Kishore (PW-13), Sageer (PW-15), Khalil Khan (PW-18) and Ismile (PW- 23) had seen the accused appellant firing the various shots at deceased Hanif Khan. The learned trial Judge noticed that the prosecution had tried to lead evidence about an alleged confession of guilt of the accused appellant but he discharged this evidence on the ground that the so called alleged confession had been made before police officers and hence could not be basis of conviction of the accused appellant. However, on the basis of the other circumstances, the learned trial Court found the accused appellant guilty and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment as stated already. He found following circumstances proved against accused appellant beyond doubt: (i) That the accused appellant was on sentry duty on the fateful day and had been entrusted with a 303 rifle and 10 live cartridges; (ii) Prior to the incident deceased Hanif Khan had an oral altercation with the accused appellant - regarding un- necessary assemblage of persons in the office room in connection with bringing of tea; (iii) Prior to the incident Hanif Khan had found the accused appellant with a rifle and a bayonet butt. The bayonet did not have any sheath or scabbard on it and in this regard an explanation was called from the accused appellant and an entry had been made in the daily Rojnamcha; (iv) When the police personnel after hearing gun shot/shots came to the scene of occurrence, the accused appellant threatened them and said that he will shoot at them; (v) Deceased Hanif Khan died due to gun shoot injuries; and (vi) Empties recovered from the spot were connected with the 303 rifle recovered from the possession of the accused. 21. 21. In this appeal, learned Counsel for the accused appellant submits that learned trial Court fell in serious error of law and facts in recording a finding of guilt against the accused-appellant. It is submitted that the prosecution evidence is full of vital discrepancies and is unreliable in material particulars and hence no conviction could have been based on the basis of the circumstances mentioned above. It is submitted that the circumstances have not been proved by cogent and credible evidence and the circumstances are compatible with the innocence of the accused. It is submitted that the defence of the accused-appellant is highly plausible and it appears that the various police personnel of the police station have indulged in concocting a false case to avoid a charge of coward ship which might have been laid against them and for this reason they could not admit the story put forward by the defence. He has pointed out various infirmities in the prosecution story to which we shall allude to while discussing the evidence of the prosecution. 22. Learned Public Prosecutor very fairly and frankly concedes that the learned trial Judge was right in holding that none of the eye witnesses had seen the accused appellant firing gun shot/shots at deceased Hanif Khan. But, he submits that the leaned trial Judge was eminently justified in holding the accused appellant guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence. He submits that circumstantial evidence can be a good basis for recording a finding of guilt against an accused. About the alleged confession of the accused appellant, he submits that it was rightly held to be inadmissible in evidence because the alleged confession was made before senior Police Officers and hence would not be basis of conviction of the accused-appellant. 23. We have considered the rival contention of the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the learned court below. 24. We have absolutely no hesitation in holding that deceased Hanif Khan did not die a natural death, but was victim of a fatal assault made by gun shot fires. This aspect of the prosecution case is not assailed by learned Counsel for the appellant and rightly so, though we find a serious infirmity in the medical evidence viz. that Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta did not state that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were ante-mortem in nature. This aspect of the prosecution case is not assailed by learned Counsel for the appellant and rightly so, though we find a serious infirmity in the medical evidence viz. that Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta did not state that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were ante-mortem in nature. However, this aspect need not detain us because the deceased did bleed profusely as a result of a gun shot which was received by hi m and died due to such injury. We are constrained to observe that the learned Public Prosecutor of the court below and the learned trial Judge did not exercise sufficient care and caution in eliciting from Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta as to which of the injuries found on the person of the deceased were ante-mortem in nature. 25. This is also an undisputed fact that deceased was posted in G.R.P. Police Station, Kota Junction, Kota, and he met a homicidal death in the premises of the police station. This aspect of the prosecution case has also not been challenged before us by learned Counsel for the appellant and rightly so because there is over-whelming evidence on the record to show that deceased Hanif Khan was found lying in a pool of blood in the premises of police station to be more precise in the door of room No. 1 marked as Ex.P/4, which opened towards the verandah of the police station. 26. First of all we may turn to the ocular evidence placed on record. The prosecution examining Badri Lai (PW-1), Pramod Chancier (PW-3), Roop Singh (PW-4), Nehru Singh PW- 5), Bhairon Lai (PW-6), Ashok Sharma (PW-8), Nawal Kishore (PW-13), Sageer (PW-15), Khalil Khan (PW-18) and Ismile (PW-23) in support of the proposition that the appellant had been seen shooting at the deceased and a bullet from the gun of the appellant hit the deceased. However, none of these witnesses supports the prosecution case on this aspect. The learned trial Court had discussed this evidence and has categorically observed that none of the alleged eye witnesses saw the appellant shooting at the deceased. This finding of the learned trial Court has not been assailed on behalf of the prosecution and rightly so. However, none of these witnesses supports the prosecution case on this aspect. The learned trial Court had discussed this evidence and has categorically observed that none of the alleged eye witnesses saw the appellant shooting at the deceased. This finding of the learned trial Court has not been assailed on behalf of the prosecution and rightly so. Learned counsel for the complainant also could not show any infirmity in this finding of the learned trial Court, hence we need not discuss in details the evidence of these eye witnesses and for the reasons mentioned by the trial Court, with which we are in entire agreement, hold that none of the aforesaid witness had been the appellant shooting at the decreased. 27. The prosecution also tried to lead evidence to the effect that soon after the occurrence the appellant had made an extra judicial confession in front of Balbir Singh (PW- 2), Nehru Singh (PW-5), Bhanwar Singh (PW- 7), Ramavatar (PW-14), Vijai Singh (PW-16). Learned trial Court discarded this evidence on three counts. Firstly, the evidence was discrepant and was not reliable. Secondly, none of these persons were in a position to help the accused appellant in any manner and were not persons in whom the appellant could have confided; thirdly, all these persons were police officers and hence extra judicial confession made before them was inadmissible in evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel for the complainant do not challenge the aforesaid propositions of facts and law and, therefore, we need not discuss this aspectof the matter in any great details. Suffice it to say, that in agreement with the learned trial Judge, we are of the view that the evidence pertaining to extra judicial confession does not inspire confidence, is not credible and is not acceptable in law. 28. The learned trial Court held the prosecution case established on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. Law pertaining to circumstantial evidence is rather well settled. A murder case is like a jig-saw puzzle. Every piece of prosecution evidence must fit in tightly in its right place in the puzzle. If there are any loose pieces, the prosecution story becomes doubtful and might not be accepted. In Sharad Birdhachand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ) , the Apex Court restated the principles governing conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence. If there are any loose pieces, the prosecution story becomes doubtful and might not be accepted. In Sharad Birdhachand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ) , the Apex Court restated the principles governing conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Their Lordships after reviewing the case law on this subject stated that the following conditions must be fulfilled in a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence before the case can be said to be fully established, namely, (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned "must or should" and not merely 'may be' established; (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and lastly-(v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 29. We have to bear in mind the aforesaid principles while discussing the circumstantial evidence adduced in the case. The first piece of circumstantial evidence is that the accused appellant was detailed that day on sentry duties and had been entrusted with a 303 rifle and with ten live cartridges. The testimony of Har Dayal Sharma (PW-12) establishes this fact beyond shadow of doubt that on 28.3.1988 at 6.00 p.m. the charge was handed over of sentry duty to the appellant and at that time a rifle with a bayonet and ten live cartridges were entrusted to the accused-appellant. The statement of Har Dayal is supported by 'daily Rojnamacha report' (Ex.P/13) which is a contemporaneous document signed by Har Dayal as also by accused-appellant. This is true that in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused appellant had denied this fact. The statement of Har Dayal is supported by 'daily Rojnamacha report' (Ex.P/13) which is a contemporaneous document signed by Har Dayal as also by accused-appellant. This is true that in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused appellant had denied this fact. However, learned Counsel for the accused appellant, very fairly and frankly concedes that this fact has been proved beyond any manner of doubt that the accused appellant was in fact entrusted with sentry duties on 29.3.1988 at 6.00 p.m. by Har Dayal and that a rifle bearing butt No.226 with a bayonet and ten live cartridges were handed over to him. We, thus, find that this circumstance has been established beyond doubt. Considering this circumstance by itself, it is a neutral one but does go to establish that accused appellant had an opportunity of using his rifle for commission of crime, in case he did really commit the crime. 30. The next circumstance which has been established beyond doubt is that on the fateful evening deceased Hanif Khan was available in the precincts of the police station and it was on the precincts of the police station that he met his gruesome death. The fact considered in isolation would again be a neutral circumstances and would simply go to show that Hanif Khan died an unnatural death in the precincts of the police station at the time when the accused appellant was on sentry duty. 31. The next circumstances, on which much emphasis has been given by the learned trial Judge as also by the learned Public Prosecutor and also by the learned counsel for the complainant,is thaton 29.3.1998 at about 4-5p.m.an incident took place in which deceased Hanif Khan had engaged in an oral altercation with the accused appellant. We have to see as to what had transpired on that date at 4-5 p.m. In this context we may first of all refer to the testimony of Badri Lai Joshi. According to Badri Lai Joshi (PW-1) Ashok Kumar, Head Mohrir held rollcall at about 5.00 p.m. At that time Shri Hanif Khan was present. Hanif Khan asked all the police personnel present that there should not be any unnecessary gossip in the office at which Ram Prasad retorted that since Hanif Khan had been asking the police personnel to bring tea and water, the police personnel used to sit in the office. Hanif Khan asked all the police personnel present that there should not be any unnecessary gossip in the office at which Ram Prasad retorted that since Hanif Khan had been asking the police personnel to bring tea and water, the police personnel used to sit in the office. He further states that Hanif Khan told him that he never asked the appellant to bring tea or water and in future also he would not do it. The witness further states that at this Ram Prasad said that he would not bring tea in future. The witness states that upon this conversation being made the witness stated that he was also bringing tea and the Head (Head Mohrir) was also bringing tea and, therefore, accused should also bring tea and thereafter the police personnel were discharged.PW-5, Nehru Singh, in his examination- in-chief, has supported this story, PW-8 Ashok Kumar Sharma, has also deposed about this incident. PW-9, Radhey Shyam, has also corroborated this part of the story. PW-10, Shri Ram, has also deposed about this incident. PW- 11, Vijendra Singh, has also deposed about this incident. PW-12, Hardayal Sharma, has also deposed about this incident. PW-13, Nawal Kishore, has also spoken about this incident. With minor variations, all these witnesses are consistent that upon a discussion having taken place at the time of roll-call in which Hanif Khan and Ram Prasad appellant participated, Hanif Khan was impressing upon the police personnel that they should not assemble in the office unnecessarily and gossip there, upon which Ram Prasad stated that the police personnel used to assemble because they were being asked to bring tea or water in the office. However, it does not appear that there was any heated exchange between the deceased and appellant on this count. This evidence also does not show that Ram Prasad had reacted in a manner so as to commit a breach of the discipline. It may be stated that a report Ex. P/8 was lodged in the general diary of the police station in which during such discussion an act of indiscipline was attributed to Virendra Singh and not to the present accused appellant. Therefore, we find that this incident was not of much significance. There is no evidence on record that the accused appellant had reacted even sharply to Hanif Khan. P/8 was lodged in the general diary of the police station in which during such discussion an act of indiscipline was attributed to Virendra Singh and not to the present accused appellant. Therefore, we find that this incident was not of much significance. There is no evidence on record that the accused appellant had reacted even sharply to Hanif Khan. Had it been so then when report Ex.P/8 was recorded in respect of Vijendra Singh, a similar report would have been recorded in respect of accused appellant also. In our opinion, this was not a discussion which would furnish any motive to the accused appellant to go to the extent of killing Hanif Khan. Moreover, some of the witnesses have admitted that this was a general discussion addressed to all the police personnel. We, therefore, do not at tach much importance to this incident, though, the learned trial Court has attached much significance to this incident. Normally the question of motive is immaterial when there is credible ocular evidence to prove the crime. However, the question of motive assumes importance when the case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The motive has to be such which would impel an offender to commit a crime. In the present case we find that so far as accused appellant Ram Prasad was concerned, the incident was of a very trivial nature and Hanif Khan, Sub Inspector, who recover Ex.P/8 did not consider making a similar report against accused appellant Ram Prasad. 32. The learned trial Judge was also impressed by the fact that about 7.00 p.m. that very day an explanation had been called from accused appellant Ram Prasad in respect of the bayonet, not having a frockieon it. A report was made in this regard in the general diary of the police station which is Ex.P/9. This report was made at 7.00 p.m. and was signed by Hanif Khan (deceased). The entire report when read goes to show that Hanif Khan, Sub Inspector, checked the sentry on duty at 7.00 p.m. and he found that the bayonet of his rifle did not have a frockie (sheath). On being interrogated Ram Prasad is said to have stated that he was not given the frockie when the charge was handed over to him by the previous sentry. On being interrogated Ram Prasad is said to have stated that he was not given the frockie when the charge was handed over to him by the previous sentry. The report shows that in this regard Hanif Khan called for an explanation of Head Mohrir about the whereabouts of the frockic and also cal led for an explanation of Ram Prasad. Now, this was also not a matter which would have in any way impelled the accused appellant to go to the extent of committing murder of Hanif Khan. Against it was a trival matter and an explanation was also called for from the Head Mohrir of the police station about the whereabouts of the frockie. The Head Mohrir was directed to obtain explanation of Ram Prasad and submit the same. It does not appear that any explanation of Ram Prasad was taken by the Head Mohrir till the incident took place. It is to be remembered that no incident took place soon after the aforesaid report Ex.P/9 had been made, but :he incident took place much later at about 9.15 p.m. There is no evidence on record to show that because of this report the accused appellant had become sullen or was entertaining a grouse on this ground. This was again a very trivial matter and in our opinion did not furnish adequate and sufficient motive to accused appellant to commit murder of Sub- Inspector, Hanif Khan. 33. The next circumstance upon which strong reliance had been placed by the learned trial Judge as also by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant is that when accused appellant was accosted about the incident, he totted his gun towards the various members of the police force who accosted him in this regard. In this connection, reliance has been placed upon the testimony of Badri Lai Joshi (PW-1), Roop Singh (PW-4), Nehru Singh (PW-5), Bheru Lai (PW-6), Ashok Kumar (PW-8), Nawal Kishore (PW-13). PW-1, Badri Lai, in his examination-in-chief, states that after the roll-call he had gone away to take his dinner in his house. He returned after half an hour and went to check the train known as 19 down. The train was late that day. After taking round of the train he came to the police station and went to his room and sat there. He returned after half an hour and went to check the train known as 19 down. The train was late that day. After taking round of the train he came to the police station and went to his room and sat there. After some time i.e. and about 9.15 p.m., he heard a gun shot being fired in the room of Head Mohrir Ashok Kumar. Before the gun shot was heard, Hanif Khan was sitting in the room on his chair. The Head Mohrir was sitting in his room on his chair. On the bench three constables, namely, Bheru Lai, Nawal Kishore and Nehru Singh were sitting. According to this witness, as soon as the gun shot was heard Hanif Khan started running in the room of Head Mohrir while the other police personnel also ran away. He further states that when he came out of his mom he saw Ram Prasad toting a gun and saw Ram Prasad going towards the back of the room of the Head Mohrir. He states that Ram Prasad then fired a gun shot and at this the witness entered the room of the C.I. Thereafter three gun shots were heard. Thereafter Hanif Khan came in the door of the room of A.S.I. and fell down in a pool of blood. At this the witness went to the lobby. At that time Roop Singh, Driver, was standing in the lobby. This witness claims that he tried to ring up the C.I. Police but could not make a contact. Thereafter he heard one more gun shot. 34. The witness further states that while he was in the lobby, he learnt after some time that the C.I. had come and he had overpowered Ram Prasad with the help of Bhanwar Singh and Balbir Singh (constables) and had taken the gun in his possession. The witness states that he made a written report of the incident and presented it in the police station. He, thereafter, took Hanif Khan in a'thela; alongwith Bhanwar Singh (constable) and Radhey Shyam to M.S.B. Hospital. A careful reading of the testimony of this witness does not show that he saw Ram Prasad aiming a gun at the deceased. According to him, when he heard the gun shot, he saw Ram Prasad tooting the gun and going behind the room of the Head Mohrir. A careful reading of the testimony of this witness does not show that he saw Ram Prasad aiming a gun at the deceased. According to him, when he heard the gun shot, he saw Ram Prasad tooting the gun and going behind the room of the Head Mohrir. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that when the first gun shot was heard, he was sitting in the room of Hanif Khan on the seat of Hanif Khan. He was all alone on that day and Hanif Khan was sitting in the room of Ashok Kumar. He has further stated that gun shots were fired after 15 or 20 minutes of his occupying thechairof Hanif Khan. He has further stated in the cross-examination that when the first shot was heard he was busy with some official work and he came out only after hearing the first gun shot. In cross-examination he reiterates that when he first of all saw Ram Prasad, he saw Ram Prasad going behind the room of Head Mohrir in a hurry and he had seen only back of Ram Prasad. He further admitted that he could not state in what position Ram Prasad was holding the gun. He further states that when he came to the room of Head Moharir Hanif Khan was quite all right but was running here and there in the room. He did not have any conversation with Hanif Khan but himself ran away from that root. In further cross-examination, he states that he heard a gun shot soon after he went to the lobby and thereafter he went to the room of Sub-Inspector and heard two more gun shots being fired from behind the police station and he saw Hanif Khan falling down whereupon he ran away from the police station. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not see Ram Prasad firing the gun at all at Hanif Khan. A careful reading of this evi dence goes to show that this witness did not see the accused appellant tooting the gun but had seen accused appellant running towards behind the police station. 35. PW-4, Roop Singh, has given a different version. According to him, he was sitting on a bench at the fateful time and the accused appellant was on sentry duty at that time. 35. PW-4, Roop Singh, has given a different version. According to him, he was sitting on a bench at the fateful time and the accused appellant was on sentry duty at that time. A gun shot was heard and he saw accused appellant aiming his rifle towards the office of S.M. (most probably the office of the Head Moharir). According to this witness, he went immediately in front of the pillar opposite the lock up and asked Ram Prasad as to what he was doing and at this Ram Prasad reiterated (HAT JAO VARNA GOLI MAR DOONGA). According to him, the accused Appellant went to the side of the police station and this witness ran away from the scene of the occurrence towards bungalow of the Dy. S.P. The testimony of this witness is at variance with the testimony of Badri Lai Joshi (PW-1) who claims to have come immediately out of the room in which he was sitting, after hearing the first gun shot. Roop Singh (PW-4) was admittedly driver to Dy. S.P. of Police. He does not state in what connection he had gone to the police station at that time. In cross-examination he admits that after having run away from the police station, he did not got back to the police station that day. This makes the story of Roop Singh highly unreliable and unworthy of credence. He was a chance witness, who had actually no business at the police station at that particular time, being attached as Driver to the Dy. Superintendent of Police. 36. The next witness on this point is Nehru Singh (PW-5). According to him, he alongwith Nawal Kishore came to the police station at about 8.30 p.m. and both of them went to the Office of the Head Moharir. At that time Ashok Kumar and Shri Ram were sitting in the room of Head Constable. After this witness arrived, Ashok Kumar and Shri Ram went away towards the platform. At that time Ram Prasad was standing at his beat. At about quarter past nine, Ashok Kumar and Bheru Lal came from the side of platform and went to the Office of Head Constable and sat there. This witness at that time went to hand over the key to accused appellant Ram Prasad as both of them were sharing a room. At about quarter past nine, Ashok Kumar and Bheru Lal came from the side of platform and went to the Office of Head Constable and sat there. This witness at that time went to hand over the key to accused appellant Ram Prasad as both of them were sharing a room. This witness goes on to recount that at time Ram Prasad told him he did not have frockie of bayonet and thereafter Hanif Khan had entered a report against him. He admitted that a mistake had been committed. According to his witness after some time Hanif Khan came there and sat in the room facing the main gate and with the back towards the window of the room. All of a sudden a gun shot was heard and everybody was scared. Badri Lai Joshi came out of his room and all the police personnel came out. Badri Lai Joshi came to the office of C.I. to make a telephonic call and meanwhile second gun shot was heard, upon which Ashok Kumar went towards train coming from Baran. The witness states that Ram Prasad was standing on his beat and was holding the gun in his hand. He states that he did not have any discussion with Ram Prasad at that time. He does not support the story of the prosecution, namely, the accused appellant had tooted a gun towards any of the police personnel. This witness was dedared hostile by the prosecution. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the witness which may support the prosecution case of this aspect of the matter. 37. PW-6 Bheru Lal, is the next witness on this aspect of the matter. His statement is to the effect that on 29.3.1988 he was posted as Constable in the police station G.R.P., Kota, At the fateful time Head Moharir was sitting on his chair and this witness alongwith Nawal Kishore and Nehru Singh were also sitting at a bench. All of a sudden a gun shot was heard and they came out of the room immediately having been scared. It is stated that Nawal Kishore asked the sentry (accused appellant) was to what he was doing (Dada Yah Kya Kar Paha Hai). At this, accused appellant replied.(Peeche Hatjao Kuch Nahin Dikh Raha). Thereafter, this witness went away to call C.I. Police who had gone to platform No.1. It is stated that Nawal Kishore asked the sentry (accused appellant) was to what he was doing (Dada Yah Kya Kar Paha Hai). At this, accused appellant replied.(Peeche Hatjao Kuch Nahin Dikh Raha). Thereafter, this witness went away to call C.I. Police who had gone to platform No.1. In further examination, he stated that when all these persons came out he saw that Ram Prasad was pointing the gun towards the room the Head Moharir and where these witnesses came out the gun was aimed towards them. he further stated that the hand of the accused was on the trigger of the gun. The statement of this witness is not in accord with the story given by Badri Lai Joshi, and the story given by Nehru Singh. As stated earlier according to Badri Lai, the accused appellant had been seen going with the gun in a hurry towards the back of the police station. The witness shifted his stand from his earlier statement wherein he stated that when this witness and others came out of the room Nawal Kishore asked the accused appellant (Dada Yah Kya Kar Raha Hai). Upon which the accused appellant stated. (Peeche Hat Jao Kuch Nahin Dikh Raha).Thus, this witness made inconsistent statement and his statement does not inspire confidence. PW-8, Ashok Kumar, is the other witness on this aspect of the matter. According to him, after the roll-call, he had gone out of the police station and returned to the police station at about 9.00 a.m. When he reached the police station, Nawal Kishore and Nehru Singh were sitting on a bench in his room and A.S.I. was also sitting in that room and Ram Prasad was standing on the sentry seat. This witness occupied the chair and after some time Hanif Khan came to the Police Station and occupied a chair in the room of this witness with back towards the window and face towards the gate of the room, namely, towards the south. Soon afterwards a gun shot was heard. Everybody came outand at that time Ram Prasad was standing in position with rifle in his hand and all the persons present tried to apprehend him. Upon which he aimed the rifle towards them and said (Bhag Jao Yahan Se Goli Mar Doonga). Soon afterwards a gun shot was heard. Everybody came outand at that time Ram Prasad was standing in position with rifle in his hand and all the persons present tried to apprehend him. Upon which he aimed the rifle towards them and said (Bhag Jao Yahan Se Goli Mar Doonga). The witness goes on to recount that thereafter he ran away towards the platform No.1 where he met Vijay Singh Shekhawat and informed him of this occurrence. Now this testimony of Ashok Kumar Sharma is not in accord with the testimony of either Badri Lai and Roop Singh or of Nehru Singh or of Bheru Lai. None of these witnesses state that at the time the police personnel came out of their respective rooms, they tried to catch hold of the accused appellant. The F.I.R. also does not state that anything of the manner had taken place. If such an incident would have happened then the F.I.R. would have definitely recited this fact which was lodged by none other than Badri Lai himself. 38. PW-13, Nawal Kishore, is the next witness on this point and he has tried to support the statement of Ashok Kumar. He deposed that at the time of incident Badri Lai was sitting in the room of Second Officer and Ashok Kumar and Bheru Lai had come from the platform to the police station followed by Hanif Khan. After sometime a gun shot was heard upon which all the police personnel came out. Upon this, Naval Kishore asked Ashok Kumar as to what had happened. At that time Ram Prasad was standing in position. Ram Prasad told these persons to run away. Upon this he went to the residence of the S.H.O. which was found locked. Then he went in search of C.I. and thereafter he came back. When he came back, Ram Prasad was in Hawalat and dead body of Hanif Khan had been removed from the police station. In cross-examination, he stated that when he came out, Ram Prasad was standing at a distance of five steps from the main entrance of the police station. He heard the gun shot being fired once more when the was going towards the residence of C. I. Head mi tted that after the first gun shot had been fired and he had started, he had no talk with Ram Prasad. He heard the gun shot being fired once more when the was going towards the residence of C. I. Head mi tted that after the first gun shot had been fired and he had started, he had no talk with Ram Prasad. In further cross-examination, he stated that Ashok Kumar, Nehru Singh and Bheru Lai had come out with him from the Police Station. This witness does not state that any of the police personnel tried to apprehend the accused appellant as claimed by Ashok Kumar. 39. We, therefore, find that the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses is not consistent and is highly discrepant and does not fit in with the prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. which is said to have been lodged promptly. We, therefore, find that this circumstance has not been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 40. One circumstance, which has been pressed into service by the prosecution is that soonafter the occurrence accused appellant was apprehended by the police personnel and his gun had been recovered with one empty in the same and five live cartridges were also recovered from the appellant. At what point of time accused appellant was apprehended is shrouded in mystery. The police personnel who are said to have been present in the police station at the time of the incident, do not claim to have apprehended him then and there and rather admit that they had run away helter-skelter out of fear. All of them exhibited cowardice in discharge of their duty, cowardice which was not expected from police personnel on duty. PW-1, Badri Lai, has stated that after the incident had taken place the came to know that C.I. had reached the police station and Ram Prasad had been apprehended with the help of Bhanwar Singh and Balbir Singh, Constable, and rifle had been taken in possession by the C.I. Ex. P/20 is the arrest memo which was prepared with regard to the arrest of the accused appellant. ltdoesnot describe that C.I. had arrested the accused appellant by overpowering him with the help of the aforesaid two witnesses. It does not even mention their presence at the time of the arrest of the accused appellant. The same is true of the memo prepared about the recovery of the gun. ltdoesnot describe that C.I. had arrested the accused appellant by overpowering him with the help of the aforesaid two witnesses. It does not even mention their presence at the time of the arrest of the accused appellant. The same is true of the memo prepared about the recovery of the gun. PW-7, Bhanwar Singh, has deposed that when he came near the scene of occurrence Ram Prasad was standing on his beat and Balbir Singh caught hold the rifle of Ram Prasad and this witness and the C.I. took away Ram Prasad in the police station. Balbir Singh has deposed that after Dehradoon train had left, he came from platform and met Bhanwar Singh, Constable, on the bridge and enquired about C.I. This witness alongwith Bhanwar Singh were proceeding towards the police station with C.I. When they reached the police station Ram Prasad (appellant) was standing with his rifle and C.I. apprehended him by the collar and this witness caught hold of the rifle of Ram Prasad, appellant. This story does not fit in with the recovery memo Ex.P/19 prepared in respect of the gun. PW-16, Vijay Singh Shekhawat, is the concerned Circle Inspector of Police. He has also given the same story as given by the preceding two witnesses but the story given by him also suffers from the same infirmity and is not supported by the contemporaneous record prepared with regard to the recovery of the gun. Thus, this aspect of the prosecution story does not inspire any confidence. 41. It is trite law that the statement of the accused has to be considered like any other evidence in the case. We have already referred to the statement of the accused given an altogether different version of the incident. PW-3, Pramod Chandra Mishra, who was admittedly lodged in the police lock up, has supported the story given by the accused appellant. This is true that this witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution but merely because he was declared hostile, his testimony cannot be discarded altogether. His statement corroborates the statement of the accused and renders the prosecution story unreliable. 42. There is one more important circumstance which the prosecution has not explained. This is true that this witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution but merely because he was declared hostile, his testimony cannot be discarded altogether. His statement corroborates the statement of the accused and renders the prosecution story unreliable. 42. There is one more important circumstance which the prosecution has not explained. Admittedly, the accused appellant was at the sentry duty in front of the police station and he was in a commanding position to kill Hanif Khan from the place where he was standing. According to the prosecution witnesses the appellant did not fire all the shots at Hanif Khan while he was in such a commanding position but ran behind the police station and other shots were fired while he was behind the police station. the site plan Ex.P/4 does not fit in with the story put forward by the prosecution. No bullet was found in room Nos. 2 and 3, and bullet was found only in the door of Room No.1 which opened on the front of Verandah and on one of the walls of this room. The site plan militates against the theory that the accused appellant could have fired shots from behind the police station and could have shot Hanif Khan at the place he was found lying dead. This goes to show that the prosecution witnesses have not come outwitha truthful version of the incident. 43. At this juncture we may have a look at the medical evidence adduced in this case. Unfortunately, the Doctor, who examined the deceased and conducted the autopsy does not appear to be familiar with the usual terminology which is used in such cases. The witness is admittedly a Pathologist. He has stated that he did work as medical jurist. he does not state how long he worked as medical jurist. We do not know if he had previous experience ol handling medico-legal cases pertaining to gun shot injuries. Neither in this statement before the trial Court nor in the post-mortem report does he state if margins of various alleged gun shot wounds were averted or inverted. He does not state if the wounds were circular or elliptical. We have already pointed out that he did not even care to point out if the wounds were ante-mortem in nature. We have already given a description of the injuries found by Dr. He does not state if the wounds were circular or elliptical. We have already pointed out that he did not even care to point out if the wounds were ante-mortem in nature. We have already given a description of the injuries found by Dr. V.P. Gupta on the person of the deceased. According to the statement of the doctor there were as many as 14 wounds on the body of the deceased. According to him, wound Nos. I and 2 constituted one injury. Wound No .1 being wound of entry whilewound No.2 being wound of exit. Likewise, according to him, wound Nos. 3 and 4 also constituted one injury. Wound No. 3 being wound of entry and wound No. 4 being wound of exit. Dr. V.P. Gupta does not tell us that he used any probe to find out if wound No. 1 communicated with wound No. 2 or for that matter wound No. 3 communicated with wound No. 4. He has not given any data on the basis of which he gave this information. In our opinion, Dr. V.P. Gupta, ought to have used probe to find out if wound No. 1 really communicated with wound No. 2 or not and likewise wound No. 3 really communicated with wound No. 4 or not. In Salim Zia v. State of U.P. (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 391) , their Lordships of the Apex Court took exception to recourse adopted by the doctor regarding examination of gun shot injuries and noticed that probe has not been used to ascertain whether the injuries were communicating injuries or not. Their Lordships opined that in these circumstances the doctor could not be expected to give a categoric opinion about their character merely on the basis of the condition of their margins. In the present case the condition of the margins and their edges had also not been noticed. 44. In Sohrab and Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1972 SC 2020 ) a similar situation obtained and their Lordships observed that no probe was made and nothing was spoken in this regard. In our opinion, Dr. V.P. Gupta has not furnished sufficient material to opine that wound No. 1 communicated with wound No. 2 and wound No. 3 communicated with wound No.4. The same is true with respect to injury Nos. 5 and 6, which according to Dr. In our opinion, Dr. V.P. Gupta has not furnished sufficient material to opine that wound No. 1 communicated with wound No. 2 and wound No. 3 communicated with wound No.4. The same is true with respect to injury Nos. 5 and 6, which according to Dr. V.P. Gupta, were exit and entry wounds. 45. Dr. V.P. Gupta further opined that injury Nos. 7,8,9 and 10 were caused by one gun shot. No data has been furnished in this regard. Wound No. 5 was on the upper side of the right forearm with a fracture of the humerus bone. Wound No. 8 was on epigastric region from which intestines were coming out. Wound No. 9 was on the palm of the left hand near the small finger, while wound No.10 was a wound in the centre of the palm from which a bullet piece had been recovered. 46. We may state that when a medical expert gives his opinion, he must furnish necessary data on which the opinion is based. Opinion without such data is meaningless. Dr. V.P. Gupta has stated that in his post-mortem note he has stated that injury Nos. 7,8,9 and 10 were caused by one single shot. Neither the postmortem report nor his sworn testimony in the Court furnishes any data in this regard, and hence it is difficult to accept the story that wound Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 were caused by one shot. Dr. V.P. Gupta has not cared to specify the situation or the position in which all these gun shot wounds would have been caused by one gun shot. With regard to injury No. 14, the Doctor was not at all clear and admitted this fact. He stated that injury Nos. 13 and 14 could have been caused by some blunt object and it was difficult to say that if they had been caused by any gun shot or not. When it is so, it is difficult to connect the accused appellant with the present crime. he had at best used only five shorts or five cartridges out of which one shot was blank. According to the prosecution case after first shot having been fired, Hanif Khan was seen running in the room without any injury. When it is so, it is difficult to connect the accused appellant with the present crime. he had at best used only five shorts or five cartridges out of which one shot was blank. According to the prosecution case after first shot having been fired, Hanif Khan was seen running in the room without any injury. According to the prosecution, three shots were fired from behind the police station and they could not have hit the deceased looking to the situation of the police station and the room in which Hanif Khan was found dead lying in pool of blood. We, therefore, find that medical evidence does not at all help the prosecution. 47. One circumstance which was used against the accused appellant was that the gun and the empties recovered from the spot was subjected to ballistic-examination in the State Forensic Science Laboratory. The bullet pieces were also subjected to such examination. We have gone through the report Ex.P.54 in this regard. The report is not at all conclusive. True that empties were shown to have been fired from rifle recovered from the accused appellant but the bullet/bullet-pieces could not be linked at all conclusively. The circumstance is consistent with the version of the story given by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. 48. Learned Counsel for the complainant vehemently urged that medical evidence was not required to fully corroborate the ocular evidence and only some corroboration was sufficient. In this connection he relied upon Raj Saheb & Ors. v. State of Haryana [1993(1) Crimes 9971 . In that case the evidence of the eye-witnesses was found to be wholly sufficient and trustworthy and the medical evidence was found to support the same. There was no conflict in the medical evidence and the ocular evidence. Only difference was with regard to the fact as to how many gun shots had been fired. Hence it was held that there was nothing in the testimony of the doctor which might militate against the ocular evidence. This ruling is not of any help to the prosecution because in the present case there is no reliable ocular evidence showing that the accused appellant had been seen firing the gun at the deceased and the gun shot fired from the gun of the appellant had hit the deceased. This ruling is not of any help to the prosecution because in the present case there is no reliable ocular evidence showing that the accused appellant had been seen firing the gun at the deceased and the gun shot fired from the gun of the appellant had hit the deceased. We have already demonstrated that the evidence of the doctor in this case was wholly shaky. In Mani Ram's case [1993 (Suppl.) 3 SCC 18] upon which reliance has been placed, the widow had appeared as a witness and stated that Mani Ram appellant had fired three or four shots after he had fired the first shot at her husband. At this trial she, however, could not state exactly as to how many shots had been fired by the appellant from his pistol. She categorically attributed the gun shot injuries to the appellant. It was found that the recovered empties had been fired from the pistol of the appellant and in these circumstances it was held that it lent sufficient corroboration to her testimony. To our mind, this precedent has no application to the facts of the present case. 49. In Prem Chand & Anr. v. State of U.P. [1993 (3) Crimes 363] there were four eye witnesses of occurrence. Their evidence was found to be reliable. It was further corroborated by the medical evidence. There also the discrepancy was how many times each of the appellants had fired but this fact was not found of any significance. The present case is quite different on facts and, therefore, we find that this ruling also does not afford any assistance to the prosecution. 50. Having conspectus of the entire circumstance of the case, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that it was the accused appellant who had fired gun shots at the deceased and had killed him. 51. We may state that an accused is not required to prove his defence to the hilt, but is only required to probablise his case. The case of the appellant was that certain persons with muffled faces attacked the police station with firearms and the police personnel ran helter and skelter and he after firing the first shot ran behind the police station and from behind the police station some more gun shots were fired. The case of the appellant was that certain persons with muffled faces attacked the police station with firearms and the police personnel ran helter and skelter and he after firing the first shot ran behind the police station and from behind the police station some more gun shots were fired. This is true that the police personnel present at the police station have not admitted this story. To our mind, it is idle to expect that they would admit such a story, even if true because this would expose them one and all to a charge of cowardice. 52. A very surprising feature of the case is that even though the incident had taken place on the night of 29.3.1988, the site was not inspected on that very night nor the place was kept under guard nor it was sealed. Admittedly the recoveries were made only next day. When no precautions had been taken to seal the police station or to keep it out of bounds to all and sundry, then the recoveries made on the spot do not inspire confidence. 53. Learned Counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently urged that if unknown persons would have attacked the police station and had fired gun shots, the empties other than those which enamated from the rifle of accused appellant should have been found on the scene of the occurrence. In our opinion, not keeping the police station under proper security was fatal in this case. If there were any empties on the spot fired from the weapons other than that of appellant, they would have been easily removed from the police station because that would have afforded strong evidence regarding a charge of cowardice against the police personnel present at the police station. 54. We may state that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond doubt and it has to prove that the occurrence must have taken place in the way it is suggested by the prosecution. It is not sufficient to show that the occurrence might have taken place in that manner. There is a good deal of distance to be travelled between the two points 'must have committed' and 'may have committed'. The prosecution has failed to travel this distance in this case. We do not mean to say that the accu sed appellant might not have killed the deceased. There is a good deal of distance to be travelled between the two points 'must have committed' and 'may have committed'. The prosecution has failed to travel this distance in this case. We do not mean to say that the accu sed appellant might not have killed the deceased. May be, he might have committed this murder but this will not entitle us to sustain the conviction of the accused appellant recorded by the learned trial Judge in the absence of cogent and clinching evidence to show that it was he who had perpetrated this crime. There is a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused. He is entitled to the benefit of this doubt. 55. When charge under Section 302, IPC fails, the charges under the other Sections also fail because the possibility is that accused appellant might have fired the gun to scare away the assailants who, according to him, had attacked the police station. This possibility cannot be ruled out altogether. 56. In the aforesaid premises, we accept the appeal, set aside the judgmentof the learned trial Judge and set aside the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 and 333 of the IPC, and 27 of the Arms Act, and acquit him of the said charges by giving him benefit of doubt. The accused appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal accepted. *******