Judgment P. C. JAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Addi. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dated 15-3-1991 whereby the learned Addi. Sessions Judge has held the accused-appellants Taransingh and Mahanga Singh guilty of the offences under Ss. 302 I. P. C. and 27 of the Arms Act; and 302/34 I. P. C. respectively and has sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment for the offences under Ss. 302 and 302/34 I. P. C. respectively. The accused-appellant Taransingh has also been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under S. 27 of the Arms Act. ( 2 ) THE learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hanumangarh vide his order dated 19-9-1988 committed the accused-appellants Taransingh and Mahangasingh and 13 other co-accused to stand trial before the court of learned Addi. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh for the offences under Ss. 302, 302/149 and 148 I. P. C. and 5. 27 of the Arms Act. It is alleged that Panchayat elections took place on 5-6-1988 in village T. B. and in those elections, Rajendrasingh, Sahibsingh and Mohansingh contested the election for the office of Sarpanch. Rajendrasingh was duly elected as Sarpanch of Village T. B. ( 3 ) IT is alleged that P. W. 1 Vijaypal, his maternal uncle Jainarain, P. W. 2 Dayaram and deceased Mohansingh supported the candidature of Sahibsingh. Surrendrasingh supported Rajendrasingh. Accused Taransingh is the brother-in-law of Mohansingh, who contested the election for the office of sarpanch of Village T. B. Accused Mahangasingh is the son of Mohansingh. Those elections created bad blood between the accused-party on the one hand and Mohansingh, Surendrasingh, Mahaveersingh, Vijaypal and Dayaram on the other hand. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the first informant P. W. 1 Vijaypal, he came to village T. B. for participating in the canvassing of the above elections. On 10-6-1988, a dispute took place between Surendrasingh and Gopal Pandit. Surendrasingh was not allowing Gopal Pandit and others to close the shutters of the shop and in that fray, Gopal Pandit gave a fist blow to Surrendrasingh, as a result of which he fell down and became injured. However, Surendrasingh got up and left the place of the occurrence for hospital. Surendrasingh was not allowing Gopal Pandit and others to close the shutters of the shop and in that fray, Gopal Pandit gave a fist blow to Surrendrasingh, as a result of which he fell down and became injured. However, Surendrasingh got up and left the place of the occurrence for hospital. It appears that he was admitted in the Hospital for treatment and at the instance of Surrendrasingh, a criminal case was registered by the Police against the assailants of Sure n d ra sing h. ( 5 ) WHEN P. W. 1 Vijaypal came to know about this incident, he went to the Hospital to enquire about Surendrasingh. He reached there at about 9-00 P. M. At that time, Mahaveersingh and his brother P. W. 2 Dayaram were already sitting there. Mahaveersingh, Dayaram and Vijaypal remained with Surendrasingh upto 11. 30 P. M. At that time, Surendrasingh was unconscious. It is alleged that at about 11. 30 P. M. , Mahaveersingh, Vijaypal and Dayaram left the Hospital together and then they reached Chowk Bazar near the bus stand and saw that one Jeep and one Tractor were parking there. Accused Taransingh, Mahangasingh and an unidentified person were sitting in the Jeep and 10 or 12 persons were sitting in the tractor trolly and all of them were armed with different weapons. They were abusing Surendrasingh by name. ( 6 ) ON hearing abusive language against Surendrasingh, deceased Mahaveersingh went near accused Taransingh and told him that elections were over and they must forget all things and live peacefully. Thereupon, accused Mahangasingh told accused Taransingh that brother of Surendrasingh had come and it was time to take revenge. Mahangasingh exhorted Taransingh to fire at Mahaveersingh. Taransingh took up his 12 bore gun and aimed at Mahaveersingh. Mahaveersingh became apprehensive and ran for his life but accused Taransingh fired his gun at Mahaveersingh. Mahaveersingh sustained injuries on his scapular region from behind and fell down at place AT, as shown in the site plan Ex. P. 2. Accused Taransingh was stand. ng at place TET. Mahaveersingh and Taransingh were at place C. Taransingh fired his rifle while standing at place E. Thus, according to the Prosecution, accused Taransingh fired the rifle at Mahaveersingh from a distance of about 4 feet. P. 2. Accused Taransingh was stand. ng at place TET. Mahaveersingh and Taransingh were at place C. Taransingh fired his rifle while standing at place E. Thus, according to the Prosecution, accused Taransingh fired the rifle at Mahaveersingh from a distance of about 4 feet. Thereafter, accused Taransingh, Mahangasingh and an unidentified person left the place of the occurrence in the above Jeep and the other co-accused sitting in the Tractortrolly also followed that Jeep. ( 7 ) AFTER the accused-persons left the place of the occurrence, P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram went near Mahaveersingh and Vijaypal lifted Mahaveersingh on his shoulders. P. W. 2 Dayaram also helped in carrying Mahaveersingh to the Hospital which was at a distance of about 200 feets from the place of the currence, when they reached the hospital, the Doctor came and examined Mahaveersingh and declared him to be dead. ( 8 ) P. W. 1 Vijaypal then left for the police station T. B. to lodge the F. I. R. of the above incident. The F. I. R. was lodged by P. W. 1 Vijaypal at police station T. B. on 11-6-1988 at 12. 40 A. M. The distance between the place of the occurrence and the police station is about 3 furlong. ( 9 ) ON receipt of this report, the police registered a case under Sec. 302 I. P. C. and rushed to the place of the occurrence in the night but the site plan, site inspection memo and other documents were prepared in the following morning. The police also recovered one cushion wad and one plastic wad vide Memo Ex. p. 14. These articles were also sealed. The police collected blood stained soil and controlled soil vide Memos Ex. p. 15 and 16 and sealed them. The Inquest Memo was also prepared on the same day. However, it was concluded that Mahaveersingh died as a result of injuries caused by fire-arm. ( 10 ) THE clothes found on the dead body of Mahaveersingh were also seized vide Memo Ex. P. 18. It is important to mention here that the Investigating Officer also found a Gandasi at the site of the occurrence, which was seized vide Memo Ex. p. 19. Thereafter, accused-persons were arrested. Accused Taransingh also produced a 12 bore gun which was seized and sealed vide memo Ex. P. 21. P. 18. It is important to mention here that the Investigating Officer also found a Gandasi at the site of the occurrence, which was seized vide Memo Ex. p. 19. Thereafter, accused-persons were arrested. Accused Taransingh also produced a 12 bore gun which was seized and sealed vide memo Ex. P. 21. The Investigating Officer sent that 12 bore D. B. B. L. recovered from accused Taransingh alongwith two wads recovered from the place of the occurrence in the sealed condition to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. According to the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. P. 33, the examination of the barrels residues indicated that the above rifle had been fired. However, definite time of the last fire could not be ascertained. The wads and lead pellets were found to be normally used in 12 bore ammunition and could have been fired from the rifle/gun. The blood stained clothes of the deceased on examination were found to be stained with blood though the group of blood could not be ascertained as the articles were found to be disintegrated. The ballastic expert also found that the holes present on the back portion of the Baniyan and shirt appear to have been caused by lead shots as lead metal was detected on the periphery of these holes. The report of Ballastic Expert of Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur is Ex. p. 32. ( 11 ) THE postmortem examination of the dead body of Mahaveersingh was got conducted by P. W. 6 Dr. Devilal on 116-1988 on the requisition of the police. The dead body was identified by Jainarain. The Medical Officer found that the injuries received by Mahaveersingh were caused by fire-arm and there were 26 injuries caused by the entry of pellets. According to the Doctor, Mahaveersingh died as a result of the fire-arm injuries. ( 12 ) AFTER collecting the above incriminating evidence against the accusedpersons, the police filed a challan before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hanumangarh who committed the accused-persons to stand the trial before the court of the learned Addi. Sessions Judge No. I, Hanumangarh as stated above. The learned Addi. Sessions Judge framed the charges under Ss. 302 and 148 I. P. C. and under 5. 27 of the Arms Act against accused-appellant Taransingh and the remaining accused-persons were charged with the offences under Ss. 148, 302 read with 5. Sessions Judge No. I, Hanumangarh as stated above. The learned Addi. Sessions Judge framed the charges under Ss. 302 and 148 I. P. C. and under 5. 27 of the Arms Act against accused-appellant Taransingh and the remaining accused-persons were charged with the offences under Ss. 148, 302 read with 5. 149 I. P. C. The plea of the accused persons was recorded and they pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. ( 13 ) THE prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the accused-persons were recorded under S. 313 Cr. P. C. The accused-persons denied the prosecution case. They did not produce any evidence in their defence. ( 14 ) AFTER analysing the prosecution evidence, the learned Addi. Sessions Judge held the accused- appellant Taransingh and Mahangasingh guilty of the offences stated hereinabove. However, the remaining accused-persons were acquitted of the offences with which they were charged. ( 15 ) WE have heard M/s. M. L. Garg and M. K. Garg for the accused-appellants and Mrs. Chandralekha, the learned Pub. lic Prosecutor appearing for the State and have carefully gone through the record of the case. ( 16 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants have vehemently challenged the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. They have contended that the learned trial court did not consider the glaring infirmities in the prosecution case. It has also failed to consider the probable defence alleged by the accused-appellants. According to them, the F. I. R. of this incident is alleged to have been lodged by P. W. 1 Vijaypal on 11-6-1988 at 12. 40 A. M. at police station T. B. However, this report did not reach the concerned Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh forthwith. It has been next contended that from the prosecution evidence, it appears that P. W. 1 Vijaypal and PW. 2 Dayaram and Mahaveersingh remained with injured Surendrasingh for about 3 hours i. e. from 9 P. M. to 12. 00 P. M. P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram have stated that Surendrasingh was not conscious during the whole period when they stayed with him. They even pleaded ignorance how Surendrasingh was injured. It is surprising that there was no other person available with Surendrasingh except these three persons when he was unconscious. Mr. 00 P. M. P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram have stated that Surendrasingh was not conscious during the whole period when they stayed with him. They even pleaded ignorance how Surendrasingh was injured. It is surprising that there was no other person available with Surendrasingh except these three persons when he was unconscious. Mr. Garg has contended that in fact this occurrence did not take place in the manner alleged by P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram. According to Mr. Garg, these two witnesses have stated that when they left Surendrasingh and reached Chowk Bazar, they found two vehicles i. e. the Jeep and one Tractor trolly stationed there. They identified accused Taransingh and Mahangasingh who were sitting in the Jeep but they could not identify the third person who was sitting in the Jeep. There were some 10 or 12 persons sitting in the Tractor-trolly armed with different weapons. These two witnesses have further stated that when they reached there, these persons sitting in the Jeep and the Tractor-trolly were abusing Surendrasingh. Mr. Garg has submitted that when Surendrasingh was not there and these witnesses also reached later on then why the accused-persons were abusing Surendrasingh. Mr. Garg has next contended that P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram have stated that accused Taransingh fired at Mahaveersingh from a distance of about 4 to 6 feets. According to him, the prosecution has concocted this case in view of the postmortem report prepared by P. W. 6 Dr. Devilal who found that the injuries were having black marks in their vessels. However, P. W. 8 Dr. Premsagar Manocha has stated that the distance between the assailants and Mahaveersingh was not less than 12 feets and the blpckening was perhaps due to rubbing of carbon. Mr. Garg has therefore submitted that the prosecution story is false that accused Taransingh fired from the distance of 4 to 6 feets only. According to Mr. Garg, it is surprising that these two witnesses viz. , P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram did not stain their clothes even when they removed the body of Mahaveersingh from the place of the occurrence to the Hospital when Mahaveersingh was bleeding profusely as a result of sustaining pellet injuries. Mr. According to Mr. Garg, it is surprising that these two witnesses viz. , P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram did not stain their clothes even when they removed the body of Mahaveersingh from the place of the occurrence to the Hospital when Mahaveersingh was bleeding profusely as a result of sustaining pellet injuries. Mr. Garg has submitted that in this case, the F. I. R. was prepared in the following morning after the police inspected the site and decided in what manner, the case was to be concocted and that is the reason that the Inquest report is bereft of the details of the incident. It was submitted that the defence version of the accused-appellants was that Surendrasingh was injured by Om Prakash, Satyanarain and Surajbhan and in order to take revenge, Mahaveersingh armed with a Gandasi accompanied by his companions reached the shop of Om Prakash Satyanarain. Sensing danger Om Prakash and Satyanarain put down the shutters of the western side of the shop but it remained half open. Surajbhan was inside the shop. When Safi Mohd. , one of the companions of Mahaveersingh, who was armed with a gun, saw that the western shutters were half open, he fired the gun intending to cause injuries to the persons inside the shop but the pellets accidently hit Mahaveersingh from behind and he fell down on the Thara in front of the shop. Mr. Garg has submitted that the Investigating Officer also seized a Gandasi from the place of the occurrence but the prosecution has failed to offer any explanation as to how this Gandasi was found there. He has further submitted that it is surprising that after these two major incidents, no person of the vicinity came there. According to Mr. Garg, P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram are the star witnesses of the prosecution but they are relatives of Mahaveersingh. In fact P. W. 2 Dayaram is the real brother of Mahaveersingh and hence the testimony of these two witnesses is unreliable. ( 17 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned Addi. Sessions Judge. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, since the occurrence took place after 12 Oclock in the night, there was no likelihood that the persons of the vicinity could gather at the place of the occurrence. ( 17 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned Addi. Sessions Judge. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, since the occurrence took place after 12 Oclock in the night, there was no likelihood that the persons of the vicinity could gather at the place of the occurrence. The F. I. R. was lodged immediately and it also reached the concerned Magistrate within reasonable time. Since the Inquest proceedings are taken in order to ascertain the cause of death, the prosecution version of the incident does not find place in the inquest report. This is also be requirement of law. Regarding the distance between the assailants and the victim at the time of fire, it was submitted that the witnesses have stated on the basis of the estimation and therefore, on this ground their testimony cannot be said to be unreliable. The statements of P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram are straight forward, consistent and reliable. Their testimony has been. corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 3 Sohanlal and P. W. 4 Prithviraj. We have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have perused the evidence on record. ( 18 ) IT has not been disputed that Mahaveersingh died as a result of sustaining injuries caused by pellets fired from a gun. P. W. 6 Devilal has conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Mahaveersingh and according to him, Mahaveersingh died as a result of sustaining fire arm injuries. Hence we have no hesitation in holding that the death of Mahaveersingh was homicidal. P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram have stated that on 10-6-1988, they went to enquire about the health of Surendrasingh who was admitted in the Hospital on account of sustaining pellet injuries. They reached the Hospital at about 9. 00 P. M. Mahaveersingh was also present there. They have also stated that when they reached the Hospital, Surendrasingh was unconscious and perhaps he was under drug sedation. According to these two witnesses, Surender Singh remained unconscious throughout their stay in the Hospital. P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram left the Hospital at about 12. 00 P. M. Mahaveersingh was also present there. They have also stated that when they reached the Hospital, Surendrasingh was unconscious and perhaps he was under drug sedation. According to these two witnesses, Surender Singh remained unconscious throughout their stay in the Hospital. P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram left the Hospital at about 12. 00 in the night and when they reached Chowk Bazar, they saw that one Jeep and one Tractor Trolly were standing there and accused Taransingh, Mahangasingh and one unidentified man were sitting in the Jeep and 10 or 12 persons armed with different weapons were sitting in the Tractor trolly. When they reached near these vehicles, they heard that the accusedpersons were abusing Surendra Singh by name. In order to pacify them, Mahaveer Singh went to Taran Singh and told him that since the elections were over, no bitterness must subsist. On this Mahanga Singh became furious and told Taran Singh that P. W. 1 Vijaypal is the brother of Surendra Singh and exhorted him to kill him. Thereupon, accused Taransingh lifted the gun and aimed at Mahaveer Singh. To ward off that attack, Mahaveer Singh turned but the pellets fired from the gun hit him from behind and he fell down in front of the shop of am Prakash Satyanarain on the Thada. Thereafter, all the accused-persons left the place of the occurrence. P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram have stated that after the accused-persons left the place of the occurrence, they went near the injured and shifted him to the Hospital. Mahaveer Singh was unconscious and his wounds were bleeding profusely. When they consulted the Doctor, he announced that Mahaveer Singh was dead. Vijaypal immediately left the Hospital and went to the Police Station and lodged the F. I. R. Both these witnesses have stated that their clothes were not stained with blood though even they physically lifted Mahaveer Singh and shifted him to the Hospital. P. W. 1 Vijaypal has stated that he did not know as to who assault. Surendra Singh but P. W. 2 Dayaram has alleged that Surendra Singh was assaulted by Om Prakash, Satya Narain and Gopal Pandit. P. W. 1 Vijaypal has stated that he did not know as to who assault. Surendra Singh but P. W. 2 Dayaram has alleged that Surendra Singh was assaulted by Om Prakash, Satya Narain and Gopal Pandit. Both these witnesses have denied the prosecution suggestions that they were not present at the time when Mahaveer Singh was shot; that in order to take revenge of the assault of Surendra Singh, Mahaveer Singh summoned his companions and encircled the shop of am Prakash Satyanarain; that western shutters of the shop were half open and there was light in the shop; that Mahaveer Singh was armed with a Gandasi; and that one of the companions of Mahaveer Singh viz. Safi Mohd. fired the gun in order to hit the inmates of shop which accidentally hit Mahaveer Singh on the back and scapular region and as a result of that Mahaveer Singh fell down on the Thada in front of the shop of am Prakash Satyanarain after sustaining the above injuries. P. W. 3 Sohanlal has stated that when he heard that Surendra Baniwal and Gopal Pandit fought with each other at the bus stand, he went towards the bus stand along with P. W. 4 Prithvi Raj at about 11. 30 P. M. on the date of the occurrence and saw a Jeep and a tractor-trolly belonging to Mohan Singh coming towards the bus-stand. He also heard a shot being fired. Thereupon, he and Prithvi went towards the bus stand and saw the Jeep and tractor trolly proceeding towards Hanumangarh. He has also stated that accused Taran Singh was armed with a gun. He has also named other persons. The statement of P. W. 4 Prithviraj is more or less identical with the statement of P. W. 3 Sohan Ia I. ( 19 ) AFTER a careful and cautious assessment of the prosecution evidence and the surrounding circumstances of the case, we find the testimony of P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. Ii Dayaram untrustworthy. The learned trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective and completely ignored the defence version of the incident, which was suggested during the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses and also unfolded during the statements of the accused- persons under 5. 313 Cr. The learned trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective and completely ignored the defence version of the incident, which was suggested during the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses and also unfolded during the statements of the accused- persons under 5. 313 Cr. P. C. P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram are not telling the truth when they state that they did not know now Surendra Singh was assaulted. P. W. 2 Dayaram, however, made a slight disclosure when he stated that Surendra Singh was assaulted by Om Prakash and Satyanarain. Since Surendra Singh was closely related to them, it is impossible that they did not know how Surendra Singh was injured or who were his assailants. Their version is that Surendra Singh remained unconscious from 9-00 P. M. to 12-00 P. M. and there was no other person present in the room. It is not probable that when Surendra Singh was admitted in the Hospital and was unconscious, he was not being attended to by the Medical Officer or the Nursing staff. This testimony of these two witnesses is fully falsified by the statement of P. W. 7 Richhpal Singh, who has categorically stated that he went to Surendra Singh in the Hospital at about 9. 00 P. M. in order to interrogate him because he was assaulted by Gopal Pandit and others. He recorded his statement and then left the Hospital at about 9. 15 P. M. The arrival of P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram was almost at the same time. Mahaveer Singh was present there from before. Hence the statement of these two witnesses that Surendra Singh was unconscious is false. It appears that this version has been resorted in order to eliminate the presence of any other witness. It also appears to be improbable that accused persons were abusing Surendra Singh in the Chowk Bazar where neither Surendra Singh nor Dayaram was present. The prosecution has also failed to explain as to why these accused-persons had assembled at that particular place armed with different weapons. Had the accused-persons wanted to assault Mahaveer Singh, Dayaram or Vijaypal, they could have done so without any difficulty by attacking them in the Hospital itself particularly when there was none to defend them. The prosecution has also failed to explain as to why these accused-persons had assembled at that particular place armed with different weapons. Had the accused-persons wanted to assault Mahaveer Singh, Dayaram or Vijaypal, they could have done so without any difficulty by attacking them in the Hospital itself particularly when there was none to defend them. It is also intriguing that the clothes of P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram were not stained with blood when they physically lifted and shifted Mahaveer Singh to the Hospital. As per the postmortem report, Mahaveer Singh sustained 32 pellet injuries and the pellets hit him on the back and scapular region. His wounds must be bleeding profusely and the blood might not have stopped when he was lifted by these two persons for being shifted to the Hospital. This is a very important and eloquent circumstance which provides a positive check for judging the version of these two witnesses. Both these witnesses remained in the Hospital for about half an is not far from the place of the occurrence. The Investigating Officer admitted recovered a Gandasi found lying in front of the shop of am Prakash Satyanarain. The prosecution has not offered any explanation worth the name as to who left the Gandasi and what was its importance in the chain of events in the present case. ( 20 ) THE defence version is probabilised by the fact that Mahaveer Singh after sustaining the pellet injuries fell down not on the road but on the Thada in front of the shop of am Prakash Satyanarain. If he would have been hit by the accused Taran Singh while standing on the road, he would not have fallen on the Thada. This suggests the possibility that Mahaveer Singh was hit while he was standing on the Thada and the impact of the pellet was so overpowering that he fell down at the same place. In our opinion, there is a doubt as to whether the occurrence took place at the site suggested by P. W. 1 Vijaypaland P. W. 2 Dayaram. ( 21 ) IN this case, an application was also moved by the accused-persons to the Director General of Police that Mahaveer Singh was hit by the shots fired by Safi Mohd. P. W. 7 Richpal Singh, S. H. O. has admitted this fact. ( 21 ) IN this case, an application was also moved by the accused-persons to the Director General of Police that Mahaveer Singh was hit by the shots fired by Safi Mohd. P. W. 7 Richpal Singh, S. H. O. has admitted this fact. However, he is silent about the fact whether any investigation was made in the light of the allegation made by accused-persons. P. W. 1 Vijaypal had admitted that the occurrence took place near the western gate of the shop and that at the time when Mahaveer Singh was hit by pellets, western shutters of the shop were half open. There was no change in the situation even when the site was inspected by the police. He further admitted that Mahaveer Singh fell down at a distance of 6 or 7 inches from the western shutters of the shop on the Thada in front of the shop. P. W. 1 Vijaypal has further stated that after being hit by the pellets, Mahaveer Singh could not move and fell down. There was light inside the shop but he does not know whether there was somebody inside or not. Since the shutters of the shop were half open and there was light inside the shop, it can reasonably be presumed that there was somebody inside the shop and it is surprising that the witnesses never tried to find out whether there was any occupant in the shop or not? ( 22 ) P. W. 1 Vijaypal also made a very important admission in his cross-examination that the police interrogated hill) with regard to the allegation that whether Mahaveer Singh was hit by Safi Mohd. There is also a material contradiction in the statements of these two witnesses viz. , P. W. 1 Vijaypal and P. W. 2 Dayaram. In the court, both these witnesses alleged that Mahangasin9h instigated accused Taran Singh to fire at Mahayeer Singh but the police statements of these two witnesses do not contain any such allegation. P. W. 2 Dayaram also made a significant statement that when Mahaveer Singh was hit, he was not standing on the road but on the Thada of the shop of am Prakash Satyanarain. This statement also probablises the defence version that when Mahaveer Singh wcls hit he was standing on the Thada of the shop of am Prakash Satyanarain. P. W. 2 Dayaram also made a significant statement that when Mahaveer Singh was hit, he was not standing on the road but on the Thada of the shop of am Prakash Satyanarain. This statement also probablises the defence version that when Mahaveer Singh wcls hit he was standing on the Thada of the shop of am Prakash Satyanarain. Since a Gandasi was found at the place of the occurrence, it can be presumed that this weapon was possessed by Mahaveer Singh. ( 23 ) THE Investigating Officer P. W. 7 Richpal Singh has admitted that this case was investigated by Rameshwar Singh, Addi. S. P. , Liyakat Khan, Dy. S. P. and two other Inspectors. It appears that the dice was also investigating the case on he theory that perhaps Mahaveer Singh was hit by the shots fired by Safi Mohd. ( 24 ) THE learned counsel appearing or the accused-appellants has also urged hat on 20-8-1988, the Investigating Officer interrogated Dayaram and stated in he case diary: SVAM DWARA DEAD BODY KO ASPTAL LE JANA VA M. O. DWARA DEAD GHOSHIT KARNA BTAYA AADI AADI KATHAN AN KIT KIYE JAKAR SHAMIL PHAYIL KIYA. From the above note, it is clear that the statement of P. W. 2 Dayaram under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. was also recorded by the Investigating Officer on 20-8-1988 but no copy of it was supplied to the accused persons despite a categorical case being made on behalf of the accused-persons. The accused-persons are entitled to have copies of previous statements made by the witnesses during investigation under Sec. 162 Cr. P. C. and violation of this mandatory provisions renders the trial vitiated as valuable right conferred by Sec. 164 Cr. P. C. is impaired. However, in Narayan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it has been held that non-compliance to the provision of Sec. 173 (5) Cr. P. C. has not the result of vitiating the trial. Hence the provisions relating to the supply of copies is undoubtedly of great importance. but the impact thereof must be considered in the light of the prejudice caused to the accused by such breach. In the instant case, since the accused-persons agitated the point that Mahaveer Singh was in fact hit by the shots fired by Safi Mohd. Hence the provisions relating to the supply of copies is undoubtedly of great importance. but the impact thereof must be considered in the light of the prejudice caused to the accused by such breach. In the instant case, since the accused-persons agitated the point that Mahaveer Singh was in fact hit by the shots fired by Safi Mohd. , the omission to supply the copies of the above statements assumes importance and has greatly prejudiced the case of the accused-persons. ( 25 ) THE upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has not been able to prove the offences alleged against the accused-appellants beyond doubt. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Addi. Sessions Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh dated 15-3-1991 convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants for the offences under Sees. 302, 302/34 I. P. C. and 27 of the Arms Act and acquit them of the aforesaid offences. The accused-appellant Mahanga Singh is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds, if his detention is not required in any other case. Accused-Appellant Taran Singh is in custody. He be released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. Let the record of this case be sent back to the learned trial court forthwith. Appeal allowed