JUDGMENT 1. - 1. Manjeet Singh, Sukhvendra Singh, Malkiyat Singh, Maggha Singh and Jang Singh were committed to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge Raisinghnagar by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Anupgarh. Manjeet Singh who appellant in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 246/92 was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 148 I.RC. as well as for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Sukhvendra Singh, Malkiyat Singh, Maggha Singh alias Trilok Singh were tried for offences punishable under Sections 148/302 read with Section 149 I.PC. Jang Singh was tried for the offence punishable under Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act. Manjeet Singh was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.RC. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a find of Rs. 200/- for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the India Arms Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in default of payment of fine. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Raisinghnagar Manjeet Singh has filed the Criminal Appeal No. 246/92. 2. Sukhvendra Singh Malkiyat Singh Maggah Singh alias Trilok Singh and Jang Singh were found not guilty of the charges framed against them and in consequence they were acquitted. The State has filed the D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 383/92 against the acquittal. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 5.5.1988 at about 7 RM. Jitendra Singh son of Devendra Singh was taking his meals at his house. His father Devendra Singh and his sister Surendra Kaur were also present at the house. At that time Maggha Singh went to the house of Devendra Singh and called Jitendra Singh. Jitendra Singh then went outside the house. His father Devendra Singh followed him and Devendra Singh followed by Surendra Kaur in front of the house of Jang Singh, Manjeet Singh, Sukhvendra Singh, Malkiyat Singh and Surendra Singh were standing. Manjeet Singh and Sukhvendra Singh both were armed with 12 bore short guns. Malkiyat Singh and Surendra Singh did not possess any arm. His father Devendra Singh followed him and Devendra Singh followed by Surendra Kaur in front of the house of Jang Singh, Manjeet Singh, Sukhvendra Singh, Malkiyat Singh and Surendra Singh were standing. Manjeet Singh and Sukhvendra Singh both were armed with 12 bore short guns. Malkiyat Singh and Surendra Singh did not possess any arm. When Jitendra Singh went outside his house Manjeet Singh, Sukhvendra Singh, Surendra Singh and Malkiyat Singh cried " nq'eu vk x;k ekjks lkys dk " At that time Maggha Singh at whose instance Jitendra Singh had gone outside the house moved away from Jitendra Singh. Thereafter Manjeet Singh opened fire with 12 bore short gun. The charge his Jitendra Singh at his stomach chest and face and pellets entered his body. Devendra Singh and Surendra Kaur both saved themselves by going behind the door. At that time Bhirsingh Pargat Singh and Satnamsingh were going in front of the house of Jangsingh. Devendra Singh raised an alarm and cried for help because Jitendra Singh has been shot dead. Bhirsingh, Pargat Singh then went near Jitendra Singh at that time the accused persons entered the house of Jang Sing. Devendra Singh and his daughter Surendra Kaur also went near Jitendra Singh who had failed on the ground. Thereafter Bhirsingh Pargat Singh, Satnamsingh, Devendra Singh and Surendra Kaur carried Jitendra Singh in an injured condition to the house of Devendra Singh. After some time Jitendra Singh was taken to Vijainagar Hospital. While he was being taken to the Vijainagar Hospital he succumbed to his injuries. His dead body was then taken to the Police Station Vijainagar. According to Devendra Singh at Vijainagar Police Station he was told that the Police Station Anupgarh had the jurisdiction. Therefore he carried the body of Jitendra Singh to the Police Station Anupgarh and lodged the first information report there. The first information report was lodged at the police station Anupgarh at 3 PM. on 6.9.1989. On the basis of the report lodged by Devendra Singh, the police registered a case under Section 302, 147, 148, 149, 120B I.PC. and section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. After investigation a report under Section 173 Cr.PC. was submitted in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Anupgarh who in due course committed the case to the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Raisinghnagar. 4. and section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. After investigation a report under Section 173 Cr.PC. was submitted in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Anupgarh who in due course committed the case to the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Raisinghnagar. 4. During the trial the prosecution examined Devendra Singh PW 1 Sukhvendra Kaur alias Sukhi PW 2 Om Prakash PW 3 Satnamsingh PW 4 Mangat Singh PW 5 Pragat Singh PW 6 Dr. Suresh Kumar Agarwal PW 7 Kailash Chand PW 8 Hanuman Prasad PW 9 in support of the prosecution case. Accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. They did not produce any evidence in defence. 5. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Raisinghnagar convicted Manjeet Singh under Section 302 I.RC. and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced him as mentioned above and the remaining accused persons namely Sukhvendra Singh Malkiyat Singh Maggha Singh and Jagga Singh were acquitted of the charges framed against him. 6. In State appeal against the acquittal the learnea Public Prosecutor has submitted that the acquittal of the respondent namely Sukhvendra Singh Malkiyat Singh Maggha Singh and Jangsingh is improper and it deserves to be set aside and the above-named accused persons deserves to be convicted and sentenced for the offences with which they have been charged. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents in State appeal has supported the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and asserted that there is no reliable evidence to prove the charges against the respondents namely Sukhvendra Singh Malkiyat Singh Maggha Singh and Jangsingh. 8. In Criminal Appeal No. 246/92 filed by Manjeet Singh the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution suffers from several infirmities it is unreliable and does not prove the offences under Section 302 I.RC. and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act against the appellant Manjeet Singh beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the appellant Manjeet Singh deserves to be acquitted of the charges for which he has been convicted and sentenced. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. 10. We will first of all decide the Criminal Appeal No. 246/92 filed by Manjeet Singh against his conviction and sentenced. Therefore the appellant Manjeet Singh deserves to be acquitted of the charges for which he has been convicted and sentenced. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. 10. We will first of all decide the Criminal Appeal No. 246/92 filed by Manjeet Singh against his conviction and sentenced. It is not disputed that Jitendra Singh son of Devendra Singh died on account of short gun injuries which were found by the Medical Jurist during the post mortem examination. The date of occurrence is also not disputed. The injuries actually found on the body of Jitendra Singh could neither be accidental or suicidal. The fact that these injuries were homicidal has also not been disputed. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant Manjeet Singh has submitted that the prosecution has filed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the incident took place in the manner in which it has been described by the prose'-1 witnesses and the prosecution has further failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the appellant Mangeet Singh who caused the fatal short gun injuries to Jitendra Singh. Out of the nine prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution Devendra Singh PW 1 Sukhvendra Kaur alias Sukhi PW 2 Satnamsingh PW 4 and Pragat Singh PW 6 are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence Devendra Singh PW 1 is the father of the deceased. He lodged the first information report at the Police Station Anupgarh. In the F.I.R. Ex.P 1 it was stated by him that on 5.9.1988 at 7 PM. his son Jitendra Singh was taking his meals in the house after his return from Ramsinghpur. When Magghasingh son of Sukhvinder Singh went to the door of the house and- called Jitendra Singh and took him to a place near the house of Jangsingh where Sukhvendra Singh Manjeet Singh Malkiyat Singh and Surendra Singh were standing. In the F.I.R. Devendra Singh stated that when Jitendra Singh went outside the house he followed him. It was further stated in the F.I.R. that Manjeet Singh and Sukhvindra Singh were armed with 12 bore guns and no sooner Jitendra Singh reached in view of the accused persons all the four accused persons told 3TT W 131% then Manjeet Singh opened fire and in consequence Jitendra Singh fell on the ground. It was further stated in the F.I.R. that Manjeet Singh and Sukhvindra Singh were armed with 12 bore guns and no sooner Jitendra Singh reached in view of the accused persons all the four accused persons told 3TT W 131% then Manjeet Singh opened fire and in consequence Jitendra Singh fell on the ground. It was further stated in the F.I.R. by Devendra Singh that he rushed to Bhirsingh Pragatsingh and Satnamsingh and brought them to the scene of occurrence. Meanwhile Sukhvendra Singh Malkiyat Singh Manjeet Singh Surendra Singh and Maggha Sing entered in their house According to the F.I.R. when Devendra Singh saw Jitendra Singh's body he found that there were pellets injuries on his chest and face. It was also stated in the F.I.R. that Jitendrasingh was taking to Vijainagar Hospital but on the way he breathed his last and in the Hospital he was declared dead by the Doctor. The F.I.R. shows that when it was lodged at the Police Station, Anupgarh the dead body of Jitendra Singh was lying in the Hospital at Vijainagar. During his examination in the Court Devendra Singh PW 1 has supported the version given in the F.I.R. About the motive he added that about 20-25 days before this occurrence a quarrel between his son Jitendra Singh and accused Manjeet Singh and others had taken place in connection with water and on account of that quarrel intention caused the death of his son Jitendra Singh. In the F.I.R. there is no mention of the name of Sukhvinder Kaur alias Sukhi PW. 2 During cross-examination Devendra Singh could not tell why the name of Sukhvinder Kaur was not mentioned in the F.I.R. Ex.P 1. 12. Sukhvinder Kaur alias Sukhi PW 2 has supported the prosecution version as given in the F.I.R. Ex.P 1 but she added that on the date of occurrence when she alongwith mother of Jitendra Singh was in her house Manjeet Singh, Malkiyatsingh, Sukhvindra Singh, Surendra Singh and Maggha Singh were abusing Jitendra Singh in front of the house and in reply Jitendra Singh was also abusing them and half an hour the accused indulged in abusing and thereafter they went to their homes and on the same day at about 7 PM. when Jitendra Singh as taking his meals Magghasingh came to the door and called Jitendra Singh. By that time Devendra Singh had also come from Ramsinghpur. when Jitendra Singh as taking his meals Magghasingh came to the door and called Jitendra Singh. By that time Devendra Singh had also come from Ramsinghpur. On being called by Magghasingh Jitendrasingh went outside the house, he was followed by Devendrasingh. Sukhvinder Kaur PW. 2 has added that she too went behind her father Devendrasingh. At that time in front of the door of Manjeet Singh, Malkiyatsingh Sukhvendrasingh and Surendrasingh were standing. Manjeet Singh and Sukhvinder Singh were armed with 12 bore double barrel guns and all the four persons told " nq'eu vk x;k ekjks lkys dk " that time Magghasingh went away from Jitendra Singh and Manjeet Singh opened fire with his double barrel gun and in consequence Jitendrasingh fell on the ground and received injuries on his chest, face and stomach. At that time Satnamsingh, Pargatsingh and Bhirsingh were going in front of the house of Manjeet Singh. They were called by Devendra Singh for help. It is also stated by Sukhvinder Kaur PW 2 that at that time she and her father Devendrasingh heed themselves being the door and when Bhirsingh, Pragatsingh and Satnamsingh reached near the accused she and her father Devendrasingh came out and that time all the five accused persons entered in the house of Manjeet Singh. Thereafter Jitendrasingh was carried to her house. His injuries were bleeding. A tractor was brought by Bhirsingh and Jitendrasingh was taken in that tractor to the Hospital but he died on the way. The incident which occurred on the date of occurrence before Magghasingh called Jitendrasingh to come out of the house at PM. was not mentioned in the F.I.R is explained by the statement of Sukhvinder Kaur PW. 2 who stated that she could not tell about that incident to her father. In our opinion the statement of Sukhvinder Kaur PW. 2 in this behalf is reliable. When her father was lying in an injured condition and his life was in danger 5nd the urgent need of the hour was to take him to the Hospital for treatment so that his life may be saved and every one must have been attending to the necessity of taking Jitendrasingh to the Hospital, it was not expected from Sukhvinder Kaur PW. 2 that she would relate the incident of the day to her father. Omission on the part of Sukhvinder Kaur RW. 2 that she would relate the incident of the day to her father. Omission on the part of Sukhvinder Kaur RW. 2 to tell about the incident of abusing Jitendra Singh by the accused person in the evening of the date of occurrence does not therefore cause may reflection on the veracity of the statement of PW. 2 Sukhvinder Kaur and we do not find any force in the criticism that it is a improvement made by Sukhvinder Kaur RW. 2. 13. Satnamsingh PW. 4 and Pargat Singh PW. 6 are also the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Both of them have deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 5 PM. they were going from the field of Pargatsingh at that time Manjeet Singh and Sukhvindrasingh, Malkiyatsingh, Magghasingh and Surendrasingh were abusing the members of the family of Devendrasingh. At that time they did not intervene and went to the house where they took the tea. After some time Bhirsingh went to them, he was also offered tea and 45 minutes to one hour thereafter they alongwith Bhirsingh went towards the house of Manjeet Singh in order to persuade them not to indulge in abusing Devendrasingh and the members of the family and when they reached to house of Manjeet Singh they saw that Sukhvindrasingh and Manjeet Singh both were armed with double barrel guns but Malkiyatsingh, Magghasingh and Surendrasingh were nothing in their hands. At that time Manjeetsingh, Magghasingh and Sukhvindrasingh shouted " vkt nq'eu vk x;k ftUnk er tkus nks " and then Manjeetsingh opened fire with his double barrel gun and in consequence Jitendra Singh fell on the ground. At that time Devendra Singh and Sukhi were standing at the door of their house. Satnamsingh PW 4 has deposed that at the time of occurrence Devendrasingh rushed back towards the door of his house and then called for help and Pargat Singh RW. 6 has stated that when Devendrasingh raised alarm he as well as Satnamsingh cried " er ekjks er ekjk " and thereafter the accused persons entered into the house of Manjeetsingh. Satnamsingh P.W. 4 and Pargatsingh PW. 6 both have added that they reached the place where Jitendra Singh was lying in the ground. He has pellets injuries on his chest and face. Satnamsingh P.W. 4 and Pargatsingh PW. 6 both have added that they reached the place where Jitendra Singh was lying in the ground. He has pellets injuries on his chest and face. Thereafter Bhirsingh brought his tractor and Jitendrasingh was taken in that tractor towards the Hospital but he died on the way. His dead body was taken to the Hospital at Vijainagar. Both these witnesses have identified the accused persons. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant Manjeet Singh has submitted that the evidence of Satnamsingh PW. 4 and Pragatsingh PW. 6 is not trust worthy because according to the F.I.R. they were called by Devendra Singh after the occurrence and that at the time when Jitendra Singh was shot dead they were not present. 15. We have given our carefully and anxious thought to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant Manjeet Singh. It is true that in the F.I.R. Devendra Singh has stated that when his son Jitendra Singh fell on the ground he went back and called Bhirsingh, Pargatsingh and Satnamsingh to the spot esjk yM+dk ftrsUnz flag tehu ij fxj iM+k eSa ihNs Hkkx dj gehj flag] izxV flag] lruke flag dks cqykdj yk;kA But these words in our opinion do not mean that Satnamsingh and Pargatsingh reached the spot after the gun shot injuries were caused to Jitendrasingh. The version given by Devendrasingh PW. 1 Sukhvinder Kaur P.W. 2 is to the effect that when Magghasingh asked Jitendrasingh to come out of the house Jitendrasingh went outside the house. Devedrasingh went outside the house behind Jitendrasingh and Sukhvinderasingh Kaur PW. 2 went outside the house behind her father Devendrasingh. Since Jitendrasingh was the first person to go outside the house he reached near the place where he was shot dead before his father Devendrasingh and sister Sukhvinder Kaur could reach. As soon as he reached within the range of gun fire Manjeet Singh opened fire at him and Jitendra Singh received gun shot injuries. At that time Devendrasingh must have been at some distance away from Jitendrasingh and Sukhvinder Kaur PW. 2 must also have been at some distance away from Devendrasingh. It was quite natural that as soon as the fire was opened and Jitendrasingh fell on the ground Devendrasingh and Sukhvinder Kaur both would have stopped moving towards the scene of occurrence in order to take shelter to save themselves. 2 must also have been at some distance away from Devendrasingh. It was quite natural that as soon as the fire was opened and Jitendrasingh fell on the ground Devendrasingh and Sukhvinder Kaur both would have stopped moving towards the scene of occurrence in order to take shelter to save themselves. The statements of Devendrasingh and Sukhvinder Kaur clearly show that when the fire was opened at Jitendra Singh Sukhvinder Kaur was near the door and Devendrasingh who was going behind Jitendrasingh moved backward and took shelter of the door for the purpose of saving himself. Therefore, the statements made in the F.I.R. Ex.R 1 that Devendrasingh ran backwards " eSa ihNs Hkkxdj------ " is neither unnatural nor it is inconsistent with the version given in the court. For it shows that Devendra Singh on hearing gun shot sound moved backwards and took shelter of the door to save himself. The evidence further shows that at that point of time when Jitendrasingh was shot dead the accused persons were standing in front of the house of Manjeet Singh, they were looking towards the house of Devendrasingh because in that direction Jitendrasingh was coming and Devendrasingh and Sukhvinder Kaur were standing and Satnamsingh and Pragatsingh also reached the place just in front of the house of Manjeet Singh and at that point of time Devendrasingh called/cried for help and at that time Pargatsingh and Satnamsingh and. Bhirsingh came to the spot. Crying for help in these circumstances was quite natural and in view of these circumstances the statement made in part C to D of the F.I.R. Ex.P 1 that Devendrasingh ran backwards and called Bhirsingh, Pargatsingh and Satnamsingh does not appear to be inconsistent with the evidence given by Satnamsingh and Pargatsingh in the Court. We, therefore, do not find any force in the submission that Pargatsingh and Satnamsingh were not the eye-witnesses of the incident. We have carefully considered the statements of Devendrasingh PW 1, Sukhvinder Kaur PW. 2, Satnamsingh RW. 4 and Pargatsingh RW. 6 and we do not find sufficient reason to doubt their statements. We, therefore, do not find any force in the submission that Pargatsingh and Satnamsingh were not the eye-witnesses of the incident. We have carefully considered the statements of Devendrasingh PW 1, Sukhvinder Kaur PW. 2, Satnamsingh RW. 4 and Pargatsingh RW. 6 and we do not find sufficient reason to doubt their statements. In our opinion, the statements of these four witnesses are trust worthy and they proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was Manjeet Singh who opened fire with the double barrel gun and in consequence Jitendrasingh sustained on his body gun shot injuries which according to the post mortem report and the testimony of Dr. Suresh Kumar Agarwal PW. 7 were the cause of death. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant Manjeet Singh has further submitted that the manner in which the incident is alleged to have occurred makes the entire prosecution story doubtful because there were no pellets holes on the underwear which was found on the dead body of Jitendrasingh and it was quite unnatural that there should have been no pellet holes were found on the underwear when there were extensive pellets injuries on the body of Jitendrasingh. The evidence adduced by the prosecution shows that when police reached the Hospital, Vijainagar one underwear was found on the body of Jitendrasingh. It was taken in police custody, was sealed sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P 18) shows that there was no hole on the underwear which could be attributed to any gun shot. Absence of gun shot holes on the underwear is established. But the post mortem report Ex.R 9 clearly shows that there was no gun shot injuries on the pelvic region/area or on things or on the heeps, or below vest. Therefore, absence of gun shot holes on the underwear does not make the story doubtful in any manner because pelvic area, heeps and thighs did not receive any gun shot injuries, there was no reason why the underwear should have received any gun shot holes in it. 17. Therefore, absence of gun shot holes on the underwear does not make the story doubtful in any manner because pelvic area, heeps and thighs did not receive any gun shot injuries, there was no reason why the underwear should have received any gun shot holes in it. 17. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Manjeet Singh is that the deceased Jitendrasingh received pellets injuries on his face, tongue, above vest line as well as on the head and some of these pellets injuries were in round shape but the others were oval and therefore the dispersion of the pellets was in a area of a diameter of 2 and 1/2 feet and this dispersion could not be possible if the injuries were caused in the manner in which they have been described by the prosecution witnesses. He has submitted that ordinarily the formula for calculation the dispersion of the pellets is given by the equation X + 1 in which X indicates the distance in yard at which the fire has been opened and X + 1 indicates the diameter in which the dispersion of pellets would occur. He submitted that since the dispersion of the pellets was approximately in diameter of 21/2 feet i.e. 30 inches it should be inferred that the distance at which Jitendrasingh was shot dead was about 30 yards whereas according to the site plan such a distance was not available and according to the statement of Devendra Singh P.W. 1 Jitendrasingh was shot dead from a distance of 30 feet only and, therefore, the prosecution story should be held to be unreliable because at a distance of 30 feet the pellets could not have caused the injuries which were actually found at the time of post mortem examination. In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the observations made at page 324 of the Book entitled Fire Arms and Ballistics and the observations made at page 356 of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. Out attention has also been drawn to a Division Bench Judgment delivered in the case of Kartar Singh v. State, (1955 R.L.W. page 60 ). Out attention has also been drawn to a Division Bench Judgment delivered in the case of Kartar Singh v. State, (1955 R.L.W. page 60 ). In the Book Fire Arms and Ballistics at page 324 the learned author has observed as follows : "In the absence of a weapon, the muzzle to target distance can be estimated by measuring the spread the discharged shot. With close range shots varying in distance up to 4 or 5 feet, the shot charge enters the target as a concentrated mass, producing a hole somewhat larger than the bore of the barrel. As the distance increased, the pellets progressively separate and spread out. Generally speaking, the spread in the pattern made by a 12 guage shotgun is increased 1 inch for each yard of distance. Thus, a 10 inch pattern would be produced at approximately 10 yards. Of course, this is only a rule of thumb; normally there are a great number of variables that can affect the shot pattern. Other factors to be taken into consideration include the ballet length, the size and quantity of the pellets fired, the quantity of powder charge used to propel the pellets and the choke of the gun under examination." 18. The last sentence clearly indicates that the factors which should be taken into consideration for estimating the range at which the fire was opened include (i) barrel fired, (ii) the size and quantity of the pellets fired, (iii) the quantity of powder charge used to propel the pellets and (iv) the choke of the gun under examination. All these factors according to the learned author contribute to the phenomena of disbursion of the pellets. In other words, the formula for determining the range indicated by the equation X + 1 cannot be applied blindly to all cases. In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology at page 356 it has been stated that "According to Taylor, the dispersion of pellets in inches equals about 11/2 times distance in yards. According to him, the dispersion is less if the barrels is choked, Glaister, on the other hand, has a simple formula. Furthermore, the formula is effective irrespective of the choke. In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology at page 356 it has been stated that "According to Taylor, the dispersion of pellets in inches equals about 11/2 times distance in yards. According to him, the dispersion is less if the barrels is choked, Glaister, on the other hand, has a simple formula. Furthermore, the formula is effective irrespective of the choke. If x is the range in yards, then the diameter of the wound is X + 1." There is nothing in the above observations to indicate that the factors which are relevant for determination of range as pointed out at page 324 of the Book Fire Arms and Ballistics do not have a bearing upon the dispersion of pellets. 19. In Kartar Singh v. State (1955 R.L.W. 60) a Division Bench of this Court considered the observations made by John Glaister and Taylor. But the question whether the formula that diameter of the wound Is equal to X + 1 inches is applicable in all cases irrespective of the factors, namely, barrel length, size and quantity of the pellets fired, the quantity of powder charge used to propel the pellets and the choke of the gun was not considered by the Division Bench. It is well known that the pellets and bullets used in the fire arm move towards the target on account of the force that is given to them when the gun is fired. This force is produced by the explosion that takes place in the combustible substance used in the cartridge. It is the expression of gases which are produced in the combustion that produced in the loco motion of the bullet and pellet inside the barrel. So long the process of expansion of gases inside the barrel continues in such a manner as to go on accelerating the velocity, the force is supplied to the bullet and pellet and as a consequence the velocity goes on increasing but as soon as the expansion of gases inside the barrel comes to an end or substantially reduced the supply of energy to the bullet or pellet is stopped then such bullet or pellet has to move on account of the momentum that has created during the short period when the sudden expansion of gases gave power and produced acceleration. Once the supply of power to the bullet or pellet by sudden expansion of gases inside the barrel stops the only source with which the bullet or pellet moves onwards is momentum and this momentum meets residence when the bullet or pellet further moved inside the barrel and after coming out of the barrel it moves towards its target because the resistance offered by the barrel as well as by the atmosphere to the moving of the bullet or pellet, the velocity of which the bullet or pellet starts moving at the beginning is gradually reduced and ultimately the pellet or bullet is deprived of the power to move onwards. In addition to this the gravitation force of the earth continuously acts on the moving bullet or pellet and its consequence results in reducing the velocity and deviating the bullet or pellet from its straight path. In other words the entire movement of the bullet or pellet within the barrel and outside the barrel of the gun depends upon the force supplied to it by sudden expansion of gases which are produced in imagination of the combustible substance used in the cartridge. Since the force is in the form of momentum and such omentum depends upon the velocity, in order the bullet or pellet may have sufficient force to strike at the target it is necessary that the required velocity should be produced. It is for this purpose of producing high velocity that greater quantity of combustible substances is used and for longer time the force is supplied by expansion of gases and for the latter object longer barrel is used and the imagination of the combustible substance is managed in such a manner that quantity of the combustible substance (gun. power) is not wholly burnt on ignition but is burnt gradually so that during the period the bullet/pellet moves inside the barrel, continuous power is supplied to it for improving its acceleration so that the higher velocity may be developed. This is why for long range effectively guns and revolvers with longer barrels are used and for obtaining the maximum velocity the ignition of the cartridge is so managed that combustion of gun powder takes place gradually to continuously supply the power to the charged during the period it moves inside the barrel. This is why for long range effectively guns and revolvers with longer barrels are used and for obtaining the maximum velocity the ignition of the cartridge is so managed that combustion of gun powder takes place gradually to continuously supply the power to the charged during the period it moves inside the barrel. This is why the quantity of the gun powder, the quality of this gun powder, length of the barrel and the choke all are relevant for determining the range at which the bullet/pellet would hit the target. In short greater the quantify of gun powder, quality of combustible substance used, larger the barrel smaller the choke and full utilisation of the gun powder for accelerating the movement of the bullet/pellet the greater would be the velocity at which a bullet/pellet would come out of the barrel and greater the velocity the smaller would be the deviation and, therefore, smaller would be the dispursion. It is well known in our country the fire arms of various kinds are available, the 12 bore short guns which are available have been manufactured by different factories. They are repaired by different mechanics and several kinds of cartridge are available. Therefore, it is not possible to apply any single formula for the purpose of determining the range or for determining the diameter of disbursion of the pellet used in a short gun and for this reason the formula relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be utilised by this Court for throwing away the testimony of witnesses who have successfully stood the test of cross-examination and whose evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased was shot dead by the appellant Manjeet Singh at a distance of about 30 feet with a short gun. 20. We, therefore, do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the version given by the prosecution witnesses about the distance at which the deceased was shot dead was improbable. In our opinion the evidence given by the eye-witnesses in this case is trust worthy and it proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant Manjeet Singh caused the injuries which were responsible for the death of the deceased. Therefore, the charge framed against the appellant Manjeet Singh is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 21. In our opinion the evidence given by the eye-witnesses in this case is trust worthy and it proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant Manjeet Singh caused the injuries which were responsible for the death of the deceased. Therefore, the charge framed against the appellant Manjeet Singh is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 21. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal filed by appellant Manjeet Singh against his conviction and sentence deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 22. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 383/1992 has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar by which he acquitted other accused, namely Sukhvendra Singh, Malkiyat Singh, Maggha Singh and Jagga Singh who were tried by him for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 I.PC. and the accused Jang Singh was also tried for offence punishable under Section 30 for the Indian Arms Act. Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge on appreciation of evidence produced by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused constituted any unlawful assembly with the common object of causing death of Jitendra Singh. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, therefore, came to the conclusion that the offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 I PC. were not proved against Sukhvendra Singh, Malkiyat Singh, Maggha Singh and Jangsingh. Regarding the charge framed against Jangsingh under Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove that the gun which was used for causing the fatal injury to Jitendra Singh was handed over by Jangsingh to his son Manjeet Singh. 23. Learned Public Prosecutor has challenged the findings of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and submitted that the conclusions drawn by the learned Additional District and Sessions regarding the formation of an unlawful assembly by the accused with the common object of causing death of Jitendra Singh and handing over to the gun by Jangsingh to Manjeet Singh are not correct. On the other hand, learned for the respondents Sukhvendra Singh, Malkiyatsingh, Maggha Singh and Jangsingh was supported the findings as well as judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. 24. On the other hand, learned for the respondents Sukhvendra Singh, Malkiyatsingh, Maggha Singh and Jangsingh was supported the findings as well as judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. 24. We have given our due consideration to the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor and carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the reasons assigned by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge for acquitting the accused named above. According to the prosecution when Jitendra Singh went out of the house on being called by Magghasingh, Manjeet Singh, Sukhvendra Singh, Malkiyatsingh and Surendra Singh were standing together near the house of Manjeetsingh. Malkiyatsingh, Surendrasingh and Maggha Singh were not possessing any arm. Manjeet Singh and Surendrasingh were, however, armed with double barrel guns. Fire was opened by Manjeet Singh on Jitendra Singh. There is no evidence to show that Sukhvendra Singh who was also armed with double barrel gun opened fire at Jitendrasingh. There is no evidence to the effect that the respondents namely Sukhvendrasingh, Malkiyatsingh and Magghasingh caused any injury to Jitendra Singh. There is no evidence to show that they assaulted Jitendrasingh in any manner. 25. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that when Jitendra Singh went out of his house and was going towards the respondents who were standing near the house of Manjeet Singh, Sukhvendra Singh, Manjeet Singh, Malkiyatsingh and Surendra Singh cried allowed " vkt nq'eu vk x;k lkys dks ftUnk er tkus nks " It is inconceivable that all the four persons to whom the above shouting is attributed had shouted " vkt nq'eu vk x;k lkys dks ftUnk er tkus nks " Besides the submission that all the four persons who were standing near the house Manjeet Singh shouted as alleged by the prosecution is open to doubt, because Pargatsingh PW. 6 attributed the shouting in the above manner to three persons only. According to him Malkiyat Singh, Surendrasingh and Magghasingh had shouted as aforesaid. It means that Manjeet Singh did not shout before the opened fire at Jitendra Singh. In these circumstances we were of opinion that it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused constituted any unlawful assembly to cause the death of Jitendra Singh. It means that Manjeet Singh did not shout before the opened fire at Jitendra Singh. In these circumstances we were of opinion that it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused constituted any unlawful assembly to cause the death of Jitendra Singh. It is possible that at the time when Jitendra Singh was called by Magghasingh, Jitendrasingh did not apprehended that he was going to be shot dead by Manjeet Singh and others and therefore he went out of the house and proceeded towards the accused unarmed. Magghasingh at whose instance Jitendra Singh went out of the house was unarmed at that time and he did not take part in assaulting Jitendrasingh in any manner. Sukhvendrasingh who was armed with a double barrel gun also did not open fire at Jitendra Singh. Even if it is taken as proved that Malkiyatsingh, Surendrasingh and Magghasingh who were unarmed had cried allowed " vkt nq'eu vk x;k lkys dks ftUnk er tkus nks " as pointed out by Pargatsingh PW. 5, their act was without sharing of any common object to kill Jitendrasingh. In short, we are of the opinion that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that in this case the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons constituted an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing death of Jitendra Singh. We, therefore, find no sufficient ground to reverse the judgment of acquittal of Sukhvendrasingh, Malkiyatsingh, Maggha Singh and Jangsingh in respect of the charges under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 I.PC. 26. So far as the charge under Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act framed against the respondent Jangsingh is concerned, according to the prosecution the gun was recovered from the house of accused Manjeet Singh in pursuance of the information given by Manjeet Singh under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The gun was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for examination. It was found to be serviceable and it was also found that one cartridge has been fired by using one barrel of the gun but there is nothing to show that the gun which was recovered by the police is the same gun with which the fatal charge was fired at Jitendrasingh. It was found to be serviceable and it was also found that one cartridge has been fired by using one barrel of the gun but there is nothing to show that the gun which was recovered by the police is the same gun with which the fatal charge was fired at Jitendrasingh. The pellets recovered from the body of the deceased were fired by means of a short gun which was in all probability was a smooth bore gun and according to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory the pellets might have been fired with the gun which was recovered by the police and they might not have been fired by that gun. We, therefore,' come to the conclusion that there is no reliable evidence to prove that the gun recovered by the police was the same gun with which the fatal charge was fired at Jitendra Singh. 27. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that the charge under Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act was not brought home to the respondent Jangsingh. 28. Consequently the appeal filed by State against the verdict of acquittal respect of respondents namely Sukhvendrasingh, Malkiyat Singh, Maggi Singh and Jangsingh must fail and is, therefore, dismissed.Both appeal dismissed. *******