JUDGEMENT Kamlesh Sharma, A.C.J. :- In this appeal Abhey Singh appellant has assailed judgment dated 25-7-1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby he has been convicted of offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. However, he shall get the benefit for the period he remained in custody before or during the trial of the case under Section 428, Cr. P.C. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 23-1-1995 Rasil Singh Katoch, the father of appellant Abhey Singh, informed Police Station Palampur on telephone that his son Abhey Singh had shot his wife Poonam dead at about 7.00 P.M. and requested to take necessary action. This information was recorded in Daily Diary Ex. PEE at 8.02 P.M. by ASI Lal Singh PW-26. He along with constables reached on the spot and recorded statement Ex. PB of Bhumi Chand PW-2 under Section 154, Cr. P.C., on the basis of which FIR Ex. PB/1 was recorded in Police Station Palampur. As per the statement of Bhumi Chand, on 23-1-1995 at about 7.15 P.M. Ramesh Chand PW-8 came to his house and told him that appellant Abhey Singh had killed his wife Poonam with his 12 bore single barrel gun. On receipt of this information Bhumi Chand rushed to the house of appellant Abhey Singh along with Ramesh Chand, where he found Rasil Singh PW-3, his wife Gitan Devi, his two sons appellant Abhey Singh and Udhey Singh, Thakri Devi PW-5, Khirdu Ram and Mansha Devi PW-19 present. On his enquiry, Rasil Singh PW-3 told him that his eldest son appellant Abhey Singh had shot his wife dead and her body was lying in the kitchen. Thereafter, he went to the kitchen and found dead body of Poonam lying on the ground in a pool of blood with her one side down. Bhumi Chand has further stated that Rasil Singh had tied the hands of appellant Abhey Singh behind his back. Bhumi Chand sent Udhey Singh to call Pardhan and asked Ramesh Chand to inform the police from his telephone and arrange for a vehicle. Bhumi Chand has further stated that Rasil Singh had tied the hands of appellant Abhey Singh behind his back. Bhumi Chand sent Udhey Singh to call Pardhan and asked Ramesh Chand to inform the police from his telephone and arrange for a vehicle. After some time Bachitter Singh, Pardhan PW-4 reached on the spot but in the meantime appellant Abhey Singh had absconded, when Rasil Singh had gone out to bring another rope to tie his feet. According to Bhumi Chand, Ramesh Chand had come back and informed him that Rasil Singh had himself informed the police on telephone, in pursuance of which the police reached on the spot. He has also stated that 12 bore gun was lying at the spot. Thereafter, ASI Lal Singh prepared inquest report Ex. P.L. which is signed by Bhumi Chand and Bachittar Singh, Pardhan. Against Column No. 12 of the inquest report the weapon of offence is mentioned as 12 bore single barrel gun, whereas, against column No. 20, it is mentioned Killed with a gun shot. In the end brief description of the case, as mentioned in the statement of Bhumi Chand under Section 154, Cr. P.C. is given. 3. Post mortem on the dead body of deceased Poonam was conducted by Doctor Baldev Kumar PW-1, who issued post mortem report EX. PA. He has deposed :- "An oval punctured wound 2.5 x 2.5 cms. on the left chest 2 cms. from mid line at the level of 3.5 cms. above xiphisternum. Margins of the wound were irregular and burnt surrounding, skin was tatooed more on the supero-lateral aspect of the wound. This wound mark is corresponding to the Kameez hole. Wound was directed posteriorly downwards and to the right reaching and fracturing tip of the xiphisternum and then puncturing the abdomen. On disSection of the wound, there was massive laceration of the whole liver (all lobs of liver) and puncture of the diaphragm and pericardium and tearing both ventricles of heart and also puncturing stomach and pieces of cartridges and ribs and pellets were lying near the verteveral column. Chest and abdomen was full of blood and large vessels were punctured at the level of 9th and 10th thoracic vertebra. The described wound was wound of entry and ante mortem in nature. There was no wound of exists. Chest and abdomen was full of blood and large vessels were punctured at the level of 9th and 10th thoracic vertebra. The described wound was wound of entry and ante mortem in nature. There was no wound of exists. During disSection of the wound, a conical card board cylinder of the length 2.2. cms and 1.9 cms in diameter size, hard too wads (one of the card board and another of the plastic) and multiple pellets and three pieces of the fractured ribs were taken out from the depth of the wound on vertebra. Hence the total depth of the wound now measured was 21 cms. The card board cylinder both wards and ten pallets taken out, were sent for chemical examination." 4. In the opinion of the doctor, Poonam has died of shock due to cardiac injury and massive haemorrhage by gun shot injury. Her death was instantaneous and probable time between death and post mortem was 12 to 36 hours. In his cross-examination, he has stated that these injuries were suffered by the gun from a very close quarter but these injuries could not be suicidal as was apparent from the direction of the wound. According to him, in case of suicide, the direction of the wound will correspond to the organ of the person used to trigger and fire-arm. He has denied that he was influenced by the brief history given in the inquest report, which was sent to him by the police. 5. To prove its case, the prosecution had produced as many as 28 witnesses besides Doctor Baldev Kumar. Bhumi Chand PW-2, on whose statement under Section 154, Cr. P.C. the FIR Ex. PB/1 was recorded, as well as Rasil Singh PW-3. Thakri Devi PW-5, Ramesh Chand PW-8, and Mansha Devi PW-19, who were present on the spot immediately after the occurrence as per the first version of Bhumi Chand PW-2, have not supported the prosecution and resiled from their statements under Section 161, Cr. P.C. All of them have been declared hostile but nothing material could be elicited from their cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor in support of the prosecution. Bhumi Chand PW-2 has admitted that his statement Ex. PB was recorded and signatures thereon as well as the contents thereof are correct. P.C. All of them have been declared hostile but nothing material could be elicited from their cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor in support of the prosecution. Bhumi Chand PW-2 has admitted that his statement Ex. PB was recorded and signatures thereon as well as the contents thereof are correct. But in his cross-examination he has made an U turn stating that the story put up by the police in his statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C.Ex. PB was the result of due deliberations and he had objected to the correctness of his statement even to the police. He has categorically denied the contents of his statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. Ex. PB and has stated that it had come to his notice that at the time of occurrence except deceased Poonam nobody from the family of appellant Abhey Singh was present in the house. According to him, Rasil Singh had gone to his fields, whereas, his wife Geetan Devi was in her Ghural and appellant Abhey Singh was out of the village and another son Udhey Singh has gone to Bazar Panchrukhi. 6. Similarly, Rasil Singh PW-3 has also denied that on 23-1-1995 he had informed the police on telephone that appellant Abhey Singh had killed his wife. He has also denied the other parts of his statement Ex. PH/1 under Section 161 Cr. P.C. including that appellant Abhey Singh used to have suspicion over him when his wife used to talk to him and wash his feet. He has showed his ignorance that how or in what manner gun shot was fired at deceased Poonam, as he was in his fields. According to him, appellant Abhey Singh had gone out of the village for making purchase for his shop, which he was running in village Panchrukhi. As per his statement, his other son Udhey Singh was at Panchrukhi Bazar at the relevant time and his wife Geetan Devi was at Ghural and except deceased Poonam there was nobody present in the house at the time of occurrence. 7. Thakri Devi PW-5, whose house is in the same compound as that of appellant Abhey Singh, had reached on the spot on hearing the cries of Geetan Devi wife of Rasil Singh and found gun Ex. P-7 lying on the dead body. She has in her statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. Ex. 7. Thakri Devi PW-5, whose house is in the same compound as that of appellant Abhey Singh, had reached on the spot on hearing the cries of Geetan Devi wife of Rasil Singh and found gun Ex. P-7 lying on the dead body. She has in her statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. Ex. PM stated that gun was lying in the room adjoining to the kitchen. Other part of the said statement that when she reached on the spot Rasil Singh PW-3 tied the hands of appellant Abhey Singh and made him sit in the Varandah so that he could not kill somebody else and that after some time appellant Abhey Singh had run away, has also been denied. 8. The star witness Ramesh Chand PW-8 has also resiled from his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. EX. PQ. He had gone to the house of Rasil Singh on hearing the cries of ladies and found Rasil Singh, his son Udhay Singh, his wife Geetan and two other ladies present there. He also found dead body of Poonam lying in the kitchen and a gun was lying touching it. He called the Lambardar of the village and informed the police on telephone from his house that a lady had suffered a gun shot. He was declared hostile and cross-examined but nothing material was elicited. According to him he was interrogated by the police on the third day, though he was with it throughout on 23-1-1995 and 24-1-1995. He has denied his statement portion C to C under Section 161, Cr. P.C. Ex. PQ that Rasil Singh from his house on Telephone No. 4283 informed the police that his son Abhey Singh had killed his wife with gun shot. 9. Mansha Devi PW-19 has stated that she had come to the house of appellant Abhey Singh on bearing the cries of his mother and found his wife lying injured. She and the mother of appellant Abhey Singh started massaging her but she did not respond. She has also denied her statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. Ex. PDD. Like other witnesses, she has also stated that Rasil Singh PW-3, the father of appellant Abhey Singh, never proclaimed before them that appellant Abhey Singh had killed his wife with gun shot. 10. Mangat Ram PW-6, the father and Gaitri Devi PW-7, the mother of deceased Poonam, had also appeared as witnesses. P.C. Ex. PDD. Like other witnesses, she has also stated that Rasil Singh PW-3, the father of appellant Abhey Singh, never proclaimed before them that appellant Abhey Singh had killed his wife with gun shot. 10. Mangat Ram PW-6, the father and Gaitri Devi PW-7, the mother of deceased Poonam, had also appeared as witnesses. As per the statement of Mangat Ram PW-6, Poonam had come to his house for the last time on 11-12-1994 for staying for a month but she was sent for by the appellant Abhey Singh after 15 days. This witness wanted to accompany deceased Poonam to her matrimonial home but she stopped him from accompanying her by saying that appellant Abhey Singh was a bad person and he might pick up a quarrel with him. Therefore, he deputed his nephew Vinod Kumar to accompany Poonam. He has further stated that deceased Poonam used to tell him that appellant Abhey Singh was in the habit of suspecting her. According to him, on receiving the information that his daughter Poonam was killed by appellant Abhey Singh with gun shot, he along with Pardhan, Shambhu Ram, Uttam Singh and 2-3 other persons went to his village and found the dead body of Poonam lying in the kitchen in a pool of blood. He had handed over letter dated 20-2-1994 Ex. PN and envelop Ex. PO received by him from his daughter, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PP. He has also identified the handwriting of deceased Poonam at pages 1 to 5 of the exercise book Ex. P-11. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that his daughter had been visiting his house and staying there frequently along with appellant Abhey Singh and there had been no quarrel between him and appellant Abhey Singh on such occasions. He has further stated that appellant Abhey Singh might have visited his house on about 10 occasions since his marriage. 11. Gaitri Devi PW-27 has also stated that during her visits to her house the deceased used to tell that her life was in danger, as her in-laws were unhappy that they were given less dowry. According to her, deceased Poonam also used to tell her that her father-in-law used to proclaim that he would get his son exonerated even if he killed anybody. According to her, deceased Poonam also used to tell her that her father-in-law used to proclaim that he would get his son exonerated even if he killed anybody. She has further stated that deceased Poonam used to tell her that appellant Abhey Singh was suspecting her character but this witness has admitted that she had not disclosed all these facts to her husband Mangat Ram PW-6, who was a heart patient, in the hope that relations will become cordial. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that deceased Poonam had not mentioned in her letter about the complaint of her in-laws that she had brought insufficient dowry but she has added that she used to give money to deceased Poonam whenever she had demanded. 12. Shambhu Ram PW-7 had accompanied Mangat Ram PW-6 to the house of Rasil Singh where he found dead body of Poonam lying in the kitchen. According to him during the investigation Mangat Ram PW-6 had produced 2-3 letters before the police and letter Ex. PN and envelop Ex. PO were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB in his presence. In cross-examination he has stated that he remained in the house of Rasil Singh up to 11.30 A.M. or 12 noon on 24-1-1995 and came back along with Mangat Ram PW-6. He has further stated that Mangat Ram PW-6 was not interrogated by the police on that day despite his informing the police about the facts which he knew and the police had told him that it would come to his house on the following day. 13. Baldev Singh, Pardhan PW-17 has also not supported the prosecution and has denied his statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. portions A to A and B to B of Ex. PBB that on 30-1-1995 appellant Abhey Singh in the presence of Partap Singh had stated that he could get recovered his pant, sweater and T-shirt from the house of Pammi wife of Ami Chand and thereafter got it recovered. Smt. Pammi alias Gyatri PW-12, Renku PW-11 and Partap Singh PW-10 who were other witnesses of recovery of clothes, have also not supported the prosecution. The alleged presence of appellant Abhey Singh on 23-1-1995 in the marriage being solemnized in the house of Kalidass and consuming of liquor along with other persons is also denied by Janam Singh PW-13 and Dalip Singh PW-14. The alleged presence of appellant Abhey Singh on 23-1-1995 in the marriage being solemnized in the house of Kalidass and consuming of liquor along with other persons is also denied by Janam Singh PW-13 and Dalip Singh PW-14. Farther case of the prosecution that appellant Abhey Singh had met Rajinder Katoch PW-15 on 23-1-1995 at 12 noon and Pappu alias Ajit PW-16 at his shop in Amritsar on 25-1-1995 is also not corroborated by these witnesses. 14. Sansar Chand PW-9, who is husband of the sister of appellant Abhey Singh has stated that Abhey Singh had come to him on 27-1-1995 at Dayalpur, District Kapurthala, Punjab and stayed with him for 2 - 2 1/2 hours, which fact he told to the police when it raided his house on 30-1-1995. This witness was also declared hostile and during cross-examination he has denied his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. portions A to A and B to B of Ex. PR that appellant Abhey Singh had visited his house on 25-1-1995 and remained with him up to Sunday and also that when police had come to his house on 30-1-1995, at that time Rasil Singh had proclaimed that appellant Abhey Singh had killed his wife with gun shot. 15. Other witnesses are not material except Sh. S. K. Saxena, Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of India PW-28 and Inspector Gulab Singh PW-29. Shri S. K. Sexena PW-28, who has brought his opinion Ex. PFF on record to prove that writings marked Q-1 to Q-5 and A-1 and A-2 have been written by one and the same person from which it is proved that letter Ex. PN dated 20-2-1994 was written by deceased Poonam to her parents. But it is of no effect as the perusal of Ex. PN only shows that the conduct of her in-laws was such that deceased Poonam was of the view that they had not accepted her from their hearts. But there was no serious complaint against her husband i.e. appellant Abhey Singh except that he used to get annoyed on petty matters, for which reason she was feeling disappointed. 16. Inspector Gulab Singh PW-29 has stated that on receipt of Rukka Ex. PB, FIR Ex. P-1 was registered, which bears his signatures. Thereafter he went to the spot of occurrence and on the following day conducted further investigation. 16. Inspector Gulab Singh PW-29 has stated that on receipt of Rukka Ex. PB, FIR Ex. P-1 was registered, which bears his signatures. Thereafter he went to the spot of occurrence and on the following day conducted further investigation. According to him he had correctly recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P.C. In his cross-examination he has admitted that 3-4 letters were produced before him by Mangat Ram PW-6 along with a copy, though he has brought on record only one letter and the copy, and the rest of the letters were not brought on record as they were favourable to appellant Abhey Singh. He has admitted that finger prints on the weapon of offence were not lifted by him as he did not possess the material for doing the same. 17. The statement of appellant Abhey Singh under Section 313, Cr. P.C. is denial simpliciter. In reply to question No. 15 he has denied that he was arrested on 30-1-1995 at Dayalpur, Punjab from the house of his brother-in-law and has stated that he had himself come to Palampur on 27-1-1995 and surrendered. In reply to question No. 20 he has claimed to be innocent and has taken the plea of alibi that on 21-1-1995 he had gone to Delhi to purchase certain articles and had come to his shop at Palampur on 27-1-1995 when he learnt that his wife had committed suicide and he was required by the Police. 18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Despite almost all the prosecution witnesses turning, hostile, the Sessions Judge has held appellant Abhey Singh guilty of killing his wife with gun shot relying upon the statements of Bhumi Chand Lambardar PW-2 Ex. PB recorded under Section 154, Cr. P.C. and the inquest report Ex. PL, which was prepared in the presence of Bachittar Singh PW-4, holding that these witnesses never made any report to the police or to the village Panchayat that their statements were recorded wrongly till they appeared in the witness box and denied their statements. The Sessions Judge has also directed that Bhumi Chand PW-2, Bachittar Singh PW-4 and Baldev Singh PW-17 have knowingly and wilfully given false and fabricated statements with the intention to help appellant Abhey Singh, therefore, these witnesses be tried summarily under Section 344, Cr. P.C. by initiating separate proceedings. 19. The Sessions Judge has also directed that Bhumi Chand PW-2, Bachittar Singh PW-4 and Baldev Singh PW-17 have knowingly and wilfully given false and fabricated statements with the intention to help appellant Abhey Singh, therefore, these witnesses be tried summarily under Section 344, Cr. P.C. by initiating separate proceedings. 19. The Sessions Judge has further come to the conclusion on the basis of the statement of Doctor Baldev Kumar PW-1 that it was not a case of suicidal death. Rapat Roznamcha Ex. PEE, which is proved by ASI Lal Singh PW-26 also shows that immediately after the occurrence the police was informed that it was appellant Abhey Singh who had shot his wife Poonam dead. The information of the occurrence was given to the police on telephone, has been admitted by Ramesh Chand PW-8. It is further held by the Sessions Judge that appellant Abhey Singh has failed to substantiate his plea of alibi and from the evidence on the record his presence on the spot at the time of occurrence is duly proved. Referring to the statements of Mangat Ram PW-6 and Gaitri Devi PW-27, the parents of deceased Poonam and her letter Ex. PN, the Sessions Judge has concluded that appellant Abhey Singh had a motive to kill his wife Poonam as he was suspecting her character. 20. After analysing the evidence on record we are of the opinion that the findings of the Sessions Judge do not stand judicial scrutiny. He is right in holding that it was not a case of suicidal death as opined by Doctor Baldev Kumar PW-1. He is also right in holding that Poonam had met with homicidal death by gun shot fired from the gun belonging to Rasil Singh, which was taken into possession from one of the rooms of his house by memo Ex. PC and fired cartridge which was also taken into possession by the same memo, was found to have been fired through the said gun and not through any other firearm as per the opinion Ex. PX of Central Forensic Science Laboratory but unless appellant Abhey Singh is linked with the said gunshot he cannot be held guilty for the murder of Poonam. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness. PX of Central Forensic Science Laboratory but unless appellant Abhey Singh is linked with the said gunshot he cannot be held guilty for the murder of Poonam. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness. All those alleged to be present in the house at the time of occurrence or immediately after the occurrence and had reported to the police and also proclaimed before it in their statements under Section 154, Cr. P.C. Ex. PB and under Section 161, Cr. P.C., that appellant Abhey Singh had killed his wife Poonam with his 12 bore single barrel gun, namely, Bhumi Chand PW-2, Rasil Singh PW-3, Thakri Devi PW-5, Ramesh Chand PW-8, Mansha Devi PW-19, Gaitri Devi PW-27 and others have not supported the prosecution version in their deposition in the Court and have categorically denied that appellant Abhey Singh or any other member of the family was present in the house at the time of occurrence. All of them were declared hostile but nothing material was elicited in cross-examination to hold that it was appellant Abhey Singh who had fired gun shot which killed his wife Poonam. It is clear that they are liars but it is of no help to the prosecution as from their statements its case is not established. 21. The Sessions Judge is not right in relying upon Daily Diary Report Ex. PEE, statement under Section 154, Cr. P.C. Ex. PB and inquest report Ex. PL as well as failure of appellant Abhey Singh to substantiate his plea of alibi to hold that he was present on the spot at the time of occurrence and had fired gun shot from 12 bore single barrel gun belonging to his father Rasil Singh to kill his wife Poonam. So far Daily Diary Report Ex. PEE and statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. Ex. PB are concerned, the authors of these have denied the contents thereof. Moreover, these are not substantive pieces of evidence and can only be used for the purpose of contradiction in the later statements of their authors made in the Court. 22. So far inquest report Ex. PL is concerned, it is prepared under Section 174, Cr. P.C. Ex. PB are concerned, the authors of these have denied the contents thereof. Moreover, these are not substantive pieces of evidence and can only be used for the purpose of contradiction in the later statements of their authors made in the Court. 22. So far inquest report Ex. PL is concerned, it is prepared under Section 174, Cr. P.C. and its purpose is only to draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury found on the dead body and also to state that in what manner or by what weapon or instrument (if any) such marks appear to have been inflicted, by the Officer who makes investigation in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood immediately after reaching the spot on receipt of information of presence of dead body there. In the pro forma prescribed for inquest report the relevant columns are Column Nos. 12 and 20. In the present case in Column No. 12 it is written that "12 bore single barrel gun" was the weapon with which wounds/injuries appear to have been inflicted and in Column No. 20 the apparent cause of death is given as "Killed with a gun shot". So far the last portion of this document, wherein the brief description of the case is given, which is nothing but reproduction of the statement under Section 154, Cr. P.C., is concerned, it cannot be considered part of the inquest report Ex. PN from which the prosecution can take any help. Even the contents of inquest report cannot be considered substantive piece of evidence and can be used for contradicting and corroborating the substantial evidence later produced in the trial. 23. It is correct that the plea of alibi has not been substantiated either by producing any evidence by appellant Abhey Singh or by any other evidence on record but the prosecution is to stand on its own legs to prove its case, which it has miserably failed to do in the present case. In our opinion there is no evidence on record connecting appellant Abhey Singh with the gun shot injury found on the person of deceased Poonam, as a result of which she had died. In our opinion there is no evidence on record connecting appellant Abhey Singh with the gun shot injury found on the person of deceased Poonam, as a result of which she had died. We also find that the Sessions Judge has not correctly read and inferred the statements of Mangat Ram PW-6, Gaitri Devi PW-27 and letter Ex. PN to hold that appellant Abhey Singh had motive to kill his wife Poonam as he was suspecting her character, as discussed hereinabove. In the present case the prosecution has not been able to trace the distance between may be and must be to hold that it was appellant Abhey Singh who had inflicted gun shot injury on deceased Poonam as a result of which she had died. 24. Therefore, the result of above discussion is that there is merit in this appeal and it is accepted. The judgment dated 25-7-1996 passed by the Sessions Judge is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302, IPC. He is ordered to be released forthwith. Appeal Allowed