Judgment AMARESH KU. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public prosecutor. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14th October, 1978 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 36/76, State v. Manphool Singh. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned District and Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellant Manphool Singh under Sections 452 and 302, I. P. C. and S. 27 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- and further rigorous imprisonment for two months for default in payment of fine for the offence punishable under Section 452, I. P. C. and imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- and further rigorous imprisonment for two months for default in payment of fine for the offence punishable under Section 302, I. P. C. and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. All the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently: ( 3 ) THE facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below :on 6th May, 1976 at 2. 35 a. m. Gulam Rasool gave oral first information report at Police Station Sadar, Bikaner to the effect that he heard the sound of gun-shot coming from the house of his neighbour Phoosadas and soon after the gun-shot he heard a woman weeping. It was also stated by Gulam Rasool that on account of fear he did not go there. The information given by Gulam Rasool was recorded in daily Roznamcha of the Police Station. Since, the information was incomplete. Shri Jagdish Chandra, Station House Officer of the Police Station proceeded towards the spot with Head Constable Sukhdeo Singh and Constables Gangabishan and Gordhan Dan. ( 4 ) ON reaching the house of Phoosadas he found dead body of Phoosadas lying in side the house. He, therefore, commenced investigation and sent the report Ex. P/11 to the Police Station for registration of the case. ( 5 ) IN Ex. P/11 Shri Jagdish Chandra mentioned that on reaching the spot i. e. the house of Phoosadas situated in Mohalla Korian, he found Smt. Manohari wife of Phoosadas weeping inside the house and on inquiry. He, therefore, commenced investigation and sent the report Ex. P/11 to the Police Station for registration of the case. ( 5 ) IN Ex. P/11 Shri Jagdish Chandra mentioned that on reaching the spot i. e. the house of Phoosadas situated in Mohalla Korian, he found Smt. Manohari wife of Phoosadas weeping inside the house and on inquiry. Smt. Manohari told that in the night she and her husband Phoosadas were sleeping and at about 2. 00 a. m. Manphool Singh entered her house. He was showering abuses and after entering the house he fired a shot (which did not cause any injury to anyone) and inquired from her husband about his children. It was also stated by Smt. Manohari that Manphool Singh used to drink and after taking drink, he used to abuse and beat his children: Therefore, his children used to seek shelter in the neighbourhood, It was also stated by Smt. Manohari that she as well as her husband told Manphool Singh that his children had not come to her house. After that Manphool Singh asked her husband Phoosadas to accompany him to the bus station and when her husband showed reluctance, Manphool Singh started abusing him and when her husband got up from the cot, Manphool Singh shot at her husbands chest with the gun and in consequence, her husband fell on the cot, It was also stated by Smt. Manohari that after her husband was shot at by the accused Manphool Singh, she started crying. in the report Ex. P/11 Jagdish Chandra further mentioned that when he inspected the dead body, he found that there was a wound caused by gun shot and blood was coming out of the wound. He, therefore, found a prima facie case under Section 302, I. P. C. and commenced investigation. ( 6 ) ON the basis of the report Ex. P/11 sent by Jagdish Chandra, Station House Officer of the Police Officer Sadar, Bikaner, a case under Section 302, I. P. C. was registered at the Police Station, Sadar, Bikaner. ( 7 ) DURING investigation, post mortem examination of the dead body of Phoosadas was conducted. His bloodstained clothes and samples of bloodstained earth were taken. P/11 sent by Jagdish Chandra, Station House Officer of the Police Officer Sadar, Bikaner, a case under Section 302, I. P. C. was registered at the Police Station, Sadar, Bikaner. ( 7 ) DURING investigation, post mortem examination of the dead body of Phoosadas was conducted. His bloodstained clothes and samples of bloodstained earth were taken. Manphool Singh was also arrested and at his instance a 12 bore gun, with which the offence was alleged to have been committed was recovered and an empty cartridge was also recovered from the house of the accused, The empty cartridge. the clothes seized by the police during the investigation and a 12 bore gun recovered by the police during investigation, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for expert examination. Photographs of the dead body of Phoosadas were also taken. ( 8 ) AFTER investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173, Cr. P. C. In the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. ( 9 ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bikaner committed the case to the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Bikaner. ( 10 ) THE charges, under Sections 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 27 of the Indian Army Act were framed against the accused Manphool Singh. He pleaded not guilty to the charges. ( 11 ) DURING trial the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, namely, Gulam Rasool P. W. 3, Chain Singh P. W. 2, Dr. . Manohar Swami P. W. 3, Mohammadu Khan P. W. 4, Jiya Ram P. W. 5, Maziruddin P. W. 6, Nathmal P. W. 7, Manohari P. W. 8, Murari Lal P. W. 9, Tarachand P. W. 10, Kalyan Mal Sharma P. W. 11, Ibrahim Khan P. W. 12, and Premsagar Manocha P. W. 13 in support of the prosecution case. The accused was examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C. Jagdish Chandra, S. H. O. of the Police Station, Sadar, Bikaner was examined as a Court witness. The accused did not examine any witness in defence, but some documents were exhibited in defence. ( 12 ) AFTER taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution, the statement of the accused given under Section 313, Cr. P. C. Jagdish Chandra, S. H. O. of the Police Station, Sadar, Bikaner was examined as a Court witness. The accused did not examine any witness in defence, but some documents were exhibited in defence. ( 12 ) AFTER taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution, the statement of the accused given under Section 313, Cr. P. C. and hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned District and Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 452, I. P. C. and S. 27 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced him as mentioned above. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case the evidence produced by the prosecution is not reliable, the investigation was not fair and the appellant has been falsely implicated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was not happy with the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has therefore, prayed that appeal should be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him. ( 14 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge and prayed that the appeal be dismissed. ( 15 ) WE have carefully considered the arguments of the parties, the evidence produced by the prosecution, the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. and the documents exhibited during trial. ( 16 ) GULAM Rasool P. W. 1 is the person, who gave the information on Ex. P/1. He is a neighbour of the deceased Phoosadas, He came to know about the occurrence after hearing the sound of gun fire and the cries of Smt. Manohari. ( 17 ) CHAIN Singh P. W. 2 is a witness in whose presence investigation was conducted by the Station House Officer of the Police Station. He has deposed that Panchayatnama Ex. P/3. Memo Ex. P/4 and Recovery memos Ex. P/5, Ex. P/6 and Ex. P/8 were prepared in his presence by the police. ( 18 ) DR. Manohar Swami P. W. 3 conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Phoosadas. He has proved the Post Mortem Examination Report Ex. P/9. ( 19 ) MOHAMMADU Khan P. W. 4 was posted as duty Incharge at Police Station, Sadar on the night intervening 5th and 6th May, 1976. The Report Ex. P/11 was submitted before him by Constable Gangabishan. He has proved the Post Mortem Examination Report Ex. P/9. ( 19 ) MOHAMMADU Khan P. W. 4 was posted as duty Incharge at Police Station, Sadar on the night intervening 5th and 6th May, 1976. The Report Ex. P/11 was submitted before him by Constable Gangabishan. He registered the case and prepared the police report Ex. P/12 on the basis of report Ex. P/11 and sent a copy thereof to Shri Jagdish Prasad, S. H. O. , who was conducting the investigation at the spot. ( 20 ) JIYA Ram P. W. 5 has turned hostile. He denied that any recovery was made in his presence. ( 21 ) NAZIRUDDIN P. W. 6 is Assistant Sub-Inspector, who went to P. B. M. Hospital, Bikaner for the purpose of getting post-mortem examination done. He recovered the bloodstained clothes of the deceased Phoosadas and prepared the recovery memo Ex. P/7. ( 22 ) NATHMAL P. W. 7 is another neighbour of the deceased Phoosadas. He has given evidence to the effect that on the night intervening 5th and 6th May, 1976, he heard the sound of gun fire and woke up and at that time he heard the cries of the wife of Phoosadas, who was crying that her husband had been killed by "thanedarji"and that she requested her neighbours for help. ( 23 ) SMT. Manohari P. W. 8 is the wife of the deceased. She is an eye-witness of the occurrence. She has supported the prosecution story and since she is the only eye-witness of the incident, her statement is very important. ( 24 ) MURARILAL P. W. 9 was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police, C. I. D. (C. B.), Bikaner. He was entrusted the investigation of the case on 14th May, 76 by the order passed by the Dy. Inspector-General of Police, C. I. D. Crime, Jaipur. He inspected the site and recovered an empty cartridge from the house of the accused and prepared the recovery memo Ex. P/13 and Ex. P/13a. He recorded the statement of Manohari P. W. 8 on 18th May, 76 and also took samples of control soil and prepared the memo Ex. P/14. Inspector-General of Police, C. I. D. Crime, Jaipur. He inspected the site and recovered an empty cartridge from the house of the accused and prepared the recovery memo Ex. P/13 and Ex. P/13a. He recorded the statement of Manohari P. W. 8 on 18th May, 76 and also took samples of control soil and prepared the memo Ex. P/14. ( 25 ) TARACHAND P. W. 10 was posted as Head Constable in the office of the A. P. P. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bikaner, Tarachand P. W. 10 has given statement to the effect that on 6th May, 1976 at 2 p. m. Head Constable Suman Ali went to him and told him that Shri Kalyanmal, Dy. Superintendent of Police was calling him. Tarachand P. W. 10 has added that he accompanied Suman Ali to his house, where Kalyanmal, Dy. S. P. Manphool Singh (accused) and witnesses Chain Singh and Sanwarlal and police constables were standing outside the house. Tarachand PW. 10 has further added that at the instance of Kalyanmal, he opened the door of his house and from inside his house a 12 bore gun in three pieces, 9 cartridges, licence of the gun and a black bag were recovered by Kalyanmal from a cot, which was lying in the "varandah"and recovery memo Ex. P/6 was prepared. ( 26 ) KALYANMAL Sharma P. W. 11 had inspected the site after the incident. In his presence photographs Ex. P/19 to Ex. P/22 were taken by the Photographer and the memo Ex. P/4, Panchayatnama Ex. P/5, site plan Ex. P/2 and inspection note Ex. P/23 as well recovery memo Ex. P/5 were prepared. He arrested the accused Manphool Singh vide arrest memo Ex. P/14 and he was given information by the accused, which he recorded on Ex. P/25 and recovered a 12 bore gun vide. recovery memo Ex. P/6. A part of the investigation was conducted by him. ( 27 ) IBRAHIM Khan P. W. 12 is the Constable, who carried 8 sealed packets from the Police Station, Sadar Bikaner to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and brought back the sealed packets to the Police Station as some objection was raised by F. S. L. and on 16th June, 1976 again carried 8 sealed packets to the Forensic Science Laboratory and deposited them without tampering with them. ( 28 ) MR. ( 28 ) MR. Premsagar Manocha P. W. 13 is the Assistant Director, Ballistic. He has proved the report of the Ballistic Examination. ( 29 ) JAGDISH Chandra C. W. 1 is the Station House Officer of the Police Station, who went to the spot after receiving the information from Gulam Rasool. He is the author of the First Information Report Ex. P/11 and earlier part of the investigation was conducted by him. ( 30 ) THE evidence of Dr. Mahohar Swami P. W. 3 proves that he conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Phoosadas on 6th May, 76 at 2 p. m. The deceased was well nourished. Rigor morits was present and post mortem staining was also present on the back. There was following injury on the body of Phoosadas :- (1) A wound with inverted margins which was dark coloured measuring 3 c. m. diameter on the front of the chest at the third and fourth intercostal space at the right sterno costal function from which fluid blood was coming out. The margins showed a colour of dark ring around the wound. It was thorasic cavity deep and there was crepitation and breakage of the third, fourth and fifth ribs at the sternal ends showing fractures into small pieces. The adjustment part of sternum bone on right side showed the similar changes. The wound was circular in shape. On deep dissection, there was blackening of the sub-cutaneous and soft tissues at the base of the wound. Heart on right side showed a perforation in an area of 2 c. m. x 1/2 c. m. with irregular margins. On deep dissection base of the heart and the back surface of the heart showed complete tearing of with irregular margins. Both the chambers found empty. On the right side a cardwad was found which was taken out and measured 2 c. m. diameter. Two cardwad pieces were taken out from the base of the heart. Right lung showed a perforating wound measuring 3 M. M. diameter in the lower lobe extending to the posterior part. The lung was pale on dissection. right side and left side pleural cavities were full of blood clots and dark coloured fluid blood. Two cardwad pieces were taken out from the base of the heart. Right lung showed a perforating wound measuring 3 M. M. diameter in the lower lobe extending to the posterior part. The lung was pale on dissection. right side and left side pleural cavities were full of blood clots and dark coloured fluid blood. On dissetion of the right thoraic wall posteriorly one pellet was found in the sixth intercostal space at the middle of the posterior arch and one pellet found at the 8th intercostal space in the paravertebral region. Both were taken out. There was a pellet lodged in the sub cutaneous tissues on the left side chest in the infra clavicular region paravertebral area which was also taken out. (2) There was a wound with invented margins on right side infra scapular region at 8th to 9th thoracic vertebral level on the back of the chest. measuring 1 c. m. diameter with fluid blood coming out. It was 2 c. m. away from the mid line on the right side. ( 31 ) DR. Manohar Swami P. W. 3 stated that injury No. 1 was the wound of entrance and injury No. 2 was wound of exist. caused by some fire arm at close contact and the cause of death was due to shock as a result of injuries found on the dead body and the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and self-sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Duration of the injuries was 24 hours at the time of examination. It is also stated by Dr. Manohar Swami P. W. 3 that after taking out pellets, he placed them in cotton and they were stitched in a cloth and then sealed and along with the sealed packets, a letter was written to the S. H. O. Police Station, Sadar. He has proved the letter Ex. P/10 as written by him. !t is further stated by Dr. Mahohar Swami P. W. 3 that the deceased would have died instantaneously after receiving the injuries and that his death had occurred about 4-6 hours after taking his meals and that the fire arm must have been tired after putting the barrel of the fire arm on the chest of the deceased. The statement of Dr. Mahavir Swami P. W. 3 has not been shaken in cross examination. The evidence given by Dr. Mahavir Swami PW. The statement of Dr. Mahavir Swami P. W. 3 has not been shaken in cross examination. The evidence given by Dr. Mahavir Swami PW. 3 proves beyond reasonable doubt that Phoosadas died an unnatural death on account of gun shot injury received by him and that his death was homicidal. ( 32 ) IN order to connect the accused appellant with the death of Phoosadas, the prosecution has produced Smt. Mahohari Devi P. W. 8, who is an eye witness of the alleged occurrence. The prosecution has also produced circumstantial evidence, which is in the nature of recovery of 12 bore gun from the house of Tara Chand P. W. 10 and the evidence that this gun belongs to accused appellant and the recovery of empty cartridge from the house of the accused and the evidence of the Ballistic Expert Shri Premsagar Manocha to prove that the gun belonging to the accused appellant had been recently fired and that the empty cartridge recovered from the house of the accused had been fired with the gun belonging to the accused appellant. ( 33 ) TO corroborate the statement of Manohari Devi P. W. 8, the prosecution has examined Gulam Rasool PW. 1 and Nathmal P. W. 7, who woke up on hearing the sound of gun fire and heard Smt. Manohari crying to the effect that her husband had been killed by "thanedarji". Recovery of dead body of Phoosadas from the scene of occurrence, recovery of blood stained clothes, recovery of blood stained soil and the evidence that blood was found on the clothes of the deceased and was also found in the sample of blood stained soil have been proved for the purpose of proving that Phoosadas was shot at inside his house at the place where his dead body was found and that he died on account of injuries caused by gun fire. ( 34 ) AT the outset it would be proper to point out that the three pellets which had been recovered by the doctor from inside the body of Phoosadas could have been fired with the shot gun similar to the gun belonging to the accused (appellant ). But, it could not be conclusively established that the pellets recovered by Dr. Manohar Swami P. W. 3 from inside the body of Phoosadas were fired with the gun belonging to the accused. But, it could not be conclusively established that the pellets recovered by Dr. Manohar Swami P. W. 3 from inside the body of Phoosadas were fired with the gun belonging to the accused. It is also proper to point out that an empty cartridge had been recovered from the house of the accused (appellant) and not from the place where deceased Phoosadas was murdered. The report of ballistic Examination proves not more than this that the empty cartridge recovered by the police during investigation had been fired with the gun belonging to the accused (appellant ). But, whether the pellets which entered the body of the deceased belonged to this empty cartridge or they belonged to some other cartridge could not be established. Because of these two circumstances, the recovery of the pellets, empty cartridge and the SBBL 12 bore gun belonging to the accused by itself is not sufficient to connect accused (appellant) with the murder of Phoosadas. The only evidence on which prosecution relies for connecting the accused with the murder of Phoosadas is the oral statement of Smt. Manohari P. W. 8 who is alleged to be an eye witness of the occurrence. If her statement is found to be reliable, the appeal will have to be dismissed. On the other hand, if her statement is discarded as unreliable, the appeal will have to be allowed. ( 35 ) SMT. Manohari PW 8 has given statement to the effect that her marriage took place 7-8 years ago and that sometime after her marriage. She went to Bikaner and started living in Mohalla Koriyan in a house belonging to her husband. The accused Manphool Singh lived in her neighbourhood. He was known as "manphool Sahab" by the people of the locality and she knew Manphool Singh. Regarding the occurrence in question, she has stated that in the night of occurrence, she was sleeping on a cot and her husband was sleeping on another cot with his son Babuda. In that night. at about 10 p. m. accused (Manphool Singh) had quarrelled with Khaju Khan in the "dera of Bhookan" and her husband had intervened and brought Manphool Singh and after that she as well as her husband went to bed. Smt. Manohar PW. 8 further added that in the same night, she heard sound of a gun fire coming from the house of the accused Manphool Singh. Smt. Manohar PW. 8 further added that in the same night, she heard sound of a gun fire coming from the house of the accused Manphool Singh. On hearing that sound she woke up. On waking up she lit light and tried to sleep, but could not sleep, and at the time the accused entered in her house and caught her hand and asked her to accompany him to his house and further said that Omi. Pappu and Guddi were not present at his house. According to Smt. Manohar, PW. 8 Omi, Pappu and Guddi are the children of the accused. She refused to go with the accused and told that she would raise an alarm. but the accused abused her and threatened to kill her and opened fire in the air. He was armed with a gun at that time. ( 36 ) IT is further stated by Smt. Manohari PW. 8 that on hearing the sound of gun fire, her husband (Phoosadas) and her son Babuda woke up. Babuda started weeping. and her husband asked the accused as to why he had entered the house at that. hour of the late night and the accused in reply told that he was searching his children. Phoosadas told the accused with the folded hands that his children had not come to his house and requested the accused to return to his house. The accused then expressed the apprehension that his children might have gone to the bus-stand and he asked Phoosadas to accompany him to the bus-stand. Phoosadas did not agree to go to the bus stand and told the accused that he was. making a false pretext and that he had entered his house with an evil intention and that he would not allow him to fulfil his desire and he further told the accused that he can indulge in the evil deed after killing him. Smt Manohari P. W. 8 has further added that the accused was carrying a gun and a bag with him. He inserted his hand in his bag, took out something from the bag and loaded the gun with it and at that time she went to the accused and fell on her feet, but the accused knocked her away and shot at the chest of her husband with his gun and thereafter ran away. He inserted his hand in his bag, took out something from the bag and loaded the gun with it and at that time she went to the accused and fell on her feet, but the accused knocked her away and shot at the chest of her husband with his gun and thereafter ran away. ( 37 ) IT is further stated by Smt. Manohari P. W. 8 that on receiving the injury by gun fire her husband fell on the cot. She brought some water in a glass and sprinkled a few drops on the face, and chest on her husband, but her husband breathed his last. It is also stated by her that a clock was at that time placed on a chair near the cot of the deceased and when she looked at the clock, she found that the time was 2 a. m. Smt. Manohari P. W. 8 has further added that she started weeping and called Nathu Suthar, who lived in her neighbourhood, but Nathu Suthar did not come to her house. According to Smt. Manohari PW 8, Nathu Sutharand Gulam Rasool both lived in her neighbourhood and Gulam Rasool inquired from her as to what had happened and then she told him that her husband had been killed by "sahab" and requested him to come to her house and after about one hour, Gulam Rasool went to her house with the Station House Officer of the Police Station and then she told the S. H. O. about the incident. Smt. Manohari P. W. 8 has identified the article Ex. M/1. Gudri and stated that her husband was sleeping on it at the night of incident and after receiving the gun injury, he fell on this Gudri, which had become stained with blood. Regarding Baniyan article Ex. M/2 and Dhoti article Ex. M/2 and Dhoti article Ex. M/2, she has stated that these two clothes were put on by her husband at the time of incident. Regarding Khesala article Ex. M/4 she has stated that it was also stained with blood. It was lying on the cot. Regarding Baniyan article Ex. M/2 and Dhoti article Ex. M/2 and Dhoti article Ex. M/2, she has stated that these two clothes were put on by her husband at the time of incident. Regarding Khesala article Ex. M/4 she has stated that it was also stained with blood. It was lying on the cot. Thus, Smt. Manohari PW 8 has given evidence to the effect that accused appellant Manphool Singh entered her house with a gun and a bag asked her to accompany him to his house and on her refusal to comply with his demand, threatened to kill her and fired one gun shot in air and after that when her husband woke up and he asked the accused to go away, the accused opened fire at the chest of her husband with the gun and thereafter accused went away. ( 38 ) IN cross-examination Smt. Mahohari PW 8 had admitted that she was the second wife of her husband and the first wife of his husband was known as "manohari. " She denied the suggestion that she had illicit relations with Annararn. Regarding accused Manphool Singh, Smt. Manohari PW 8 has stated that Manphool Singhs wife used to live with him, but on the night of occurrence the wife and children of the accused had gone outside. She was confronted with Portion A to B of her police statement Ex. D/5. In Portion A to B, it was stated by her that on the night of occurrence she and her husband were sleeping in the courtyard of their house. At that time Manphool Singh entered the house. He was showering abuses and he fired one shot with his gun. In portion C to D of Ex. D/5 it was stated by Smt. Manohari that her husband got up from the cot, at that time accused Manphool Singh shot at the chest of her husband with the gun. Portion A to B of Ex. D/5 has been disowned by Smt. Manohari PW 8. She not only disowned the Portion A to B of Ex. D/5. D/5 it was stated by Smt. Manohari that her husband got up from the cot, at that time accused Manphool Singh shot at the chest of her husband with the gun. Portion A to B of Ex. D/5 has been disowned by Smt. Manohari PW 8. She not only disowned the Portion A to B of Ex. D/5. she has further added that she had told the police that one shot was fired in the house of the accused and she woke up on hearing the sound of the gun shot, thereafter, she lit light and went to bed, but could not sleep and she does not know why this statement was not recorded by the Police Officer. Portion C to D of her statement Ex. D/5 has been admitted by Smt. Manohari PW. 8. ( 39 ) THE learned counsel for the accused has submitted that since Smt. Manohari has denied the statement Portion A to B of Ex. D/5, there is a material contradiction between her statement in the Court and the statement before the police and this material contradiction makes the story doubtful. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that the story given by Smt. Manohari in the examination-in-chief in Portions E to F and G to H were not stated to the Police and therefore, it should be held that she has made improvements while giving statement in the court and that the conduct of making improvements makes her testimony doubtful. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that Smt. Manohari PW 8 was examined by the police after a period about 12 days and there is no explanation why her statement was not recorded soon after the occurrence when the Station House Officer of the Police. Station reached the spot and inquired from her about the incident. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that the statement of Smt. Manohari PW 8 has not been supported by the information Ex. P/1 given Gulam Rasool soon after the occurrence, because in Ex. P/1 , it has not been mentioned that Manohari cried that her husband had been shot at by the accused Manphool Singh. ( 40 ) WE have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused. P/1 given Gulam Rasool soon after the occurrence, because in Ex. P/1 , it has not been mentioned that Manohari cried that her husband had been shot at by the accused Manphool Singh. ( 40 ) WE have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused. It is true that the statement of Smt. Manohari PW 8 was not recorded when Jagdish Chandra C. W. 1 reached the place of occurrence on receiving the information Ex. P/1 from Gulam Rasool. Jagdish Chandra C. W. 1 has stated in his cross-examination that he reached the house of Phoosadas at about 2. 50 or 2. 55 a. m. and remained at his house up to 3. 30 a. m. and found three cots lying in the courtyard of the house. On two cots, there was bedding, but he does not remember whether on the third cot also there was a bedding and the dead body of Phoosadas was lying on one of the two cots which had beddings. Jagdish Chandra C. W. 1 has not been cross-examined why he did not record the statement of Smt. Manohari PW 8 soon after reaching the place of occurrence. in his examination-in-chief he has stated that he made oral inquiry from Smt. Manohari and on the basis of that oral inquiry, prepared the First Information Report Ex. P/11. in view of the fact that F. I. R. Ex. P/11 was prepared by Jagdish Chandra C. W. 1 soon after reaching the place of incident and Ex. P/11 unambiguously mentions that Smt. Manohari had told about the incident (as stated in Ex. P/11 ). Omission on the part of Jagdish Chandra C. W. 1 to record the statement of Smt. Manohari PW 8 in the form of a "parcha Bayaan" is not fatal to the prosecution case, because Ex. P/11 contains the statement given by Smt. Mahohari PW 8 to Jagdish Chandra C. W. 1. ( 41 ) THE submission that there are material contradictions between her statement made in the Court and statement made to the Police Officer and that material contradictions make the testimony of Smt. Manohari PW 8 doubtful, does not appear to be correct. In her statement Ex. ( 41 ) THE submission that there are material contradictions between her statement made in the Court and statement made to the Police Officer and that material contradictions make the testimony of Smt. Manohari PW 8 doubtful, does not appear to be correct. In her statement Ex. D/5, there are two portions, which were put to Smt. Manohari and these have been marked as Portion A to B and C to D. She has denied the Portion A to B and asserted that she had given the same statement to the police, which she has given in the Court. In Portion A to B , she had stated that she and her husband were sleeping in the courtyard of the house and at that time Manphool Singh entered the house, he was showering abuses and he fired one shot with his gun. In fact; there does not appear to be any contradiction between the statement contained in Portion A to B of Ex. D/5 and the statement given in Court. Because in the Court Smt. Manohari has stated that on the night of occurrence she and her husband were sleeping in the courtyard of the house. It is also stated by her in examination-in-chief that Manphool Singh abused her and that he fired one gun shot when she refused to comply with the demand to go with him to his house. There is thus strictly speaking no contradiction between the two statements. However, there appears to be the omission of the details, which she has given during her examination-in-chief. In Tehsildar Singhs case AIR 1959 SC 1012 : (1959 Cri LJ 1231) it was pointed out by their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court that when the police officer examines witnesses and records their statements, generally it is the substance of the statement that is recorded. Their Lordships observed as under :"at the stage of investigation, statements of witnesses are taken in a haphazard manner. The police officer in the course of his investigation finds himself more often in the midst of an excited crowd and babel of voices raised all round. In such an atmosphere, unlike that in a Court of law, he is expected to hear the statements of witnesses and record separately the statement of each one of them. Generally he records only, a summary of the statements which appears to him to be relevant. In such an atmosphere, unlike that in a Court of law, he is expected to hear the statements of witnesses and record separately the statement of each one of them. Generally he records only, a summary of the statements which appears to him to be relevant. These statements are, therefore; only a summary of what a witness says and very often perfunctory: Indeed, in view of the aforesaid facts, there is a statutory prohibition against police making the statement, indicating thereby that the statement is not intended to be binding on the witness or an assurance by him that it is a correct statement. " ( 42 ) IN view of the observations of their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court the fact that details of the incident have not been given in the statement Ex. D/5 does not amount to contradiction, and therefore, we do not find force in the submission that there are material omissions and contradictions or that Smt. Manohari PW 8 has made material improvements in her version as given in the Court. In fact, after carefully going, through the statement of Smt. Manohari PW 8, we are of the opinion that her statement could not be shaken in the cross-examination. Therefore, we do not find any reason to discard her statement as unreliable. ( 43 ) THE submission that Gulam Rasool PW 1 did not mention in Ex. P/ 1 that he heard Manohari crying that her husband Phoosadas had been murdered by Manphool Singh, may lead to the inference that Gulam Rasool has made improvement in his version when he was examined in Court. Because in the information Ex. P/1 he did not mention that he heard Smt. Manohari crying that her husband Phoosadas had been murdered. The above mentioned improvement may justify discarding that portion of the statement of Gulam Rasool PW. 1 in which he has stated that Smt. Manohari told him that her husband Phoosadas had been murdered by Manphool Singh, but it does not justify discarding the statement of Smt. Manohari PW 8. The above mentioned improvement may justify discarding that portion of the statement of Gulam Rasool PW. 1 in which he has stated that Smt. Manohari told him that her husband Phoosadas had been murdered by Manphool Singh, but it does not justify discarding the statement of Smt. Manohari PW 8. ( 44 ) IT is also submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that the entire prosecution version as given by Smt. Manohari is improbable, in as much as, there was no reason why the accused should have fired one shot with his gun at his house and another shot in the house of Phoosadas without causing any injury to anyone and the third shot, which caused the fatal injury to Phoosadas. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused is that if the accused wanted to take away Smt. Manohari to his house for the purpose of satisfying his lust, he would not have committed the mistake of firing a shot at his house and the second shot at the house of Smt. Manohari, because he must have known that these two shots would draw the attention of other persons to him and his intention of taking Smt. Manohari with him would not be fulfilled. ( 45 ) IN our opinion the submission made by the learned counsel for the accused is not sufficient to doubt the testimony of Smt. Manohari PW 8, The prosecution evidence has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the gun, which was recovered by the police belonged to the accused and the accused had a license for the same and that on Ballistic Examination, it was found that this gun had been fired and the empty cartridge, which was sent for Ballistic Examination had been fired with this gun. It has also been proved by the prosecution evidence that the gun was recovered from inside the house of Tarachand, where it was placed on a cot and the empty cartridge which was found to have been fired with the gun was recovered from the house of the accused. There is thus no doubt in it that the gun belonging to the accused had been fired before it was recovered. The accused has not given any explanation about the firing of the gun. There is thus no doubt in it that the gun belonging to the accused had been fired before it was recovered. The accused has not given any explanation about the firing of the gun. In these circumstances, it is proper to infer that the gun had been fired by the accused on the night of occurrence, as has been stated by Smt. Manohari PW 8. In any case the fact that the gun of the accused was found to have been fired supports the statement of Smt. Manohari PW 8 and does not in any way make her statement doubtful. Why the accused fired one gun shot at his house, is not known to us. But the fact that he fired two gun shots inside the house of Phoosadas is fully proved by the statement of Smt. Mahohari PW 8. The object behind firing the first gun shot (in air) inside the house of Phoosadas appears to be to threaten Smt. Manohari PW 8, because she had refused to go with the accused and the second gun shot was fired obviously with the object of causing death of Phoosadas, who had refused to allow his wife Manohari to go with the accused. In our opinion, the prosecution story cannot be said to be improbable. Those who are overpowered with lust and are further intoxicated by the power that is available to them in the form of arms or other kind of physical power are likely to behave in the manner in which the accused Manphool Singh is alleged to have behaved in this case. Therefore, we do not find any force in the submission that the prosecution story should be doubted on the ground that is improbable or unnatural. Therefore, we do not find any force in the submission that the prosecution story should be doubted on the ground that is improbable or unnatural. ( 46 ) TO sum up, in our view the statement of Smt. Manohari PW 8 is reliable to and this statement clearly proves that the accused Manphool Singh went to the house of Phoosadas and asked Smt. Manohari to accompany him to his house and when Smt. Manohari refused to go with the accused, the accused fired one gun shot in air with his gun and on hearing the sound of that gun shot, Phoosadas woke up and he inquired from the accused why he had visited his house at that hour of the night and on hearing the accused, Phoosadas immediately realised that the story given by the accused was false and that in fact accused wanted to take her wife Manohari with him to his house for the purpose of satisfying his lust in an illicit manner. Phoosadas, thereafter, asked the accused to go away from his house and further stated that he would not allow the accused to fulfil his desire so long he was alive. Phoosadas, thus expressed the determination not to permit the accused to satisfy his lust by taking Manohari with him and this led to the firing of the second shot by the accused at the chest of Phoosadas. The statement of Smt. Manohari PW 8 is corroborated by the statement of Gulam Rasool PW 1 and Nathmal PW 7 who lived in her neighbourhood. Both of them heard the sound of gun fire and they heard Smt. Manohari PW 8 weeping soon after the opening of fire. Gulam Rasool PW I went to the Police Station and gave the report exp. P/1 and accompanied the Police Officer to the house of Phoosadas and Nathmal PW 7 remained at his house and he heard Smt. Manohari crying that her husband had been killed by "thanedar". According to Nathmal PW 7 the expression "thanedar" was used for Manphool Singh. It is also stated by Nathmal PW 7 that after sometime Manohari PW 8 went towards the wall of his house and loudly called for help and at that time she told that she was terrified and that her husband had been killed by Manphool Singh. According to Nathmal PW 7 the expression "thanedar" was used for Manphool Singh. It is also stated by Nathmal PW 7 that after sometime Manohari PW 8 went towards the wall of his house and loudly called for help and at that time she told that she was terrified and that her husband had been killed by Manphool Singh. The statement of Smt. Manohari PW 8 is further corroborated by the medical evidence, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that Phoosadas died on account of gun shot injuries. The recovery of the dead body from inside the house soon after the occurrence and the information given by Smt. Manohari PW 8 to Shri Jagdish Chandra C. W 1 (which information is recorded on Ex. P/11) further corroborates the statement of Smt. Manohari PW 8. We, therefore. find no force in the submission that the evidence is not sufficient to prove the charges against the accused (appellant ). ( 47 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any force in this appeal. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of the prosecution in right perspective and he has given cogent and satisfactory reasons for holding the accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 452, I. P. C. and S. 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. the accused is on bail. He is hereby directed to surrender before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bikaner within 15 days, failing which a non bailable warrant of arrest shall be issued to compel his appearance and after his appearance/arrest as the case may be, he shall be committed to Jail so that he may serve out the sentence awarded to him. Appeal dismissed.