Kumarayya, J.- Of the 16 accused, who stood charged for various offences (23 counts in all) before the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, in relation to an incident which took place on 5th February, 1964 at about 6-30 a.m. in Thummalapalli village, Kamalapuram taluq, Cuddapah, district, resulting in the death of Kudumula Chinna Veerareddi (deceased 1), Kudumula Ramanjaneyareddi (deceased No. 2) and Kudumula Subbamma (deceased No. 3) and hurt to some others, three of the accused (accused 1 to 3) have been convicted under section302, Indian Penal Code, for committing murder of deceased (Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively) and sentenced to life imprisonment. Each of them has also been convicted under section 149 read with section 302, Indian Penal Code, for the other two murders for which they were indirectly responsible. They were besides convicted for certain minor offences under the Indian Arms Act on counts Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Of the other accused,accused 5 and 15 were convicted under section 302 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to impri-sonment for life. They were, besides, convicted for the offence under section 324 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, on counts Nos. 9 and 11 and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment for each of the said offences. The various terms of imprisonment awarded to each of the accused were directed to run concurrently. Against the orders of conviction and sentences the said accused have come up on appeal. The village, Thummalappalli, was torn by factions. Of the two factions which were formed, one was led by accused 3 (Lingareddi Ramireddi) and the other by Kudumula Errappa Reddi, father of P.W. 1 ill-feelings started on the death of Arava Obiah who died possessed of vast properties. Kudumula Yerrappa Reddi had married his daughter Gangulamma. In fact he was taken as the illatom son-in-law. Three sons were born to him of whom Peda Veerareddi is the eldest and Ramalinga reddi (P.W. 1). is the youngest. The only other son was China Veerareddi (the first deceased) Peda Veerareddi who had married Narayanamma had by her a son (Ramanjaneya Reddi (deceased No. 2). Deceased No. 3 was the wife of Chinnaveera reddi (deceased No. 1). They had no children. The third son Ramalingareddi was yet unmarried. Gangulamma, (the daughter of Peda Obiah) died soon after P.W 1 Ramalinga Reddi) was born. Deceased No. 3 was the wife of Chinnaveera reddi (deceased No. 1). They had no children. The third son Ramalingareddi was yet unmarried. Gangulamma, (the daughter of Peda Obiah) died soon after P.W 1 Ramalinga Reddi) was born. Thereafter Pedda Obiah also died. On his death, there was scramble for his property. The 1st accused (Arava Nagireddi) got possession of the property claiming to be his heir. Peda Veerareddi, son of Yerrapareddi, as a result, brought a suit against him for recovery of the said property. The suitended in a decree in his favour and this decree was eventually upheld in appeal. The sons of Yerrapareddi then came into possession of the properties of Pedda Obiah. This was the genesis of the real ill-feeling between the 1st accused and the sons of Yerrapureddi. This happened twenty years ago. Certain other events which took Place subsequently augmented their strained relationship. As it is accused, 3, 5 and 15 who had relationship with accused they were suspected of having assisted him in the previous litigation. About five years prior to the present incident there developed a dispute with regard to a right of way between accusedl5 and the 1st deceased. There was a fresh water well-known as Dasabandham bhavi on a Government site. To the west thereof was the public way and then the land of Yerrapareddi. The well became dilapidated and the way as a result subsided into the well. Accused 15 took his ploughs through the land of Yerrapareddi. His sons took objection. Thereupon accused 15 brought a suit against the 1st deceased. It appears the dispute was of a trivial nature and when the well was repaired by Arava Chinna Veera Reddy and accused 15, the pathway automatically became restored and accused 15 saw no occasion for continuing his suit. The enmity nevertheless developed between him and Yerrapa Reddi’s family members. About a couple of years before the date of the offence accused 5 tried to encroach on the kallam of Yerrapareddi and this was objected to by the family members of Yerrapareddi. Some time thereafter, accused 1 to 3 and 10, 12 and 15 dragged Yerrapareddi into the house of 1st accused and beat him. Yerappareddi launched a criminal complaint against them. But it was thrown out after long drawn trial, This was a further cause of embitterment of feelings between the two families. Some time thereafter, accused 1 to 3 and 10, 12 and 15 dragged Yerrapareddi into the house of 1st accused and beat him. Yerappareddi launched a criminal complaint against them. But it was thrown out after long drawn trial, This was a further cause of embitterment of feelings between the two families. Five or six months prior to the date of the offence (5th February, 1964 the 5th accused threw korra stalks into the kallam of Yerrapareddi. It was object d to by Yerrapareddi and his sons. Accused 1, 3, 5 and 15 asserted that they were justified in their action. Some time thereafter, the 5th accused carted stones and heaped them across the Pathway near the field of Yerrapareddi. Yerrapareddi and his sons objected to it. There was hot exchange of words. Both parties got on the terraces of their respective houses and pelted stones at each other. Owing to these lawless tendencies, the police thought it necessary to station police party at Thummalapalli for keeping peace. The party was stationed at the temple of Ramaswami. Even so there was another stone-throwing incident between the factions about a month prior to 5th February, 1964. On 15th November 1963 the Circle Inspector of Police launched security proceedings against both the factions, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cuddapah. Twenty-four members of the faction of Yerrapareddi including P.Ws. 1 to 3,10 and 16 and 18 and members of thefaction of 3rd accused including accused 1 to 16 were impleaded in the security proceedings. In the course of the security Proceedings, all the members of the faction of the 3rd accused executed bonds for good behaviour. All the respondents of the faction of Yerrapareddi also executed bonds excepting P.Ws. 1 and 2 and two others, viz., Reddicherla Chennareddi and Kudumula Venkatareddi. The security case therefore, stood posted to 6th February, 1964 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cuddapah for further proceedings. In addition to the security proceedings the Circle Inspector of Police, Kamalapuram, had launched a criminal case against the members of both the factions under section 160, Indian Penal Code, before the Judicial Second-class Magistrate, Kamalapuram. That case was still pending. As the security proceedings stood posted to 6th February, 1964 it is said on 5th February, 1964 in the small hours in the morning about 5-30, P.Ws. That case was still pending. As the security proceedings stood posted to 6th February, 1964 it is said on 5th February, 1964 in the small hours in the morning about 5-30, P.Ws. 2 and 3went to the house of Yerrapareddi to ascertain when they should start for Cuddapah to attend the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in connection with security proceedings. While they were talking to Yerrapareddi, accused 15 happened to pass by that way to his kallam which is in the south of Yerrapareddi’s house. Accused 15stopped there and remarked that the members of the party of Yerrapareddi deserved to be shoed (sic) as notwithstanding the fact that the members of his own party had executed bonds, some of the members of Yerrapareddi’s party had not executed he same. Just at that moment, China Veerareddi, the second son of Yerrapareddi came there from his house which is distinct from the house of Yerrapareddi. He said that it was surprising that the 15th accused should come to their house and abuse them. Then ensued exchange of abuses between Yerrapareddi and China Veeraredd, on the one side and the 15th accused on the other side. Seeing this P.Ws. 2 and 3 went away from that place to their houses. Yerrapareddi resides in the terraced house which is towards the east of his other house known as “house of arches” in which live all his three sons. At the time when this incident before the house of Yerrapareddi took place, P.W.I, the youngest of his sons, was still asleep. The eldest son and his wife had already gone to the fields to attend to agricultural operations leaving their sons Ramanjaneyareddi in the house. In the adjoining house belonging to Pullareddi all the elder male members had gone to fields to attend to agricultural operations leaving P.Ws. 10 and 16 and the womenfolk at home. As the sun rose, P.W. 1 woke up, and after answering calls of nature, came and sat on the northern peal in the verandah. P.W. 10 just then wanted to go to his garden land in the west and had by that time gone upto the kallam of Yerrapareddi. P.W. 16 had gone out eastwards into the fields to answer calls of nature. P.W. 10 just then wanted to go to his garden land in the west and had by that time gone upto the kallam of Yerrapareddi. P.W. 16 had gone out eastwards into the fields to answer calls of nature. At that time China Veerareddi who had already come back to his house came out and went towards the house of Pullareddi to bring down some of the redgram crop kept on his terrace for thrashing purposes. P. Ws. 2 and 3, who had gone to their houses at the time when the abuses were going on at Yerrapareddi’s house, just at that time started from their houses for the house of K. Pullareddi to make enquiries as to when they should start for Cuddapah the next day. They were going along the road which leads past the temple of Ramaswami. As they drew near Rachabanda, they saw China Veerareddi going to the house of Pullareddi. He told them dial he was going to the terrace of his house to bring down some redgram crop and went away. P.Ws. 2 and 3 thereafter turned round and saw accused 1 to 16 coming of the ten ace on the house of Arava China Nagireddi. Accused 1 to 3 were armed with guns and the rest with sticks, spears and stones. They were shouting. This was noticed even by P.W. 1 who was sitting in the verandha of his house. At that time Ramanjenaya Reddi was playing inside the house. Subbamma, the wife of China Veerareddi was also inside the house. P.Ws. 2 and 3, on seeing the accused apprehended danger ahead for China Veerareddi who was found climbing the steps of the stair-case in the house of Pullareddi. They wanted to stop him from going to the terrace without attracting the attention of the accused. They rushed forward. But by the time, they entered the front yard,China Veerareddi had already stepped on to the terrace and was reaching the redgram produce spread in the south-eastern portion of the terrace of the main house. P.Ws. 2 and 3 had come. nearer to China Veerareddi when they saw accused 4 handing over a live cartridge to accused 1 who loaded it into his gun and fired at them. It hit ChinaVeerareddi who cried "Amma Chesthene’‘ and staggered back a couple, of yards and fell on his back on the terrace of Pullareddi. P.Ws. 2 and 3 had come. nearer to China Veerareddi when they saw accused 4 handing over a live cartridge to accused 1 who loaded it into his gun and fired at them. It hit ChinaVeerareddi who cried "Amma Chesthene’‘ and staggered back a couple, of yards and fell on his back on the terrace of Pullareddi. Pellets entered into the right shoulder of P.W. 2 also. P.W. 3 sustained some injuries on his left eye brow. Scared as, they were as a result P.Ws. 2 and 3 at once ran down the staircase of Pullareddi and entered into his house. P.W. 1 heard the cry of China Veerareddi from the terrace. He then saw the 5th accused handing over a live cartridge to 2nd accused who loaded his gun. P.W. 1 immediately got up from the pial and rushed into his house for safety. As the 2nd accused saw his movement he cried out "where are you going?" and opened fire. By that time P.W. 1 had gone behind the door safely. The shot hit Ramanjaneya reddi who was playing in the hall near the main doorway. The boy at once fell down. Subbamma who was in the room to the south of the hall rushed towards the boy to take him from the ground. Just then P.W. 1 peeped out of the edge of the door into the street. The 3rd accused opened fire shouting " how can you escape ?" P.W. 1 at once withdrew his head and Subbamma was hit by the shot and she fell down. P.W. 1 thereupon closed the door of his house and barred it. All this is said to have been witnessed also by P.W. 10 from the thrashing floor of Yerrapareddi He went and hid himself behind the hay stack nearby. Thereafter there were one or two more gun shots. There was then a voice from among the accused that P.W. 1 will share the same fate as that of his brother on the terrace. After some time P.W. 1 went into the backyard of his house and with the assistance of the pegs planted in the wall got on t6 the terrace of Pullareddi and found his brother lying dead on his back on the terrace of Pullareddi. He immediately came down and also found Ramanjaneya Reddi and Subbamma dead. He did not come out on account of fear. He immediately came down and also found Ramanjaneya Reddi and Subbamma dead. He did not come out on account of fear. At that time P.W. 3 was taking his cold meal in his house. He heard five or six gun shots from the southern direction. After finishing his food when he came to his main door he saw a number of persons going westwards towards the house of the 3rd accused. P.W. 16 who had gone to answer calls of nature heard sounds of gun shot four or five times. He immediately entered his house. He found P.Ws. 2 and 3 inside house with bleeding injuries. P.W. 16 learnt from P.Ws. 2 and 3 what had happened on the terrace. When matters moved thus some time thereafter at about 8-30 A.m. Pydala Aswathareddi, son of 10th accused, aged about 12 years, went to the police station at Yerraguntla and informed P.W. 17, G. Samuel, head constable No. 665 that he had been sent by one Santanna to give information that one Arava Ramireddi was kidnapped by the party of Yerrapareddi early that morning, and what had happened to him was not known and that the bandobust police were not to be seen in the village. The head constable was not satisfied with this vague information and wanted to check it up and confirm for himself, before taking further action. He made entries in the general diary giving the purport of the information and started at 8-45 a.m. with three constables to Thummalapalli about 6 miles distant. On his way at Valasapalli, five miles from Yerraguntla, some cowherd boys reported to him that there was firing in Thummalapalli and some persons died as a result. Thereupon P. W. 17 sent some of the constables back to Yerraguntla to telephone the same to the Circle Inspector, Kamalapuram and to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Proddatur. He came to the village Thummalapalli. First he visited Ramaswami Temple where the bandubust police were stationed. They were not to be seen at the temple. Then he proceeded to the house of Arava China Nagireddi where P. W. 17 found the 15th accused gruaning with pain with injuries on his person. He sent for the kamam and after his arrival he recorded the statement of the 15th accused which was completed by about 10-30 A.M. Arava China Nagireddi was not in the house. Then he proceeded to the house of Arava China Nagireddi where P. W. 17 found the 15th accused gruaning with pain with injuries on his person. He sent for the kamam and after his arrival he recorded the statement of the 15th accused which was completed by about 10-30 A.M. Arava China Nagireddi was not in the house. Just then Kattubadi brought a report purporting to have been given by the 5th accused to the village munsif (accused 2) with regard to the injuries on the person of the 15th accused along with the printed report of the said village munsif. P.W. 17 along with the kamam then proceeded to the house of arches which was just opposite to it. He found the main door barred from inside. He tapped on the main door which was opened by P.W. 1. As soon as P.W. 17 entered therein he found the dead bodies of Ramanjaneya reddi and Subbamma in the main hall. P.W. 1 gave a report which was recorded by P.W. 17 and it is Ex. P-1. P.Ws. 2 and 3 came to know about the arrival of P.W. 17. They immediately came to the house of P.W. 1 and informed P.Ws. land 17 about what they had seen. The injuries sustained by P.Ws. 2 and 3 were included in Ex. P-1 which was attested by the karnam. P.W. 17 went to the terrace of Pullareddi and saw the dead body of China Veerareddi. He stationed a constable on the keep guard over the dead body. P.W. 15, Nanjunda Rao was the Sub-Inspector of Yerranguntla. On receiving the report, he reached Yerranguntla at 2-55 P.M. from Cuddapah. He registered the case on the basis of Ex. P-1. The Circle Inspector (P.W. 18) reached Thummalapalli at about 1-30 p.m. and took over the investigation from P.W. 17. He held an inquest over the bodies of deceased 1 to 3. He sent the dead bodies for post-mortem. He also seized some card board wads and empty cartridges and fired pellets in different places at the scene. The inquest over the dead body of first deceased was held between 2-00 to 4-30 p.m. Ex. P-20 is the report. P.Ws. He held an inquest over the bodies of deceased 1 to 3. He sent the dead bodies for post-mortem. He also seized some card board wads and empty cartridges and fired pellets in different places at the scene. The inquest over the dead body of first deceased was held between 2-00 to 4-30 p.m. Ex. P-20 is the report. P.Ws. 1 to 3 and others were examined at about the time of the inquest The inquest over the dead body of deceased 3 was held from 4-30 to 6 p.m. and that of 2nd deceased was held from 6-00 P.M. to 7-15 P.M. Ex P-21 is the inquest report. After the inquest P.Ws. 2 and 3, who had injuries on their person were sent to the Government hospital at Prodattur. The dead bodies were handed over to P.W. 14 and other persons. P.W. 18, after inspecting the scene of offence, in the outer side of the arches of the verandah of P.W. 1’s house noticed pellet marks at 9 places. Similar pellet marks were noticed at four places on the walls on either side of the main door way inside the verandah of P.W. 1’s house. Outside the threshold near the scene 10 disfigured lead pellets were found. In front of the back door of the house of Arava China Nagireddi in the space belonging to him, he found No. 1 card board wad, No.2 card board wad, 2 round card boards wads with imprints of lead pellets on them and 13 circular card board wads. On the terrace of Arava China Nagireddi he found pieces of red card board cases and circular red card board air-cushioned wad and some stones strewn about. He also found signs of trampling with impressions of obliterated foot-prints on the terrace. The C.I.D. Inspector (P.W. 19) took over investigation on 6th February, 1964 from the Circle Inspector who had almost completed it and thereafter the charge-sheet was filed. All the accused pleaded “not guilty”. The first accused denied all knowledge of factions in the village and also the offence. The 2nd accused admitted the existence of factions, but denied all knowledge of the offence. To the similar effect is the plea of accused 3 to 16. All the accused pleaded “not guilty”. The first accused denied all knowledge of factions in the village and also the offence. The 2nd accused admitted the existence of factions, but denied all knowledge of the offence. To the similar effect is the plea of accused 3 to 16. Accused 15 further stated that on 5th February, 1964 while he was returning from the kallam in the early hours of the morning, Yerrapa reddi, Peda Veerareddi, Pullareddi, Peda Venkata Reddi and five or six others carried him into the house of arches of Yerrapareddi and beat him on hands and legs with pestles. They fisted him on hands and chest. There were shouts heard from outside. On account of the beating, he became unconscious. By the time he regained consciousness he was in the house of Arava China Nagired. and then it was daybreak. Thus accused 15 denied all knowledge of the offence in question but said that even before the time of the alleged offence, he was badly beaten in Yerrapareddi’s house and was rendered unconscious and was put in the house of Arava China Nagireddi. In support of the prosecution, as many as 19 witnesses were examined. The evidence on record is both direct and circumstantial. P.Ws. 1 to 3 end 10 are the eye-witnesses. P.Ws. 8 and 16 speak of circumstances bearing on the guilt of the accused. P.Ws. 4 to 7 are the doctors. P.W. 9 Radiologist and P.W. 11 the ballistic expert. P.W. 17 is the head constable who started investigation. P.W. 15 is the Sub-Inspector who registered the case. P.W. 18 is the Circle Inspector who completed the investigation and P.W. 19 is the C.I.D. who gave finishing touches to it. P.Ws. 12 and 13 are the Court clerks and P.W. 14 is the constable who took the corpses to the Doctor. The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the story of the prosecution in relation to the fatal injuries caused to the three deceased and also the injuries to P.Ws. 2 and 3. The evidence of the eye-witnesses, according to him, was in conformity with the medical evidence and probabilities of the case. He believed P.Ws. 1 to 3 and convicted and sentenced accused 1 to 3, 5 and 15 for the various offences as already noticed. He acquitted the remaining accused. The convicted persons have therefore come up in appeal. The evidence of the eye-witnesses, according to him, was in conformity with the medical evidence and probabilities of the case. He believed P.Ws. 1 to 3 and convicted and sentenced accused 1 to 3, 5 and 15 for the various offences as already noticed. He acquitted the remaining accused. The convicted persons have therefore come up in appeal. During the pendency of the appeal accused 2 died with the result that the appeal has abated against him. The case of the remaining accused alone now remains to be considered. The learned Counsel Sri Krishna Reddi raised several contentions to show that the conviction of the accused was wholly unjustified. He found fault with the prosecution both for the unsatisfactory manner in which it conducted the investigation and also for having come to the Court with a truncated and distorted version of the incident. He argues that the entire version bristles with palpable improbabilities and that all the accused are entitled to acquittal. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel are manifold and relate to various aspects of the case. We need not set out all of them here itself. It will be convenient to deal with them at their proper places in the judgment. The proof of a charge in all criminal cases involves the proof of two distinct propositions. Firstly, the crime has been committed and secondly that it was committed by the persons charged and by none other. In other words, there should be proof of veritable corpus delicti and then of the identity of the prisoner with the culprit. A crime is not readily presumed. Unless a criminal act is ascertained (i.e. an actual corpus deliciti established, proof of fixing the criminal is not admissible. The first question therefore to be considered in this case is whether three persons were murdered and two were hurt by gun shots. Once that is ascertained we shall have to consider whether accused 1 to 3, and 15 are guilty of the offences of which they are convicted. Indeed the question of accused 2 would no longer remain for consideration as he is dead and gone. On the first question the evidence is clear and unequivocal that the deceased 1 to 3 died on 5th February, 1964 on account of gun shot injuries inflicted on them in the morning that day and that at the same time P.Ws. Indeed the question of accused 2 would no longer remain for consideration as he is dead and gone. On the first question the evidence is clear and unequivocal that the deceased 1 to 3 died on 5th February, 1964 on account of gun shot injuries inflicted on them in the morning that day and that at the same time P.Ws. 2 and 3 also received gun shot injuries. The dead bodies of the three persons, one on the terrace and the two others in the hall of the house of arches with bullet injuries were seen inter alia by P.Ws. 17 and 18 as is clear from their statements. After the inquest, these dead bodies were sent under requisitions (Exhibits P-15 to P-17) to the medical authorities to conduct post-mortem examination. Owing to the absence of the medical officer at the Government hospital at Proddatur, they were taken eventually to the Government headquarters hospital, Cuddapah, P.Ws. 2 and 3 were also medically examined there for the injuries on their person. P.Ws. 4 to 7 are the medical officers. P.W. 4 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kudumala China Veerareddi (deceased No. 1) at 8 a.m. on 6th February, 1964. He found several punctured wounds and also injuries received by pellets on various parts of the body. There were about 22 punctured wounds on the right side of the chest, 1 cm., deep and 25 punctured wounds, 1 cm. deep on the left side of the chest, two punctured wounds, 3/4 inches deep with dark margins in the epigastic region, one punctured wound on the left hypocodrium, five punctured wounds on the left arm, three punctured wounds on the left shoulder, one punctured wound in the left cheek and one in the right side of the face besides other injuries. The Doctor found the ramus of the mandible and the ries fractured. He took out pellets from the heart and lungs. There were holes in the fourth, fifth and sixth ribs and the areas were lacerated and haemorrhage was present. The pericardium and heart had punctured wounds. The right auricle, the right ventricle and left ventricle had all puntured wounds and pellets were recovered from them. The chambers of the heart were empty. The right lung had punctured wounds. There were holes in the fourth, fifth and sixth ribs and the areas were lacerated and haemorrhage was present. The pericardium and heart had punctured wounds. The right auricle, the right ventricle and left ventricle had all puntured wounds and pellets were recovered from them. The chambers of the heart were empty. The right lung had punctured wounds. Thus all the vital organs such an lungs, liver and heart were involved and both internal and external damage was done to the body as a result of these injuries. Almost all the wounds and pellet injuries; were of 2 m.m in diameter except one which was slightly mere about 1/10 inch i.e, about 2.54 m.m. The latter was on the right side of the face in front of the right ear bone in the parietal region and is a punchod out wound. All these injuries which had somewhat upward tendency were antemortem received on the morning of 5th February, 1964. They were round with dark margins. There were no signs of tattooing, blackening and scorching. Exhibit P-2 is the post-mortem certificate. P.W. 5 conducted autopsy on the body of Kudmula Subbamma (deceased No. 3). There were several pellet injuries all over the body each 2 m.m. in diameter. According to the testimony of P.W. 5 there were pellet injuries or. the left lung, right lung, stomach, liver, spleen, left kidney and intestines. External injuries were found on the right upper arm, right side of the back, right side of vertebra, the right side of the buttock and also the outer aspect of the left upper arm, on the medial side of the front of upper arm, left side of the back of the chest, back of the left shoulder, left side of the back of the loin, and back of the upper part of the thigh. The injuries showed slight slanting direction. Of course, there was no scorching, tattooing or blackening of injuries. All these injuries were ante-mortem. They were not self-inflicted. Ex. P-3 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. P.W. 7 conducted the autopsy of deceased No. 2, a child of two years. The injuries showed slight slanting direction. Of course, there was no scorching, tattooing or blackening of injuries. All these injuries were ante-mortem. They were not self-inflicted. Ex. P-3 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. P.W. 7 conducted the autopsy of deceased No. 2, a child of two years. It had several gun shot pellet injuries; on the front of the right thigh, over the back of the right thigh, on the right buttock, over the right knee, below the navel, on ‘he right side of the abdomen, on the outer and back aspect of right forearm, front and back of the right hand, on the right cheek, below the right cheek, left navel, left forearm, left elbow, left shoulder, out side of left shoulder, on the top of left shoulder, and on the back of chest on both sides. Exhibit P-6 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. All the injuries are said to be punctured wounds and each is said to be circular and 3 m.m. in diameter. They were ante-mortem. Of course there seems to be some mistake committed with regard to his name as originally entered. His identity however is well established. Having regard to the depositions of the doctors, there is little doubt that the above injuries are homicidal and all the three deceased died of gun shot injuries which were inflicted on them at about the same time in the morning of 5th February 1964. Then P.W. 6, the Lady Doctor, examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 and accused 15. She examined them at 4-00 p.m. on 5th February, 1964 itself. There was one injury on P.W. 2 and the certificate issued therefor is Ex. P-4. There are several injuries on P.W. 3; one gunshot lacerated wound 1 m.m. in diameter on the root of the neck of the left side. Another wound 2 inches behind the injury No. 1. Similar wound over the forehead near the hair line on the left side. Similar wound about 1 1 inch, above the left eye-brow and a similar wound in front of the left ear near the hairline. Similar wound over the middle of scalp. All these are entered in Ex. P-5, the certificate given by the said doctor. According to the doctor, these are gun shot injuries. The doctor could not give the age of the injuries. 5he also examined accused 15 and found some injuries. Similar wound over the middle of scalp. All these are entered in Ex. P-5, the certificate given by the said doctor. According to the doctor, these are gun shot injuries. The doctor could not give the age of the injuries. 5he also examined accused 15 and found some injuries. He was brought to her on a stretcher. He was not in a position to stand up at the time with bleeding injuries on the legs and knees; one of which, according to P.W. 6, disabled him from walking. These injuries however were not gun shot injuries. They are all stick injuries simple in nature. The medical evidence bears testimony to the fact that of the five persons who received gun shot injuries, 3 persons had multiple gun shot injuries on vital organs in the morning of 5th February, 1964 and they died immediately after receiving the said injuries. Deceased No. i, according to P.W. 4, might have died S’4 hours prior to autopsy. Deceased No. 2, according to P.W. 5, might have died 150 hours before autopsy and deceased No, 3, according to P.W. 7, might have died about 30 hours prior to post-mortem. The calculations are approximate. However, they fix the time of death somewhere in the morning of 5th February, 1964. Thus it is clear in that day in the morning, these three persons were done to death by firing gun shots. There is no scope for doubt or dispute with regard to the same. The evidence on record therefore is clear and unequivocal and, points to the fact that a veritable corpus delicti exists. The point then for consideration is whether the accused are guilty of these offences. This takes us to the evidence on record which, as we have already said, is both direct and circumstantial. The direct evidence consists of the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 10. P.W. 1 speaks about the incidents in relation to all the three accused and P.Ws. 2 and 3 are in a position to depose only about the incident in relation to deceased No. 1. P.W.1 is the true brother of the 1st deceased and was present in the house. 1 to 3 and 10. P.W. 1 speaks about the incidents in relation to all the three accused and P.Ws. 2 and 3 are in a position to depose only about the incident in relation to deceased No. 1. P.W.1 is the true brother of the 1st deceased and was present in the house. He was on the pial in the verandah, when he saw the first deceased going to the main doorway of the house of Pullareddi via rachabanda saying that he was going to bring down redgram stacks which were heaped on the terrace. Shortly thereafter P.W. 1 saw the 1st accused on the terrace of the house of Arava China Nagireddi shouting “fire”. Accused 1 to 3 had guns with them, accused 4 and 5 and 6 cartridges. The rest of the accused had sticks, spears and stones. He also saw accused 4 giving the cartridge and accused 1 firing the gun towards the terrace of his house as a result of which China Veerareddi (1st deceased) cried “Amma Chesthene” (dead). As he heard the cry he got up from the pial. Then the 2nd accused shouted at him “where will he go?”loaded the gun with the cartridge given by accused 5 and levelled it towards him. By that time he had rushed behind the doorway. The shot that was fired hit deceased 2, a lad of two years who was playing in the hall opposite the main doorway. The lad fell down. Then when the wife of China Veerareddi came to pick him up and P.W. 1 just peeped through the door into the street, the 3rd accused crying “where would you escape?”, fired his gun. It hit Subbamma who fell down. Then P.W. 1 shut the door. He heard thereafter one or two gun shots. He further heard the shout intended for him that he would suffer the same fate as his brother has suffered on the terrace. The witness says shortly thereafter he went into the backyard, managed to get up the terrace by means of the pegs planted into the wall and found his brother lying dead on his back on the terrace of K. Pullareddi’s house. He returned to his house and saw Subbamma and Ramanjaneyareddi also dead. The witness says shortly thereafter he went into the backyard, managed to get up the terrace by means of the pegs planted into the wall and found his brother lying dead on his back on the terrace of K. Pullareddi’s house. He returned to his house and saw Subbamma and Ramanjaneyareddi also dead. Struck with fear he would not budge out of his house until a few hours later the head constable came and asked him to open the door. It was then that he told all that happened. His statement was recorded in Ex. P-1. P.Ws. 2 and 3 belong to the party of Yerraparedid and were involved in the security case which was pending. P.W. 2 had not executed security bonds. The case was posted to 6th February, 1964. As the case was posted for the next day P.W. 2 was anxious to know when he should leave along with others for Cuddapah to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s Court so that he may make necessary prior arrangements. For that purpose be along with P.W. 3 went to Yerrapareddi’s house. Accused 15 who, on his way to kallam, happened to come there, found fault with his party and used abusive language. As a result some quarrel developed when China Veerareddi also came to the place. At this P.Ws. 2 and 3 quietly went to their houses. Sometime thereafter they wanted to go to K. Venkatareddi’s house for the same purpose. They went via. Ramaswami temple. As they reached “Rachabanda” they sighted China Veerareddi. He was going to the terrace of his house to bring down some redgram for thrashing. A moment thereafter they saw accused 1 to 16 on the terrace of Arava China Nagireddi. Accused 1 and 3 had. guns in their hands and the others had sticks, spears and stones. It at once occurred to them that danger was ahead for China Veerareddi and wanted to warn him against by preventing him from going up. They did not choose to shout as they were afraid of attracting the attention of the accused. They wanted to overtake him and quickly lead him by the hand to some place of safety. By the time they moved in that direction the 1st deceased had already gone near the place where redgram crops was stacked. They were a couple of paces behind on either side of the 1st deceased. They wanted to overtake him and quickly lead him by the hand to some place of safety. By the time they moved in that direction the 1st deceased had already gone near the place where redgram crops was stacked. They were a couple of paces behind on either side of the 1st deceased. Accused 1 levelled his gun and shot at the 1st deceased. The shot was deadly and the impact was so intense that the 1st deceased reeled back and fell down on the terrace of Pullareddi. P.Ws. 2 and 3 also were hit; P.W. 2 on his right shoulder and P.W.3 on his left elbow. They consulted (sic) safety in rushing down the stair case into the house of Pullareddi. Thereafter they heard a few more shots. They left the house of Pullareddi when they saw the head constable had come and got their injuries entered in Exhibit P-1 at the time when it was being recorded. Then there is P.W. 10 who is said to have seen the incident near the kallan of Yerrapareddi. But the Court below has not placed much reliance on him for the reasons shown in paragraph 217 of its judgment. The learned Public Prosecutor also has not laid stress on his evidence at the time of arguments. We think it unnecessary to refer to this statement. If it be held that the above testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is worthy of oredence that the deceased Nos. 1 to 3 became targets of the deadly shots from accused 1 to 3 the order of convictions of the said accused becomes unexceptionable. But the learned Counsel contends that they are highly interested witnesses and factionists. Their testimony is not consistent, does not conform to the probabilities and is wholly opposed to the medical evidence, ballistic laws and the natural course of events. On the other hand it is contended by the Public Prosecutor that they are most natural witnesses, their presence at the time cannot be open to doubt and there is no apparent reason why they would not name the real culprits but foist false case on the accused. It is no doubt true that P.W. 1 is a close relation of all the deceased and P.Ws. 2 and 3 belong to the party of the 1st deceased. It is no doubt true that P.W. 1 is a close relation of all the deceased and P.Ws. 2 and 3 belong to the party of the 1st deceased. But their evidence can neither be disregarded nor brushed aside merely because of relationship or interestedness. They are competent witnesses in the eye of law. Rule of caution, however, warrants that their evidence must be more carefully weighed and scrutinised. An interesed witness is not necessarily a lier. If the testimony bears scrutiny, appeals to reason and commonsense and accords with probabilities there is no reason why it should not be acted upon. As observed by the Supreme Court in Darya Singh v. State of Punjab1, where in a murder case when evidence is given by near relatives of the victim and the murder is alleged to have been committed by the enemy of the family, Courts must examine the evidence of the interest d witnesses like the relatives of the victim very carefully. If such witness is shown to share the victim’s hostility to the assailant it naturally makes it necessary for the criminal Courts to examine the evidence given by such witness more carefully and scrutinize all infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act upon it. It is apt to refer also to the following words: “If the criminal Court is satisfied that the wintess who is related to victim was not a chance witness, then his evidence has to be examined from the point of view of probabilities and the account given by him as to the assault ha: to be carefully scrutinised. In doing so, it may be relevant to remember that though the witness is hostile to the assailant, it is not likely that he would deliberately omit to name the real assailant and substitute in his place the name of the enemy of the family out of malice. The desire to punish the victim would be so powerful in his mind that he would unhesitatingly name the real assailant and would not think of substituting in his place the enemy of the family though he was not concerned with the assault. The desire to punish the victim would be so powerful in his mind that he would unhesitatingly name the real assailant and would not think of substituting in his place the enemy of the family though he was not concerned with the assault. It is not improbable that in giving evidence, such a witness may name the real assailant and may add other persons out of malice and enmity and that is a factor which has to be borne in mind in appreciating the evidence of interested witnesses.” Their Lordships, be it noted, found it difficult to accept the plea that if a witness is shown to be a relative of the deceased and it is also shown that he shared the hostility of the victim towards the assailant, his evidence can never be accepted, unless it is corroborated on material particulars. All that is necessary was that evidence of such witnesses should not be accepted lightheartedly, without close and careful examination. We may also state here that it is but fundamental that the onus of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against the accused lies on the prosecution and the evidence must be such as to exclude to moral certainty every reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused. The hypothesis of delinquency should be consistent with the facts proved. We have therefore to see how far the guilt has been brought home by the said evidence on record. The circumstantial evidence makes it abundantly clear that the fatal shots came from the terrace of Arava China Nagireddi and the 1st. deceased met his inevitable doom on the terrace and. the 2nd and 3rd deceased in the hall of the terraced house of Yerrapareddi which is also called “house of arches.” The pellet marks that were found on the outer side of the arches of the verandah at 9 places and similar pellet marks noticed on four places on the walls on either side of the main doorway inside the verandah, but not on the door itself, which suggests that the door -was ajar and the pellets did not travel sideways, the 10 disfigured lead pellets found on the outside of the threshold and 3 lead pellets in the middle hall speak for themselves the way in which the pellets came from Arava China Nagireddi’s terrace. That they came from that place is reasonably clear from the fact that in the open space in front of the back door of the house of Arava Chind Nagiraddi card board wads with various imprints were found besides pieces of red cartridge case and. circular red card, board etc. on that terrace itself. There were also signs of trampling with imprints of obliterated footprints on the terrace of Arava China Nagireddi. There was a piece, of wooden ladder on the western side of the house. These are tell-tale of the offences having been committed from the terrace of China Nagireddi. This circumstantial evidence lends assurance to the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that it was from the terrace of China Nagireddi that the accused fired, their shots on the terrace towards deceased No. 1 and P.Ws. 2 and 3 and then towards the hall which hit the two other deceased one after the other. P.W.1.‘s story is that the second and third shots were directed to him but before the (accused 2) could take the full aim on him and the pellets could reach him, be rushed behind the door which directly was not within the range to which the spread of the pellets had extended The second aim also had missed the mark and hit deceased 3 direct. P.Ws. 2 and 3 who stated that they had gone to the terrace to prevent 1st deceased from going to the terrace saw that they themselves received some pellet injuries from the gun shot fire at the 1st deceased. P.Ws. 2 and 3 -were examined by the doctor and the evidence of the doctor shows that the injuries which have been received were pellet injuries. Thus it is clear that P.Ws. 2 and 3 were on the terrace when the first fire was shot and P.W. 1 was in the house when the second and third shots were fired. Though P.W. 1 did not receive any injuries his presence in the house cannot be doubted. He was the person who ultimately barred the door and continued to remain inside for fear until P.W. 17 came and tapped on the main door and. asked him to open. P.W. 1 immediately gave his report Exhibit P-1 and P.Ws. 2 and 3 who had taken shelter in the house of Pullareddi came there and got their injuries noted at the time. asked him to open. P.W. 1 immediately gave his report Exhibit P-1 and P.Ws. 2 and 3 who had taken shelter in the house of Pullareddi came there and got their injuries noted at the time. Exhibit P-1 is the first information report which contains the version of the incident as stated by P.W. 1 and it is attested by the karnam of Peddanapadu. The first information report in law cannot be treated as substantive evidence in the case. It can only be used for purposes of corroboration or contradiction, i.e., tocorroborate or contradict the informant in the box. It is, however, nevertheless clear that it is a valuable document in the criminal case inasmuch as it contains the earliest version which can be compared with that told at the hearing. All variations and omissions to state material facts can be considered in judging the truth or falsity of the story as told by the prosecution. The story contained in Exhibit P-1 in this case is substantially the same as narrated by P.W. 1 in the box. If at all there has been any departure it is only in relation to the stage when he went near and saw the deceased Nos. 2 and 3 dead. Whereas his story in the box goes to suggest that he first went to the terrace and then (i.e.) after he got down, went near the deceased 2 and 3, his version at the time of Exhibit P-1 was somewhat different. But this discrepancy in the sequence of the said events is of minor importance. It is significant that Exhibit P-1 bears reference to the statement of P.Ws. 2 and 3 that they also received gun shot injuries. In fact they also were present at the time when the first information report was prepared. It is plain that P.W. 1, as the only male inmate in the house present at the time, was the natural witness and his presence at the time is reasonably clear from the evidence on record. So also the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 at the terrace. The pellet injuries on them which were of about the same age vouch for their presence at the time of the incident. It is significant the damage doneto P.W. 3 is not inconsiderable. He permanently suffered loss of eyesight. So also the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 at the terrace. The pellet injuries on them which were of about the same age vouch for their presence at the time of the incident. It is significant the damage doneto P.W. 3 is not inconsiderable. He permanently suffered loss of eyesight. When it is obvious that the injuries on his person were the injuries from gun shot and one of the injuries has resulted in permanent loss of his eyesight, it is difficult to believe that he would not name the actual culprit but name altogether a different person. It is not as though he could not have full glimpse of the perpetrator of the crime for the offence took place in the day light and in a clear atmosphere. The spirit of revenge that would be naturally burning within him would not permit him to name any other person but the real culprit if he happened to be a single person. Of course he may add to the number but cannot fail to name the person who has committed the offence. In this case he bad named accused 1 alone and has said that it was 1st accused’s shot that hit not only deceased 1 but also him and P.W. 2 who were just behind him (the deceased) in different directions. P.W. 2’s version also must appeal to us for similar reasons. The pellet injuries on him also have left deep impress. It is nevertheless, argued by the learned Counsel that the presence of these witnesses at the terrace must be open to serious doubt for apart from the fact that there was no reasonable ground for them to come together as far as Rachabanda and go to the terrace itself, it is highly improbable that unarmed as they were, they would have gone up to the terrace seeing accused 1 to 16 on the opposite terrace fully armed with guns and lethal weapons. But once it is clear that they received the gun shot injuries at about the time mentioned by them and the place where they are alleged to have received injuries speaks for itself that it was the place where pellets had reached, their presence at the place ought not to be doubted. That apart, as already noticed P.W. 2 had not executed the bond in the security case. That apart, as already noticed P.W. 2 had not executed the bond in the security case. He had to necessarily attend the Court on the next day. He was but one of the many who were involved in the case and some of them had not similarly executed the bonds. It was but natural that he should ascertain when they should leave the place next day. He along with P.W. 3, who lives opposite to his own house first went to the house of Yerrapareddi, their accredited leader. There they saw accused No. 1.5, who came later, was picking up quarrel which was assuming dimensions. They went back home. They could not rest quiet. They thought of consulting others. They wanted to go to Kudumula Pullareddi’s house. P.W. 2 was eager to know of the time for departure so that he may make necessary arrangements. It is highly probable that both of them had gone that side. Stress was laid on some of their statements given on an earlier occasion in relation to what had happened when accused 15 came to Yerrapareddi and what they did thereafter. That, however, is not material for the purpose. The trial Court has dealt with it We think it unnecessary to deal with the alleged seeming discrepancies which have no bearing on the fact to be considered. It is clear from their evidence that they started for Kudumula Venkatareddi’s house. It is also clear that they signted the 1st deceased when they reached the “Rachabanda”. China Veerareddi was going upto the terrace saying that he had to bring down redgram which was slacked on. his terrace. It is only after that they saw the accused who were fully armed on the terrace of Arava China Nagireddy. Naturally they apprehended danger to the lst deceased who belonged to their party. It was but natural then that they should take all measures for ensuring his safety without attracting the attention of the other party who at the slightest notice was in a position to baffle all their efforts and cause harm to all. That is why they rushed towards him. But he had gone already far ahead. As he reached the terrace and P.Ws. 2 and 3 were just behind him in different directions, the gun report came from the opposite direction resulting in fatal injuries to the 1st deceased who reeled back and fell dead. That is why they rushed towards him. But he had gone already far ahead. As he reached the terrace and P.Ws. 2 and 3 were just behind him in different directions, the gun report came from the opposite direction resulting in fatal injuries to the 1st deceased who reeled back and fell dead. P.Ws. 2 and 3 also got the pellet injuries. To our mind there seems to be nothing unlikely or uncommon in their coming to that place in the above circumstances. It is further contended that the evidence they have given is opposed to the medical evidence and also the ballistic science and is unworthy of credit. The learned Counsel contends that the story that the 1st deceased and P.Ws. 2 and 3 were hit: by the same shot cannot be true for the testimony of ballistics expert (P.W. 11) is against it and he has said that the injuries on the three persons could not be caused by a single shot but only by three different shots. If P.Ws. 2 and 3 were in close proximity to one another on the terrace as asserted by them, the learned Counsel argues further that the fact that no two persons received wounds of the same size in spite of their alleged nearness is tell-tale of the fact that what the witnesses deposed is not true. It is also urged that the story that the 1st deceased, staggered back a couple of yards or more on receiving the gun shot injuries is wholly improbable, as according to doctor’s (P.W. 4) evidence on receding such injuries, the deceased should have dropped dead at the spot. Lastly, it is contended that the allegation that P.Ws. 2 and 3 received injuries at the hands of accused 1 is in direct conflict with the version at the time of inquest that they received injuries when accused 3 shot at them. It is now to be seen whether the testimony of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is opposed to medical and ballistic expert’s evidence as alleged and if so must be rejected. An expert is one who has acquired special knowledge and skill in any science. His opinion based on observations or experiments certainly is relevant in cases where questions relating to his science arise. It must be noted that medical jurisprudence and ballistic science have their respective appointed provinces. An expert is one who has acquired special knowledge and skill in any science. His opinion based on observations or experiments certainly is relevant in cases where questions relating to his science arise. It must be noted that medical jurisprudence and ballistic science have their respective appointed provinces. Whereas ballistics deals with the study of fire-arms and ammunition which is sufficiently a complex science demanding specialists in that field alone, Medical jurisd purdence is concerned inter alia with injuries received from such fire arms and projectiles and missiles sent through them. But a doctor cannot be asked to express, on inspection of such wound, more than an elementary opinion on matters which may properly fall within the province of fire-arms expert. For him of course elementary knowledge of fire-arms and ballistics is essential for the proper understanding and interpretation of fire-arm injuries. He shall have to be necessarily acquainted with the various kinds of fire-arms, their mechanism and fire-power and ammunition and cartridges without which it may not be possible: for him to give satisfactory opinion with regard to various matters relating to the fire-arm wounds and injuries. Indeed in medico-legal cases, the doctor has to express his opinion on matters inter alia whether the injury is the result of a shot from a fire-arm; what kind of weapon fired, the fatal shot; from what distance and direction was the fatal shot fired; whether the multiple injuries of entrance and exit could have been caused by a single bullet; how long did the victim survive; how much activity whether volitional or otherwise could the victim perform following the shooting or whether it is a case of homicide or suicide. Unless the doctor is equipped with the elementary knowledge of fire-arms, his evidence in this behalf will not be satisfactory. The field of ballistic expert mainly lies in an exhaustive study of fire-arms, ammunition, cartridges, range of shot, velocity etc. Forensic ballistics had made considerable advancement during the past 70years. In scientific criminology, the main principle of forensic ballistics is to establish whether a given bullet or cartridge was used in a particular weapon. It is now possible not only to tally the cartridge fired with the gun used but a number of other important factors though with varying degree of probability. In scientific criminology, the main principle of forensic ballistics is to establish whether a given bullet or cartridge was used in a particular weapon. It is now possible not only to tally the cartridge fired with the gun used but a number of other important factors though with varying degree of probability. Among these factors are the distance from which the shot was fired, the approximate time when the weapon was last fired and other questions of similar nature. A ballistic expert with the help of a chemical analyst can discover several facts in relation to the part played by the particular fire-arms in the commission of the offence, the nature of ammunition etc., used therein. The services of ballistics expert therefore become necessary and valuable in cases where fire-arms are recovered either at the site or from the accused and also the cartridges, pellets or bullets. A gun, it may be noted after discharge of projectiles retains much information valuable for detection of crime. The crime car tridges, cap, pellets or bullets also are impressed with traces of similar information. That is why even in the surgical removal of missile from the injuries, care has to be taken that the marks found therein are least interfered with. The cartridges that are recovered at the. place have to be first connected with the pellets which were ejected and then with the weapon that discharged the same. This is possible not only if the time of firing of the cartridge recovered tallies with the time of the incident but also the thumb prints of the gun on the cap and base of the test cartridge tally with those found on the crime cartridge recovered and further the pellets are traced to the fire-arm in question. The chemical examination of the residue in the barrel of the gun which has discharged the pellets also yields sufficient reliable information bearing on the offence. But all this as already observed is possible only where the fire-arms are recovered. It is then the services of the ballistic expert would be required and so also of the chemical examiner in that behalf. The chemical examiner will have the opportunity to see and mate chemical analysis of the discharge of the gun and the ballistic expert will have the opportunity of making experiments by firing a test cartridge for comparison purposes. It is then the services of the ballistic expert would be required and so also of the chemical examiner in that behalf. The chemical examiner will have the opportunity to see and mate chemical analysis of the discharge of the gun and the ballistic expert will have the opportunity of making experiments by firing a test cartridge for comparison purposes. The identity of the thumb prints of the gun on the breech faces of both the cartridges, i.e., the test cartridge and. the crime cartridge found can then be ascertained. As to the probative value of the conclusions reached by these experts it must be remembered, that though they may ensure high degree of probability, it is after all opinion evidence and unless the Court is satisfied after considering the data and is convinced of the correctness of the expert’s opinion, it cannot be acted upon. It is further significant that agreater degree of probability can be ensured with regard to rifle shot injuries than the shot gun injuries for the shot gun injuries cannot impart by reason of its smooth barrel those additional characteristics which a rifle can impart. The features peculiar to shot gun injuries are determined by the fact that the charge is composed of several small missiles. At close range they mate a single wound, of a large size by travelling in a compact mass. As the range increases individual pellets continue at their own speed and direction. The penetrating power of each pellet decreases with the distance. Eventually the penetration may be limited, to the clothing and skin of the victim. Hence range and velocity are the important factors when we look to the varying degree of penetration of the missiles. Indeed Sri Gerald Burrard in his book “The Modern Shot Gun”, Volume II, at page 159, has said: “Of the four ballistic elements - pressure, velocity, pattern, recoil velocity pattern undoubtedly receive most attention from both gun makers and shooters and it is more about velocity than they do about pattern. This is not altogether surprising, as the velocity of the shot charge controls to great extent the effective range of a gun....But velocity plays another and very important part in the use of a shot gun. This is not altogether surprising, as the velocity of the shot charge controls to great extent the effective range of a gun....But velocity plays another and very important part in the use of a shot gun. The difficulty of shooting at any moving object consists of firing at some imaginery point exactly the right distance ahead so as to allow for the movement of the object during the time taken from the instart of pressing the trigger to the arrival of the projectile at the target. The larger the time the greater the difficulty of making a successful shot.” This aspect of the case we may further deal with in connection with the 2nd deceased and P.W. 1. Suffice it for the present to say that as the fire-arms are not recovered, the need for the ballistic expert to depose to the various experiments or other complicated problems of that science does not arise in this case. Hence P.W. 11 as an expert concerned with investigation of fire-arms and ammunition and problems arising from their use for purposes of legal conclusions has nothing to depose in that behalf in this case. He can undoubtedly say about the various types of cartridges and the pellets that may be and are generally used in those cartridges and the uniormity or otherwise of their size in such cartridges. He can also speak of the spread of pellets. These are all within the domain of his science, and on these matters also information is required in this case. His evidence in this case only is material in that behalf. But it is idle to think that P.W. 11 can give evidence with regard to facts, which are mainly in the field of a doctor i.e., medical practitioner. Similarly a doctor may not be able to give satisfactory opinion on those matters which are mainly in the domain of forensic ballistics. We may state again unless a doctor has elementary knowledge of ballistics and fire-arms, it cannot be expected that he can properly understand and interpret the fire-arm injuries. No doubt the wounds caused by fire-arms have their own appearances different from those caused by blunt object or sharp-edged or pointed weapons. However, it is not always easy to be sure that injuries are of fire-arms for the projecticle having regard to the site, surface, pressure and direction etc., may produce different types of wounds. No doubt the wounds caused by fire-arms have their own appearances different from those caused by blunt object or sharp-edged or pointed weapons. However, it is not always easy to be sure that injuries are of fire-arms for the projecticle having regard to the site, surface, pressure and direction etc., may produce different types of wounds. The doctor must, in inspection of wounds be able to form an opinion about their nature, their being entry or exit wounds and their direction. In order that he may speak about any Weapon and whether it could cause the like wounds, he must necessarily know something of the common types of fire-arm and be roughly familiar with their mechanism and fire-power. With these remarks as to the respective fields of a doctor and a ballistic expert we proceed to consider evidence in this case. It may be noticed that whereas the post-mortem examination of the 1st deceased was done by P.W. 4, the injuries on,. P.Ws. 2 and 3, which are alleged to have been received on account of the same shots, were examined by P.W. 6, a Lady Doctor. P.W. 4 had found on the body of 1st deceased as many as 72 injuries. All the injuries were found with dark areas around them. Of course there was no tattooing, scorching or blackening. The tissues underneath were lacerated. They were punctured wounds 2 m.m. in diameter at various places of the body. On the right side of face one punched out injury, however registered a size of 1/10“X l/10”. It is slightly more in diameter. When asked about this in the cross-examination he said that he does not think that this punched out wound in the parietal region in front of the right ear bone and the punctured wound shown as injury No. 2 were caused by a single gun shot for at the time when the injury No. 1 was caused, the deceased must have been keeping his face towards the left. In re-examination he said that on hard surface in the body, the course of the pellets may be erractic and injuries 1 and 2 are likely to be caused by pellets from the same gun. In re-examination he said that on hard surface in the body, the course of the pellets may be erractic and injuries 1 and 2 are likely to be caused by pellets from the same gun. Again in cross-examination he said: “I cannot say if injuries 1 and 2 could not have been caused by different pellets discharged from the same gun shot.” Thus he is not steady and firm in his opinion. This indecision and uncertainty must be due to his lack of adequate knowledge of fire-arm and gun power. Keith Simpson in his book “Forensic Medicine”, 2nd Edition at page 67 has said thus: “The study of fire-arms and ammunition - ballistics - is sufficiently complex to demand specialists in this field alone, and no doctor will ever be asked to express, from inspection of a wound, weapon, or bullet, more than an elementary opinion. of matters which are properly the province of the fire-arms expert.......... But the doctor will be shown fire-arm wounds and must be prepared to recognise them, to define entry from exist wounds, to express some preliminary view as to range and direction, and to recognize the types of missile he may find in the body. He will also be expected to say whether a given weapon could have caused the wounds he found, and for this he must know something of the common types of fire-arm and be roughly familiar with their mechanism and fire-power. He cannot afford to be ignorant of the subject.” This is just to show that unless the doctor is equipped with the knowledge as above,. it cannot be expected of him that he can give correct or satisfactory opinion whether the multiple injuries in view of slight degree of difference in size can be deemed to have been received by different shots. The Doctor (P.W. 4) is not definite as to whether the two injuries referred to can be received by the same shot. It cannot be argued therefore that it follows from his statement that these two injuries were of different shots. It must also be remembered that the pellets in each cartridge though expected to be of uniform size sometimes vary in size. It cannot be argued therefore that it follows from his statement that these two injuries were of different shots. It must also be remembered that the pellets in each cartridge though expected to be of uniform size sometimes vary in size. Major Sir Gerald Burrard in his book “The Modern Shotgun”, Volume II, at page 115, has said thus: “Further it is generally known that in actual practice shot is rot always so carefully sifted since that sold as No. 6 frequently contains pellets larger than No. 5 and smaller than No. 6. Variations such as these can have very marked effects on both pattern and velocity.” It is therefore obvious that if injury No. 1 is found to be 2 .54 mm. and the other injury of 2.00 mm. the difference between them is so small that having regard to the above remarks it cannot be urged that these injuries were received by different gun shots. It must further be remembered that the position of the person, at the time when he received the injuries also makes some difference and so also the hard surface with which the pellet comes in contact. Glaister in his book “Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology”, 11th Edition, page 234, speaking of appearance of wounds has said thus: “The appearances of these wounds must, in considerable measure, depend upon the exact conditions of the individual case under examination some of the conditions which may effect the appearances are: The nature of the weapon which fired the shot. The shape and composition of the missile. The range at which the weapon was fired, affecting its velocity at the moment of impact. The part of the body struck in relation to the amount of obstruction experienced, by the missile in its passage through the tissues. The direction of fire.” Thus there is bound to be some natural difference in the appearance and also in the size having regard to the various factors referred to above. The same pellet may cause different size of injuries. Further ordinarily even though the size of he wound of entrance may correspond to the size of the pellet or bullet, the correspondence may not be close enough. That is what is opined by Gonzales in his book on “Legal Medicine” at page 400. The same pellet may cause different size of injuries. Further ordinarily even though the size of he wound of entrance may correspond to the size of the pellet or bullet, the correspondence may not be close enough. That is what is opined by Gonzales in his book on “Legal Medicine” at page 400. The slight difference in size between injury No. 1 and No. 2 on the 1st deceased cannot discredit the statements of P.Ws. 2 and 3 that it was single shot which came from accused 1 and which resulted in the death of the deceased. The next contention is that P.Ws. 2 and 3’s testimony that the 1st deceased on receipt of the injuries staggered back for some distance and fell down dead is not consistent with the medical opinion that on receiving such injuries on vital organs, the deceased was likely to slump on the spot. We have already said that the question how much activity, whether volitional or otherwise, could the victim perform after receiving fatal injuries is within the domain of medical jurisdprudence. Indeed medical science recognises possibility of performance of acts, volitional or otherwise even after fatal injuries. P.W. 4 has, in fact, admitted this. He, however, differed from the view expressed by Modi in his book of Medical Jurisprudence which is rot inconsistent with what P.Ws. 2 and 3 have said to have happened in this case. In that event it is difficult to hold that what P.Ws. 2 and 3 have said cannot be true It is significant that a passage at page 257 of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Glaister also refers to cases of volitional movements even after receiving fatal injuries. So also Forensic Medicine by A. Keith Mart at page 82. It is then urged that the injuries that P.Ws. 2 and 3 received cannot be from the same shot which resulted in the death of the deceased No. 1. As already stated P.Ws. 2 and 3 have been examined not by P.W. 4 who did post-mortem examination of the deceased No. 1 but by P.W. 6. Thus the measurement were taken by different doctors. P.W. 6 found on P.W. 2 a laceration of about 1 cm. in diameter over the laternal aspect on the right collar bone. She did not feel any traces of gun shot pellets in the affected portion. Thus the measurement were taken by different doctors. P.W. 6 found on P.W. 2 a laceration of about 1 cm. in diameter over the laternal aspect on the right collar bone. She did not feel any traces of gun shot pellets in the affected portion. But P.W. 9 felt signs of foreign body on- the right shoulder blade after X-ray examination and came to the conclusion that the sharply defined red opague foreign body in the soft tissues in the region of the upper outer margin of the right shoulder blade is a metallic piece. P.W. 6 found on P.W. 3 a gunshot lacerated wound 1 m.m. in diameter or. the root of the neck on the left side and similar other wounds. The injuries according to her were gunshot injuries. P.W. 9 or. X-ray examination found four foreign bodies metallic objects and they, according to him, might be pellets. Having regard to the different sizes of the wounds of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and 1st deceased it has been urged that they could not have been received by the same shot. It is significant that what P.W. 2 had received was a lacerated and not a punctured wound. It was this lacerated portion that was measured and it was about 1 cm. The wounds on P.W. 3 also were lacerated wounds. They were on the left side on the root of the neck and above. It must be remembered that as the charge of the shot gun is composed of several missiles at close range they travel in a compact mass and make single wound but as the range increases, individual pellets move in a fanwise direction, the surface area being covered by the shot increasing with the distance travelled. The penetrating power of each pellet would decrease and may not be uniform in all direct:‘ons. P.W. 11, the fire-arm expert, has deposed referring to Exhibit P-2 which relates to the injuries of 1st deceased, that they were spread between the top of the head (above) and epigastric region (below) and arms on either side. He further said that if a shot gun is discharged from the top of the house of Arava China Nagireddi at the victim on the top of his house which is about 20 yards away such injuries could be received. So also if two persons such as P.Ws. He further said that if a shot gun is discharged from the top of the house of Arava China Nagireddi at the victim on the top of his house which is about 20 yards away such injuries could be received. So also if two persons such as P.Ws. 2 and 3 are within a diameter of 21“along with the victim it is possible for them also to be injured by the same shot. But he has said in the cross-examination that the injuries in Exhibits P-2, P-4 and P-5 are not likely to be caused by the same shot but in all likelihood they could have been caused by three separate shots. He, however, said eventually that he could not say whether a pellet of smaller size could cause injury of 1 cm. in diameter after grazing the surface of the skin. As regards cartridges, wads and pellets recovered which alone were shown to him. P.W. 11 after giving their description, said that a company made cartridge contains pellets of the same size. They may get distorted when they go into the body. He said further that all No. 4 size pellets are of the same size. If the injury is 2 m.m. in diameter it could, be caused by pellets of No. 8 or No. 9 size. If the injury is 3 m.m. in diameter it could be caused by No. 4 size pellets. If the. injury is 1 m.m. in diameter it might be caused, by pellets of No. 11 or No. 12 size. He says he is not quite definite about the last statement. We have already observed that the evidence of ballistic expert even based on conclusions reached by him on experiments made by him may not be of conclusive nature. It is nevertheless an important piece of evidence and an opinion evidence must be acted upon if the Court is satisfied about it. In this case as already noticed 110 fire-arm is recovered. Therefore the ballistic expert’s evidence of necessity is now restricted to the nature of cartridge and pellets used and the distance from which the charge must have been shot. It is obvious that the pellets recovered from the body and near the place of occurrence are. some of the pellets which the cartridges recovered at the place usually contain. Therefore the ballistic expert’s evidence of necessity is now restricted to the nature of cartridge and pellets used and the distance from which the charge must have been shot. It is obvious that the pellets recovered from the body and near the place of occurrence are. some of the pellets which the cartridges recovered at the place usually contain. It is also clear that having regard to the range of the shot and spread of the pellets P.Ws. 2 and. 3 and the 1st deceased must have been within a diameter of 21” in the terrace. On both these points he is competent to depose as a ballistic expert. Opinion as to the spread of pellets also is within his field though in view of non-recovery of the gun which fired the fatal shot, his opinion may show an estimate because the degree to which the pellets of a shot charge spread out depends largely on the individual gun used and particularly on its choke, whether full, half or slight. It is, however, clear that the available evidence including that of the expert makes the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 at the spot and, the injuries said to have been received by them quite probable. That P.Ws. 2 and 3 have received gun shot injuries should admit of no doubt as discussed above. The only question is whether the iniuries received by them are from a single shot. It is obvious that whereas P.W. 2 received iniuries on the right side, P.W. 3 only on the left side. This tallies with the description that they were somewhat near and behind the deceased on either side. It must be noted that the wounds which may be received trow the shot may result in a punctured wound, punched out wound, lacerated wound on a grazing wound or bruise. It all depends upon how it strikes, with what velocity, within what range and against which resistance. It is difficult to expect the same type of injury from the shot on all surfaces and in all directions. Further, as the velocity having regard to the distance decreases, the force of the projectile also diminishes. The pellets which spread out within the distance they travel may not at certain stage be able to penetrate or having regard to the direct on may produce a grazing or a lacerated wound. Further, as the velocity having regard to the distance decreases, the force of the projectile also diminishes. The pellets which spread out within the distance they travel may not at certain stage be able to penetrate or having regard to the direct on may produce a grazing or a lacerated wound. Not all the wounds can be of uniform size as it depends upon the surface of the object, direction, range, pressure and velocity of the shot. So then merely because there is a laceration as large as 1.c.m. in the case of P.W.1. it cannot be presumed that it could not be the result of the same shot that also hit the deceased. Laceration may be wider or narrower as it depends upon the stikes and the direction in which it strikes. Further sometime the entry wound may appear to be even less than the size of the pellet or bullet. Apart from the distance the direction must have been responsible for some difference inP.W. 3’s wounds. Above all while considering the size of the injury a little margin of error also must be allowed for the possible error in measurement. It is not as though the injuries of the three persons have been measured by one doctor or by the same scale so that fractional error in taking measurement may be ruled out. Sometimes darked portion also is included by mistake. The X-ray photos (Exhibit P-7, P. 8 and P-25 were not available at the time so that the medical officer might take greater precaution in measuring the wounds in view of the pellets revealed in X-ray Even the firearm expert who had to offer his evidence on being shown Exhibit P-2, P-4 and P-5 and the cartridges, was not shown the said X-rays. If he were able to read X-ray perhaps that would have helped him. It is, however, clear that his opinion as to whether the injuries were caused by the same gun shot or three different shots is based on insufficient data. It does not rest upon any experiments made by him or conclusions reached thereon. Neither his evidence nor that of medical officer can therefore be to that of the injured. That P.Ws. It is, however, clear that his opinion as to whether the injuries were caused by the same gun shot or three different shots is based on insufficient data. It does not rest upon any experiments made by him or conclusions reached thereon. Neither his evidence nor that of medical officer can therefore be to that of the injured. That P.Ws. 2 and 3 received gun shot injuries and they were preferred received at the same time of the incident is well established There is reason then why they should not say truly as to how they were caused. The course of the travelling shots that hit them is obviously the same as that of the shots which hit the deceased. The way in which only the particular portion of the body of P.Ws 2 and 3 was involved lends assurance to their testimoney that they were on either side of the deceased behind him. Having regard to the spread of the pellets and the direction in which they were, the particular injuries are highly Probable. With such strong circumstancial evidence in support there is no reason to disbelieve their testimoney about the authorship. They name only accused 1 as having caused the same while firing at the 1st deceased. The circumstances proved fully corroborate them. When the direct evidence is thus well corroborated by the circumstancial evidence and conforms to the probabilities, there is no reason why it should not be accepted. The mere fact that the expert has come to a different contusion on a particular point would not render that part of their story open to doubt especially when the data on which the expert has come to that conclusion is quite insufficient The data on which the expert’s evidence rests must weigh with the Court and he opinion of the expert must be judged in the light thereof. We are of the opinion that the story that P.Ws. 2 and 3 received injuries from the same gunshot which put an end to the life of the 1st deceased must be accepted. It is no doubt argued that in cases of this kind, special significance must be attached to the expert’s evidence and our attention is invited to the observations of their Lordships in Mohinder Singh v. The State1. 2 and 3 received injuries from the same gunshot which put an end to the life of the 1st deceased must be accepted. It is no doubt argued that in cases of this kind, special significance must be attached to the expert’s evidence and our attention is invited to the observations of their Lordships in Mohinder Singh v. The State1. There it was said: "In a case where death is due to injuries or wounds caused by a lethal weapon, it has always been considered to be the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which and in the manner in which they are alleged to have been caused........" Relying on this passage it is urged that it is the expert’s evidence that is of paramount importance in cases like these and it should outweigh all other evidence whether director otherwise and clinch the issue. That is not what has been in fact held there. Nor can it be accepted that an expert’s evidence, however, incomplete be the data on which it is based shall be acted upon and preferred to the direct evidence, clear and cogent and supported by circumstantial evidence. In fact in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab1, their Lordships have observed thus: "There is no inflexible rule that in every case where an accused person is; charged with murder caused by a lethal weapon, the prosecution case can succeed in proving the charge only if an expert is examined. It is possible to imagine cases where the direct evidence is of such an unimpeachable character and the nature of the injuries disclosed by post-mortem notes is so clearly consistent with the direct evidence that the examination of a ballistic expert may not be regarded as essential. Where the direct evidence is not satisfiactory or disinterested or where the injuries are alleged to have been caused with a gun and they prima facie appear to have been inflicted by a rifle, undoubtedly the apparent inconsistency-can be cured or the oral evidence can be corroborated, by leading the evidence of a ballistic expert. In what cases the examination of a ballistic expert is essential for the proof of the prosecution case, must naturally depend upon the circumstances of each case. In what cases the examination of a ballistic expert is essential for the proof of the prosecution case, must naturally depend upon the circumstances of each case. Therefore, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that in every case where a fire-arm is alleged to have been used by an accused person, in addition to the direct evidence, prosecution must lead the evidence of a ballistic expert, however, good the direct evidence may be and though on the record there may be no reason to doubt the said evidence." It is sclear that if the evidence of direct witnesses is convincing and is corroborated by the circumstantial evidence it must merit acceptance. The unsatisfactory-evidence of an expert based as it is on insufficient data cannot affect its probative force. It is significant that the story of P.Ws. 2 and 3 has been consistent from the very beginning. In fact at the earliest possible opportunity on the arrival of the head constable they came out from the house of Pullareddi where out of fear they had closed themselves in and told that they received gunshot injuries. P.Ws. I and 17 support them. It is however urged on behalf of the accused that the assertion of P.Ws. 2 and 3 that it was accused 1’s shot that hit them is in conflict with the prosecution version as at the time of the inquest for it was accused 3 and not accused 1 who was then named as the author of these injuries. The learned Counsel" contends that inquest report refers to this and it must therefore be presumed that this was based on the statements of P.Ws. 2 and 3 but those statements have been suppressed and the copies of substituted statements are given to the accused. It is not the case of any of the witnesses that P.Ws. 2 and 3 in their statements under section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, has stated so. P.W. 18 who recorded the statements has refuted such a contention. He has categorically stated that P.Ws. 2 and 3 did not tell him that the accused 3 shot at them. P.Ws. 2 and 3 also disown any such statement. Indeed the statements recorded under section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, do not contain any such statement. However stress has been laid on column 15 of Exhibit P-20 which is inquest report. He has categorically stated that P.Ws. 2 and 3 did not tell him that the accused 3 shot at them. P.Ws. 2 and 3 also disown any such statement. Indeed the statements recorded under section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, do not contain any such statement. However stress has been laid on column 15 of Exhibit P-20 which is inquest report. The summary therein refers to accused 3 but that is not based on the version of P.Ws. 2 and 3. That column is intended for the opinion of panchayatdars who were certainly not P.Ws. 2 and 3. It was written by P.W. 1 to the dictation of P.W. 18. P.W. 18 says that P.W. 17 committed a mistake as to the name while taking dictation from him This mistake is owned by P.W. 17 also. The contention on behalf of the accused is such an explanation is not acceptable, for mistake, if it was,it could not have escaped detection for long especially when the contents of column 15 were read out to the panchayatdars. P.W. 18 admits that it was read out to the panchayatdars. Of course, if the panchayatdars had attentively heard the same, they would have found the mistake. But it seems the process was gone through in a rather mechanical manner. It is P.W. 17’s inadvertence that gave rise to such controversy. Be that what it may, if any such statement is to be relied upon it should be only for purpose of corroboration or contravention. It may be noted that neither P.W. 2 nor P.W. 3 is among the panchas who were four in number as would appear from Exhibit P-29. It is the opinion of the panchayatdars that was to he entered in column 15 and it is they who had signed the said inquest report. Whatever was embodied therein must represent the opinion of the panchayatdars. P.Ws. 2 and 3 cannot be confronted with these statements as they do not purport to be their previous statements. Reliance on column 15 of Exhibit P-20 therefore is of no avail. That it was a product of inadvertence or mistake in recording is abundantly cleat from the statements of P.Ws. 17 and 18. It is also obvious from the statements of P.Ws. 2 and 3 recorded under section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, that it was not their case that accused 3 is responsible for their injuries. That it was a product of inadvertence or mistake in recording is abundantly cleat from the statements of P.Ws. 17 and 18. It is also obvious from the statements of P.Ws. 2 and 3 recorded under section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, that it was not their case that accused 3 is responsible for their injuries. They have named only accused 1. The copies of these statements were given to the accused at the earlier opportunity. It is asserted that the statements originally recorded were suppressed and the copies were given of the substituted statements. P.W. 18 has categorically denied these. The contention of the accused in this behalf is wholly ill founded. There is no reason to disbelieve P.W. 18 the investigating officer and P.Ws. 2 and 3. It is then contended that no bloodstained earth was recovered from the place even though according to the doctor there should have been bleeding both internally and externally and that if external bleeding was there bloodstained earth from the place should have been recovered and sent to the chemical examiner. It would appear from the statement of the investigating officer that though there was some “bloodstained earth it was not sufficient for preservation and being sent for the said purpose. It is not unusual that injuries from fire-arms do not necessarily result in profuse external bleeding. It is wrong to presume that there was no external bleeding at all. There was of course more of internal than of external bleeding. As a result the preservation of blood stained earth was not rendered possible. Non-recovery of bloodstained earth or of sending the same to the chemical examiner in these circumstances cannot be fatal to the prosecution case as there are otherwise obvious telling circumstances as to the respective places where the deceased received injuries and met their death. Much capital has been made of the fact that the prosecution did not bring on record the report given by a young lad of 12 Aswathareddi by name, who is the son of accused 10. That report concerns accused 15 and to an incident which took place earlier. That incident and the present incident do not form part of the same transaction. There was clear gap between the two. That report concerns accused 15 and to an incident which took place earlier. That incident and the present incident do not form part of the same transaction. There was clear gap between the two. For the like reason the non-production of the report purporting to have been given by the accused 5 to the village munsif (accused 2) with regard to the injuries on the person of the accused 15 along with the printed report of the said village munsifis of little consequence. This again relates to the incident of accused 15 which took place earlier. It cannot be said that the accused, were handicapped on account of this in their defence. If at all, it is only accused 15 who could have some occasion for making grievance of this. But the medical report of his injuries has been in fact brought on record and it is clear from the medical certificate that he received such injuries on 5th February 1964 itself in the small hours in the morning. Indeed certain statements Exhibits D-9, D-20, D-26 and D-27 made by P.Ws. 1 to 3 before the police with which they”were confronted in the box but however denied tend to support the contention that accused 15 had received injuries on that day in the early hours of the morning lone before sunrise. P.W. 17 had seen him that day with injuries. The lady doctor (P.W. 6) has said that he was brought to her for examination on a stretcher and was not able to stand or walk on account of the injuries. Of the six injuries injury No. 5 according to her could have disabled him from walking. The trial Court nevertheless after discussing the evidence in relation to accused 15 came to the conclusion. that the injuries were not of sufficient gravity as to disable him from climbing the ladder in getting up the terrace at the time of the offence. We do not think that this medical opinion could be in any sense disregarded merely because P.W. 18 had seen the said accused actually walking when he was being sentto the hospital. It is obvious from the record that the incident which resulted in the injuries to accused 15 was prior and not subsequent to the incident which resulted in the death of deceased 1 to 3. It is obvious from the record that the incident which resulted in the injuries to accused 15 was prior and not subsequent to the incident which resulted in the death of deceased 1 to 3. Having regard to the injuries on his person at the time of the incident in question which, according to P.W. 6 disabled him from walking he was indeed entitled to benefit of doubt and should have been acquitted. If at all the earlier reports in relation to which the above contention have been raised would have been of any use they have been only in relation to accused 15 and that too in relation to an earlier incident The medical report has revertheless served this purpose It cannot be said that neither he nor any of the other accused in any sense of the term were handicapped on account of non-production of the reports referred to-above. Much stress had been laid also on certain discrepancies found in the statements of P.Ws. 2 and 3. The trial Court has dealt elaborately with these discrepancies Most of these discrepancies are in relation to the incident resulting in injuries to the accused 15 which took place earlier. They cannot affect the present case. The other discrepancies pointed out also have been dealt with by the trial Court They are of minor nature. They cannot affect the truth of their version of the incident. It is difficult to expect the testimony of a witness free from all discrepancies. There can be discrepancies both of truth and falsehood. Whereas contradictions on material points are no doubt of importance and should not be lightly passed over as they affect the credibility of the witnesses miner discrepancies should always be ignored. They may be due to bad memory inattention to details or to the natural elasticity of human impressions. They may also be due to difference of powers of observation and facility of description. Allowances have to be necessarily made for discrepancies of this nature. We are of the view that discrepancies of the kind relied on are normally found in the statements of witnesses however true. Now we come to the incident in relation to deceased 2 and. 3 and the evidence of P.W. 1. Accused 2 is shown to be responsible for the death of Ramanjaneva the 2nd deceased as he is no more. Now we come to the incident in relation to deceased 2 and. 3 and the evidence of P.W. 1. Accused 2 is shown to be responsible for the death of Ramanjaneva the 2nd deceased as he is no more. His participation therefore need not be discussed at length. Accused 3 is said to be responsible for the death of the 3rd deceased. The learned Counsel contends that in relation to deceased 2 and. 3 the version of the only direct witness (P.W. 1) is false firstly because, according to the evidence of P.W. 7 deceased. 2 must have received injuries from more than one shot and the hypothesis that deceased 2 might have received some injuries when accused 3 fired at deceased 3 immediately thereafter cannot be supported by the nature of the injuries found. It was further contended that the circular injuries both on deceased 2 and 3 would, falsify the prosecution case that they received injuries from the terrace which stand above 12 feet high. That apart the presence of P.W. 1 in juxtaposition to deceased 2 and 3 when they were shot is also false for no single pellet injury was found on him. Above all the conduct of P.W. 1 in not closing the door before deceased 2 and 3 were shot is most unnatural. We have already shown that P.W. 1 was the only male inmate in the house at the time the offence took place and he remained in the house even after the incident and was found present when the head constable (P.W. 17) reached the place. We have also shown that there were several pellets recovered from the place as they had hit the arches and walls on either side of the door. Of course, there was no pellet injury to the door as it was ajar. From the position in which deceased 2 and 3 were found lying dead, it is manifest that it is only if the door was open, the pellets could have hit deceased 2 and 3 who were inside near the threshold. The fact that the pellets did not hit the door further lends assurance to the fact that P.W. 1 who was behind the door protected by the wall was not within the range or spread of the pellets that came from the gun shotsinto the house. The fact that the pellets did not hit the door further lends assurance to the fact that P.W. 1 who was behind the door protected by the wall was not within the range or spread of the pellets that came from the gun shotsinto the house. He was by the side of the door not within the door space. He was sitting on the pial first. Therefrom he saw all the accused. He saw accused 1 shooting at his brother at the terrace. He then stood up and rushed towards the hall within when he saw accused 2 loading his gun to level the same towards him. He rushed past behind the door with the result that the shot did not cause any damage to him. It is difficult to expect precision in hitting the mark when it is a moving object and the distance between the vulnerable point and place of safety is rather close. We have already referred to a passage from volume II of "Modern Shotgun" by Major Sir Gerald Burrard at page 158 to the effect that velocity of the gun plays very important part in the use of a shotgun. It is apt here to refer to another passage in the same book at page 159, which reads thus: "The difficulty of shooting at any moving object consists of firing at some imaginary point exactly the right distance ahead so as to allow for the movement of the object during the time taken from the instant of pressing the trigger to the arrival of the projectile at the target. The longer this time, the greater the difficulty of making a successful shot; while if it could be limited altogether it would be almost, if not quite as easy to hit a moving object as a stationary one..............Although I have just stated that this period begins with the pressing of the trigger, in actual practice this is not correct, as it begins with the shooters’ decision to press the trigger, which is not necessarily the same thing as some men’s brains work quicker than those of others; and what is more work differently from day to day. Taking this fact into account there are three different and distinct periods which together make up the whole time under consideration, namely: (1) The time taken from the brain’s decision to fire, to the actual pressing of the trigger, which may be called the "Sportsman’s Time". (2) The time taken from the pressing of the trigger to the exit of the shot charge at the muzzle, which is usually known as the "Time up the Barrel." (3) The time taken from the exit of the shot charge at the muzzle to the arrival of the shot charge at the target, perhaps 40 yards distant, which is the "Time of Flight." Thus it is obvious that necessarily there is time lag between the brains’ decision to fire and the arrival of the shot at the target and when the object is moving the shooting point will be imaginary point and it is difficult to claim precision in hitting the mark. That being the case, if there were only a few steps to be covered by P.W. 1 to escape from the range of the shotgun and P.W. 1 successfully avoided the shot by covering that much distance in the manner he did there is nothing strange or uncommon therein. If no pellet hit him as he was protected by the wall having gone beyond the open space covered by the door, by the time the shot was fired or reached the target it cannot be said to be a miracle or an unusual coincidence so as to rouse suspicion about the truth of his story. There is telling proof that the spread of the pellets did not extend to the sides of the door inside as on either side of the door they stuck the wall outside and P.W. 1 who was behind the wall within could not be hit by the shots. It may be recalled that the accused were on the terrace of Arava China Nagireddi and it was from there that they fired their shots. The terrace was 12 feet high from the ground, level. As already noticed there is sufficient circumstancial evidence to establish that the accused had operated from the terrace of Arava China Nagireddi. Not only the marks of trampling thereon but also the wads, cartridges found near about are tell-tale of the same. The terrace was 12 feet high from the ground, level. As already noticed there is sufficient circumstancial evidence to establish that the accused had operated from the terrace of Arava China Nagireddi. Not only the marks of trampling thereon but also the wads, cartridges found near about are tell-tale of the same. The direction of the pellets which hit the walls speak for themselves. Not a single pellet touched the door obviously because it was wide open. The dead bodies were found inside the hall near the door. That is a further proof that they are hit by the pellets which entered through the open space of the door. The deceased 2 and 3 lad received several pellet injuries. The injuries on their respective bodies registered different sizes. We hae already set out in detail the various injuries of deceased 2 and 3. There was found slanting tendency in the direction of all the injuries. In fact P.W. 5 who did postmortem of deceased 3 has said that the injuries on deceased 2 were directed forwards and downwards. They were ante-mortem. There was no scorching, tatooing or blackening of the injuries suggesting thereby that they were inflicted from distance. He says that all these injuries would have been caused when the victim was bent for picking up a boy and the firer standing at a place on higher level firing the shot. The injuries were so small that according to him, it was not possible to say whether they were circular or oval though the dimensions given, the injuries may appear to be circular. This is all what he said in examination-in-chief. In cross-examination, however, he said he was not definite whether the injured was at the time in a bending position. All he could say was that the firer must have been at a higher level. It is clear that the witness was very much guarded in his statements. His testimony further suggests that though the actual measurements that he took may tend to show that the wounds were circular, it was difficult to say having regard to their size whether they were circular or not. That illustrates how difficult it is to ensure precision in the exact measurements of such wounds. There is nothing in the statement of this witness which may spell inconsistency with P.W. 1’s testimony. That illustrates how difficult it is to ensure precision in the exact measurements of such wounds. There is nothing in the statement of this witness which may spell inconsistency with P.W. 1’s testimony. P.W. 1 said that the gun shots came from a higher level from accused 3 and hit Subbamma,the 3rd deceased, when she was in bending position for picking up the boy (deceased 2). This accords with medical evidence and also with the evidence of P.W. 11 ballistic expert. P.W. 7 speaks of injuries on deceased 2. These injuries according to P.W. 7 were caused by accused No. 2’s shot. We have already set out the various injuries received on the various portions of the body. All these injuries were about 3 m.m. in diameter and the pellets were recovered from the right lung, right leg and right chest. Injuries Nos. 6 and 10 are on vital part of the body as a result of which P.W. 7 says that the child should have died either instantaneously or within a few minutes. The boy was about 3 feet in height. Of course, this witness says that the injuries must be the result of more than one shot being fired and that they were circular. It is these conclusions that have been relied upon by the accused as being inconsistent with the version that the injuries were received at a time when the firer was on a higher level and by a single shot. It is significant that P.W. 7 also, as the other doctors who have been examined in the case, has never handled any gun. He does not know how many pellets are contained in a cartridge. He feels that they (the injuried) are the result of firing of more than one shot. P.W. 11 who is the ballistic expert has categorically stated that having regard to the wounds found in Exhibit P-6 it is possible that the pellet injuries found on the body of deceased 2 were caused to him when he was in the house at a distance of 20 yards from Arava China Nagireddi’s house from a shot coming from the terrace, provided there was no obstruction. He said further that if the body is in a moving position it is possible for the injuries on his person to have been caused by a single shot. This evidence is consistent with P.W. 1’s testimony. He said further that if the body is in a moving position it is possible for the injuries on his person to have been caused by a single shot. This evidence is consistent with P.W. 1’s testimony. It is obvious that the boy who was there plying in the early hours of the morning must be in moving position. Again P.W. 11 has said as to the injuries found on deceased 3 if the victim is in a bent position or otherwise turned towards the boy to lift him all these injuries could be received. That again accords with P.W. 1’s testimony. Thus the story as narrated by P.W. 1 is highly probabilised by the evidence of P.W. 11 the ballistic expert. We see therefore no ereason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W. land accept the hazy views of P.W.7 who is not well acquinted with the fire power of a gun as he has never handled a gun at all. What he has said is that he feels that the injuries must be from more than one shot as the spread of the pellet injuries is all over the body. It is characteristic of the pellets from the shot gun that when the object is at a distance, the pellets spread wide up to the gun shot range and hit the object at various parts of it according to their number. The pellets in the cartridge of the type used were sufficiently large in number. P.W. 11 has deposed about the same. Thus the testimony of P.W. 1 is not at all inconsistent with the expert’s evidence. It is said that the absence of bloodstained earth must give a lie to the contention that the deceased met their end at that place. We have already shown that there may not be much of external bleeding from gun shot injuries. P.W. 18 the Circle Inspector has said that the blood found on the terrace and in the hall was so small that it could not be preserved. Therefore, the non-recovery of bloodstained earth cannot assume much importance in this case. Then it is pointed out that P.W. 1 being a nearest relation and an interested person, his testimony which is not free from indiscrepancies should not be accepted. The discrepancies shown are in no sense of the term of material character . They are all minor discrepancies. Therefore, the non-recovery of bloodstained earth cannot assume much importance in this case. Then it is pointed out that P.W. 1 being a nearest relation and an interested person, his testimony which is not free from indiscrepancies should not be accepted. The discrepancies shown are in no sense of the term of material character . They are all minor discrepancies. He has said that he got up late in the morning. Evidently he had no knowledge of the events that took place in the small lours of the morning as he was asleep. He cannot be expected to depose about the events which toot place while he was asleep. The contradictions in relation to the incident concerning accused 15 cannot be made much of. The other discrepancies pointed out are also of minor nature. Some are due to inferences that he drew and hazarded a guess. The trial Court has dealt with all these discrepancies. It is unnecessary to discuss them in detail here. Suffice it to say we are in general agreement with the reasoning of the trial Court in this behalf. We are of the opinion that the evidence of P.W. 1 is reliable and the fact deposed to by him in relation to gun slots fired from the terrace by the respective accused ring rue. He has beside deposed about the previous incidents which gave rise to two factions in the village and also the incidents which multiplied from time to time raising the value and severity of the enmity with the result that for ensuring security and maintenance of peace Special Police had to be stationed in the village. It is unnecessary to refer in detail to this motive part of the case for while narrating facts we have already noticed these various incidents. It is clear from the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3 which finds support from the circumstantial evidence and the material brought on record that not only the motive but also the part played by A-1 to A-3 in killing the three deceased and causing hurt to P.Ws. 2 and 3 is fully established. As already discussed above the statements of P.Ws. 2 and 3 inspire confidence and there is no reason to disbelieve them. They are consistent with each other conform to probabilities, and human experience. Stress has been laid onthe fact that there are certain discrepancies found in their statements. 2 and 3 is fully established. As already discussed above the statements of P.Ws. 2 and 3 inspire confidence and there is no reason to disbelieve them. They are consistent with each other conform to probabilities, and human experience. Stress has been laid onthe fact that there are certain discrepancies found in their statements. Of course there are discrepancies, but they are of minor nature and discrepancies of this kind do not affect the truth of their testimony as regards the main incident. Of course the trial Court while it has accepted the version of these witnesses in relation to A-1 to A-3, it has not similarly accepted their version with regard to the other accused. Where as the witnesses has said that the 4th, 5th and 6th accused had ammunition (i.e. cartridges) with them and they had handed over the same respectively to A-1, A-2, and A-3, the idea of a person being armed with cartridges did not commend to the learned Judge as ordinarily the person armed with a gun would have cartridges with him. He however, was convinced of complicity of A-5 and this mainly because he is said to have given report to the village munsif and that report together with the village munsif’s printed report was handed ever to P.W. 17. These reports and also the statement of accused 15 recorded by P.W. 17 have not been brought on record. Be that what it may if notwithstanding the clear statement of P.W. 1 in relation to all the three (accused 4 to 6) rule of caution warranted that the statement of an interested witness or a relative can safely be acted upon only to the extent it is. corroborated and fully accords with the ordinary course of events and human conduct and on that basis it was not deemed to be quite safe to act unhesitatingly on that evidence in relation to the part played by A-4 and A-6 the mere report of A-5 should not have warranted a different treatment in his case, His case should stand on the same footing as that of accused 4 and 6. If A-4 and A-6 were in the opinion of the learned Judge entitled to accquittal on the same parity of reasoning A-5 was entitled to acquittal. It is significant appeal has been preferred against order of acquittal. If A-4 and A-6 were in the opinion of the learned Judge entitled to accquittal on the same parity of reasoning A-5 was entitled to acquittal. It is significant appeal has been preferred against order of acquittal. The fact that the other accused did not take any overt act moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge to come to the conclusion that their presence and participation in the commission of the; offence is not established. Here cagain the rule that where the conviction has to be based on the testimony of relative and interested witnesses case has to be taken lest innocent persons may be roped in seems to have also weighed with the learned Judge. Indeed, it is true that only such persons against whom the evidence is clear and cogent, and whose presence and overtacts are convincingly established should be convicted. That is the rule of law. There is further rule the of caution which should be followed with scruplous care where the witnesses are interested and are partisan likely to rope in innocent persons. If the trial Court by resort to above process acquitted several of the accused, it cannot be successfully argued that the other accused also should be acquitted even though the evidence against them is clear and convincing. That is neither a rule of law, nor a rule of prudence or caution especially where first "Fiat justitia" should be the motto of the Court and care and skill should be necessarily exercised to discover the truth, secure punishment of the crime and right the wrong. Even in cases where it was obvious that some other persons were wrongly involved or falsely accused or where a part of the story of the witnesses was not accepted or was not found to be true the rule of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus was not blindly followed as either a rule of law or as a rule of caution. In Nisar Ali v. State of U.P.1 where the Courts below held that the eye witnesses had falsely implicated Qudrat Ulla who was said to have handed over the knife to Nisar Ali and the latter has stabbed Sabir Ali, the High Court nevertheless convicted Nisar Ali of murder. It was contended before the Supreme Court that the conviction of Nisar Ali on the same evidence was bad. It was contended before the Supreme Court that the conviction of Nisar Ali on the same evidence was bad. Kapur, J., dealing with maxim falsus in uno jalsus in omnibus which was relied on by the appellant observed thus: "This maxim has not received general acceptance in different jurisdictions in India: nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases the testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be disregarded. One American author has stated: "........the maxim is in itself worthless; first in point of validity.....and secondly, in point of utility because it merely tells the jury what they may do in any event, not what they must do or must not do, and therefore, it is a superfluous form of words. It is also in practice pernicious........" (Migmore on Evidence, Volume III, para. 1008). The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances but it is not what may be called "mandatory rule of evidence." In Ugar Ahir and others v. The State of Bihar2, Subba Rao J., (as he then was) speaking for the Court in this behalf observed thus: " The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in every thing) is netither a sound rule of law, nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest." We are of the view that merely because a large number of persons have been acquitted on the same evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused in relation to whom the evidence is clear and convincing cannot merit acquittal. The guilt against accused 1 to 3 has been fully brought home. The testimony of P.Ws. The guilt against accused 1 to 3 has been fully brought home. The testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3 which is supported by circumstantial evidence, as distcussed above, establishes the guilt of A-1 to A-3 beyond reasonable doubt. We need not for this purpose advert to some other witnesses also such as P.Ws. 8,16, etc., whose evidence is largely circumstantial. We are of the opinion that A-1 and A-3 were rightly convicted. The conviction of A-2 though correct can no longer be enforced as he is dead. A-4 and 6 to 14 and 16 have been acquitted and there is no appeal against this acquittal. A-5 also is entitled to acquittal when accused 4 and 6 who are said to have taken similar part have been acquitted. In relation to A-15 the trial Court has come to the conclusion that notwithstanding the injuries received by aim in an earlier incident, he was in a position to walk and climb at the time of the incident, in question; that the fact that he was brought on stetcher to P.W. 6 was all a stage-management or a make-believe attempt. He has held so because P.W. 18 had categorically stated that he was able to walk to a distance. It is on the strength of this statement that the learned Judge found no reason to disbelieve the presence of A-15 at the time of the incident as it was due to him alone i.e., as a result of infliction of injuries on him that the incident in question took place. Be that what it may, once it is clear that accused No. 15 had received wounds on the legs and hands and was in a bad condition when P.W. 17 had seen him and P.W. 6 says that of account of the particular injury on the leg, it is not possible or him to walk or stand he is entitled to benefit of doubt. He should therefore be acquitted. Thus the convictions of both A-5 and A-15 have to be set aside. The only convictions that can be upheld now are of A-1 and A-3. They are guilty of the offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code, in relation to the murder of 1st deceased and 3rd deceased respectively. A-1 is also guilty of causing hurt to P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and he has been awarded sentences therefor by the trial Court. They are guilty of the offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code, in relation to the murder of 1st deceased and 3rd deceased respectively. A-1 is also guilty of causing hurt to P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and he has been awarded sentences therefor by the trial Court. Both the accused have been awarded a sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence of murder, Having regard to the gravity of the offence and the manner and circumstances of the case in which these offences have been committed the State has preferred a revision praying for death sentence. What is the adequate sentence in given circumstances is a matter which largely depends upon the discretion of the Court. When the trial Court having regard to the circumstances of the case has exercised its discretion in the matter of sentence we do not think that we should interfere with the said discretion. It cannot be said that life imprisonment is not a normal sentence. That being the normal sentence and the Court below having exercised its discretion in favour thereof we do not think that we should be inclined to interfere with this discretion. It cannot be said the exercise of discretion was arbitrary. The revision petition therefore must fail. The net result of our discussion is that the guilt only against 3 of the accused having been proved there is no occasion for applying sections 148 and 149, Indian Penal Code. So, the convictions for the offences under sections 147 and 148 Indian Penal Code, and other offences read with section 149 Indian Panal Code, cannot stand. The convictions and sentence of accused 1 and 3 are therefore upheld only to the extent of the murder committed by them. Their convictions under section 148 and also under section 302 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, are set aside. The conviction of accused 1 under section 302, Indian Penal Code, for committing the murder of deceased No. 1 and the sentence awarded by the lower court is upheld. So also the conviction of accused 3 under section 302, Indian Penal Code, for committing the murder of deceased 3 and the sentence awarded by the lower Court is upheld. The conviction of A-1 for offences under section 324 Indian Penal Code under charge No. 8 and 10 and sentences thereunder also are upheld. So also the conviction of accused 3 under section 302, Indian Penal Code, for committing the murder of deceased 3 and the sentence awarded by the lower Court is upheld. The conviction of A-1 for offences under section 324 Indian Penal Code under charge No. 8 and 10 and sentences thereunder also are upheld. Further the convictions and sentences of A-1 and A-3 under the Indian Arms Act under sections 25 (1) (a) and 27 and the sentences passed thereunder by the trial Court are upheld. The various terms of imprisonment awarded to each of the accused should run concurrently. The appeal is allowed accordingly to the extent stated above. The revision petition on behalf of the State for enhancement of sentence is rejected. G.S.M. ----- Conviction of A-5 and A-15 set aside; sentence modified; revision rejected.