( 1 ) WE have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor at considerable length and we have examined the case virtually threadbare on merits. The principal reason for this is because even though the charge is one under Section 307 of the IPC coupled with allied offences under the arms Act, the learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that the incident was one of extreme seriousness where a fire-arm was used and where the learned Trial Judge concedes the position that the injured has sustained gun-shot wounds in the incident, that in these circumstances, the acquittal was unjustified. The learned Trial Judge has examined the various facets of the case in detail. He has discussed the merits of each of the points and has systematically concluded that the charges levelled against the accused are not established beyond reasonable doubt and in this background, it was necessary for us to embark upon a very careful examination as to whether the trial Court has overlooked anything material or whether the Trial Judge has arrived at any conclusions which are unsustainable, before admitting the appeal. In the background of the legal position, that in an appeal against acquittal where the initial presumption of innocence has been reinforced through an order of acquittal a double presumption is established as has been held by the Courts, it is essential that the State must prima facie demonstrate that there exists enough material for the Court to reverse the earlier decision and unless it is prima facie established that this position is so, interference would not be justified. ( 2 ) WE need to record that there are certain broad features of the case which do stand established. We accept the position as vehemently argued by the learned State Public Prosecutor that the parties were known to each other and furthermore that some oral altercation did take place between the parties on the morning of 28-3-1993. The evidence before us also indicates that the injured person did suffer gun-shot injuries around that time, but the crucial question is as to whether the prosecution establishes that these injuries were at the instance of the accused. The evidence before us also indicates that the injured person did suffer gun-shot injuries around that time, but the crucial question is as to whether the prosecution establishes that these injuries were at the instance of the accused. The learned Trial Judge has very carefully examined two material aspects of the case, the first being the situation of the scene of offence vis-a-vis the house of the accused, because the accused is alleged to have fired the gun from inside the house through the window. Admittedly, the house was located on a lower elevation at a distance of over 100 feet from the scene of offence and the learned Trial Judge has carefully analysed the position of the various structures and obstructions and concluded that it could not have been possible for the injured or his brother Satish to have been able to see anybody inside the house from where they were standing and at that height, the line of vision would point to the roof of the house. The learned State Public Prosecutor has undoubtedly tried very hard to establish that this finding is incorrect and we have heard him at length, but, we find it impossible to accept the contention chat it would be possible from that distance to see into the house through the window, but more importantly to be able to identify the person who may have fired the gun. In our considered view, this is an insurmountable hurdle which would come in the way of the prosecution even at the appellate stage. ( 3 ) THE allied factor which the learned Trial Judge has placed reliance on is the evidence of the ballistics expert Prabhakar who is a renowned and reputed officer who has indicated the range of a gun of that type and the learned Trial Judge has rightly concluded that the prosecution version cannot be accepted as the gun fired at that distance could have hardly caused any injury and that therefore, the injuries must have been caused from a gun fired from some other place, It is well-settled law that the prosecution must be able to fully explain all the relevant angles and aspects of the prosecution case and if it is disclosed that there are serious doubts with regard to their correctness, it would not be possible to base a conviction on such shaky material. We do concede that the learned State Public Prosecutor contended that the distances are approximate and we have made certain allowances while assessing the evidence, but still find that there is some serious discrepancy in the prosecution case under these two heads. ( 4 ) WHAT is virtually fatal to the prosecution is the fact that the only medical evidence which has come on record through the doctor from the Government hospital records three superficial wounds and that too lacerated wounds whereas the case of the injured is that the bullet or pellet as the case may be entered his body through his abdomen and exited through the rear of his body. We find it difficult to hold that the doctor could have overlooked an injury of such seriousness. More importantly, the record indicates that after six hours, the injured was discharged from the hospital and he was admitted at the Kasturba Hospital at Manipal where he claims to have been an in-patient for one month. The medical evidence of any consequence indicating the true nature of the injuries, external or internal if any, their location and seriousness would therefore have been necessarily obtainable only from the records of the Manipal Hospital. These records have not come before this Court and apart from the mere claim of the victim that he was an in-patient for one month in that hospital, there is nothing to substantiate this version. We are therefore, left with the curious position insofar as the only medical evidence produced by the prosecution runs contrary to the oral evidence of the most important witness, namely, the victim himself and the crucial medical evidence which would necessarily have to be the corner stone of the evidence for a conviction is not before the Court. The legal position is quite clear insofar as this would lead to an adverse inference of which this Court has to take note. ( 5 ) AN interesting position in law thereafter arose. The learned State Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that the prosecution case should not go by default due to the non-production of material evidence and he therefore submitted that if it is disclosed that the records had been obtained by the prosecution and for whatever reason had not been produced before the Trial Court, that he should be permitted to apply to this Court for taking on record the additional material. In order to get over the well-settled position that particularly in criminal cases additional evidence will be permitted in the rarest of rare situations provided very cogent and valid grounds are made out. The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that this evidence would virtually tilt the scales between a possible conviction and an incorrect acquittal and he therefore, submitted that the interests of justice would require that the Court should permit such a course of action. We take note of the fact that there is nothing on record to indicate that the records in question had either been produced by the injured or that they had been called for by the Investigating Officer and in the absence of definite indications in this regard, it would virtually mean not supplementing the evidence, but it would mean virtually going back to the reopening of the investigation which is totally impermissible. The learned State Public prosecutor submitted that once the complainant has mentioned about his treatment at the manipal Hospital, that the production of the medical evidence would not prejudice the defence at all insofar as it would not amount to introduction of any new material, but we are unable to accept this argument for an entirely different reason, insofar as it is well-settled law that there is a stage of finality to investigation and to the introduction of evidence in criminal trials and merely because a grave lacuna becomes apparent at the appellate stage, it would not be proper for the High Court to permit a reopening of that stage of the case. We do concede that in cases of serious procedural irregularities the Courts could even order a re-trial, but this is a situation which goes beyond that where it would virtually mean supplementing the investigation which in our considered view cannot be permitted. ( 6 ) IN cases of the present type, forensic evidence, ballistic expert's evidence and more importantly the medical evidence are the strongest forms of evidence because the oral evidence is often capable of infirmities. The first two heads of evidence are before the Court and they run counter to the prosecution case and that is one of the reasons why we have refused to permit any supplementing of the third head by procuring the records and the evidence of the doctor from the manipal Hospital. The first two heads of evidence are before the Court and they run counter to the prosecution case and that is one of the reasons why we have refused to permit any supplementing of the third head by procuring the records and the evidence of the doctor from the manipal Hospital. The additional ground for this is because even if this evidence is forthcoming, there are too many lacunae and conflicting factors in the prosecution case which would make it impossible to sustain a conviction even with that material. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we find that no useful purpose whatsoever would be served by entertaining the present appeal filed by the State. We therefore, dismiss the appeal on merits.