Sujata V. Manohar ( 1 ) IN this case there are two eye-witnesses Ram Singh, PW1 the father of the deceased and Kalua, PW3. ( 2 ) LEARNED senior counsel for the appellants, Shri U. K. Lalit, challenged the findings of the High Court and the trial court, firstly, on the ground that since post mortem report of Dr. G. P. Tamarkar, Public Witness 4, shows blackening ofthe skin on each ofthe injuries recorded, belies the prosecution case that the accused fired on the deceased Bhagat Singh from the roof of the third floor. Second, by recovery of two guns one 12 bore on the pointing of Mohan Singh which is article No. 2 and another 12 bore gun which turned out to be licensed in the name of Ram Singh recovered on the information of the complainant though from the Dalan ofthe accused Ajay Singh, which is article No. l. Next point pressed was that there was not sufficient light when the incident is said to have taken place, viz, at 11 P. M. to recognise and confirm as to who among the aforesaid three accused fired which resulted into the death of Bhagat Singh. Lastly, but feebly submitted that the F. I. R. does not disclose the details of commission ofthe offence including the part played by each of the said three accused persons. This led into improvement and concoction of the prosecution story. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel submitted with vehemence with reference to the first point that the alleged firing on deceased Bhagat Singh by Mohan Singh from roof of third floor is in conflict with post mortem injuries recorded by Dr. D. P. Tamarkar, PW4. For ready reference one of such recorded injury No. l is reproduced below: "fire arm wound placed right side of chest (P. Torn) above (Rt) nipple, oval wound inverted edges size 1. 25 cm x 1cm, surrounding skin blackened clotted blood was present around the wound. On exploration the wound was going from right to left side obliquely. [emphasis supplied) ( 10 ) THE emphasis was; blackening of skin clearly indicates that the firing was from a very close range which contradicts the prosecution case that the firing by the accused-Mohan Singh was from the roof of the third floor which could not be a firing from a close range. [emphasis supplied) ( 10 ) THE emphasis was; blackening of skin clearly indicates that the firing was from a very close range which contradicts the prosecution case that the firing by the accused-Mohan Singh was from the roof of the third floor which could not be a firing from a close range. He also referred to the deposition ofthe Doctor, PW4 that by blackening of skin he meant deposition ofthe smoke. On the other hand learned Senior counsel, Mr. K. N. Shukla, for the prosecution referred to the recording of the injury by the same Doctor in the same report through a diagram that the shape of injury was oval which indicates that the injuries must have been caused from a higher pedestal. He submits this corroborates with the prosecution story as accused is said to have fired from the roof of the third floor, i. e. , from the higher plane to the deceased Bhagat Singh who was standing down below on a Chabutra on a lower plane, along with him was his father Ram Singh, PW1. ( 5 ) THE question is how to test the veracity of the prosecution story especially when it is with some variance with the medical evidence. Mere variance of the prosecution story with the medical evidence, in all cases, should not lead to the conclusion inevitably to reject the prosecution story. Efforts should be made to find the truth, as this is the very object for which courts are created. To search it out the courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is solemn duty of the courts not merely to conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is onerous duty of the court, within permissible limit to find but the truth. It means, on one hand no innocent man should be punished but, on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should go scot free. If inspite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused. It means, on one hand no innocent man should be punished but, on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should go scot free. If inspite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused. For this, one has to comprehend the totality of the facts and the circumstances are spelled out through the evidence, depending on the facts of each case by testing the credibility of eye witnesses including the medical evidence, of course after excluding that parts of the, evidence which are vague and uncertain. There is no mathematical formula through which the truthfulness of a prosecution or a defence case could be concretised. It would depend on the evidence of each case including the manner of deposition and his demeans, clarity, corroboration of witnesses and overall, the conscience of a judge evoked by the evidence on record. So courts have to proceed further and make genuine efforts within judicial sphere to search out the truth and not stop at the threshold of creation of doubt to confer benefit of doubt. Under this sphere we proceed now to test the submission of the learned counsel for the accused with reference to the blackening found by the doctor under the injuries in the post mortem report. ( 6 ) WE find as aforesaid there is another part of the deposition of the same Doctor with reference to the same injuries when he records that the shape of the wounds was oval indicating the injuries being caused from a higher pedestal. [facts of the case are then discussed and appeal of Mohan Singh is rejected].