Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the following facts :- At about 6.45 P.M. on February 11, 1993, PW.1 Mal Singh accompanied by his sons Major Singh and Bhupinder Singh was returning to his Dhani in the fields after closing the shop. When they were on the kacha path leading to the house of accused Lal Singh, they were confronted by Lal Singh armed with a DBBL gun, Atma Singh with a Gandassi, Sajjan Singh with a Kirpan, Karam Singh with a Datar and Dial Singh son of Lal Singh empty handed. On seeing Mal Singh and his sons, the accused raised a lalkara that the opposite party should be done to death for getting their relatives arrested by the Batala police. At this, Lal Singh fired a shot from his gun, which hit Major Singh on his chest, on which he fell down on the ground. Lal Singh fired yet another shot, which hit Bhupinder Singh on his right arm after which he took shelter in the fields and raised a Raula. On hearing the noise, Dalip Kaur w/o Lal Singh and his sons Mohinder Singh and Manohar Singh came to the spot and tried to rescue them. Sajjan Singh and Atma Singh then gave one blow each to Mohinder Singh on his head, on which he fell down on the ground. Karam Singh then gave a Datar blow on the head of Mohinder Singh and when Dalip Kaur came forward to rescue them, Dial Singh snatched the gun from his father Lal Singh and fired a shot on her head and she too fell down. Mal Singh and his son Manohar Singh raised a Raula on which all the accused ran away carrying with them their weapons. Mal Singh and Manohar Singh came forward and found that Dalip Kaur and Major Singh had succumbed to their injuries. Leaving Manohar Singh near the dead bodies, Mal Singh rushed to Amritsar and got a vehicle to take his injured sons Mohinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh to the hospital. Mal Singh and Manohar Singh came forward and found that Dalip Kaur and Major Singh had succumbed to their injuries. Leaving Manohar Singh near the dead bodies, Mal Singh rushed to Amritsar and got a vehicle to take his injured sons Mohinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh to the hospital. He, however, came across a police party headed by PW.13 Sub Inspector Satwant Singh at the bus stand of Khalchian, who recorded Mal Singhs statement at 0.05 A.M. on February 12, 1993 and on its basis the formal F.I.R. was registered at the police station 30 minutes later; with the special report being delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at 6.11 P.M. on February 12, 1993. Sub Inspector Satwant Singh thereafter accompanied by the complainant and other police officials reached village Kaleke. He examined the place of incident in the presence of respectables of the village and completed the necessary formalities. He also picked up 4 empty cartridge cases of .12 bore DBBL from the spot. Accused Lal Singh and Dial Singh were arrested on February 26, 1993 and on the basis of the disclosure statement made by Lal Singh, a licensed DBBL gun was duly recovered. Accused Atma Singh, Sajjan and Karam Singh were arrested on March 4, 1993 and on the basis of the disclosure statement made by them, the weapons of offence that they had been carrying were also recovered. On the completion of the investigation, the accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/307/324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial. 2. In support of its case, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, Mal Singh, the complainant and Bhupinder Singh, the two eye-witnesses; PW.3 Dr. Aarti Singh, who had medico-legally examined Bhupinder Singh and Mohinder Singh, the two injured, and had found no fracture on their persons; PW.7 ASI Narinder Singh, who deposed with regard to the disclosure statement made by Lal Singh and recoveries made from the other accused; PW.8 Inspector Sukhdev Singh, the Investigating Officer; PW.10 Dr. Gurmanjit Singh Rai who had, on February 12, 1993, conducted the post mortem examination on the dead bodies of Dalip Kaur and Major Singh and had found 5 and 10 gun shot injuries respectively on their persons; PW.11 Dr. Gurmanjit Singh Rai who had, on February 12, 1993, conducted the post mortem examination on the dead bodies of Dalip Kaur and Major Singh and had found 5 and 10 gun shot injuries respectively on their persons; PW.11 Dr. Sukhwinder Singh who had medico-legally examined Bhupinder Singh and Mohinder Singh, on February 15, 1993 and had found 1 and 3 injuries, respectively, on their persons; PW.13 Sub Inspector Satwant Singh, the primary Investigating Officer; PW.15 Dr. G.S. Bedi who proved the fact that Bhupinder Singh (PW.2) had been operated upon on February 12, 1993 for the gun shot injury that he had suffered; and finally PW.16 Dr. Avtar Singh Gill, who stated that Mohinder Singh son of Mal Singh had been admitted in the emergency ward on February 11, 1993 at 11.25 P.M. with a history of multiple injuries. 3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and their statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded false implication. They also examined HC Ranjit Singh as DW.1 in their defence. 4. In the course of the evidence, it was elicited from the prosecution witnesses that village Kaleka had been deeply affected by terrorist violence in the State of Punjab and that a number of murders had taken in the village itself and that Bhupinder Singh (PW.2) was employed in the BSF and Mohinder Singh (PW.4) in the Punjab Police posted at Batala and it was suggested that the family had been targeted by terrorists on this account. 5. The trial Court examined the evidence and concluded that there was no delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. and even assuming that there was some, it had satisfactorily been explained. The Court specifically noticed that the incident had taken place at 6.30 P.M. on February 11, 1993 and that the F.I.R. had been lodged 6 hours later. It was also observed that the dead bodies had been dispatched to the mortuary and had reached there at 1.40 P.M. followed by the police papers at 4.40 P.M. and the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate at 6.11 P.M. on February 12, 1993. It was also observed that the dead bodies had been dispatched to the mortuary and had reached there at 1.40 P.M. followed by the police papers at 4.40 P.M. and the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate at 6.11 P.M. on February 12, 1993. The Court, however, observed that as the two sons of Mal Singh had been injured in the incident, his first anxiety would have been to take them for medical assistance and as such the delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. stood explained. Likewise, it was observed that if the special report was not delivered within a reasonable time, the fault lay with the constable, who had been deputed to deliver it. The Court also concluded that the medical evidence corroborated the ocular version and the fact that there were two injured eye-witnesses, proved their presence on the spot. The recoveries made at the instance of the accused and the fact that empty cartridge cases picked up from the place of occurrence stated to have been fired from the licensed gun belonging to Lal Singh, were also found to be a corroborative circumstances. The trial Court accordingly convicted the accused for the offences for which they were charged and sentenced them as under : Lal Singh U/s 302 and other accused under Section 302/149 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each adn in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each; Dial Singh under Section 302 and other accused under Section 302/149 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to futher undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each; Lal Singh under Section 307 and other accused under Section 302/149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each adn in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonemnt for three months each; Atma Singh, Sajjan Singh and Karam Singh under Section 324 and Dial Singh under Section 324/149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Lal Singh and Dial Singh under Section 27 of the Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. Lal Singh and Dial Singh under Section 27 of the Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each; All the accused under Section 148 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. All the accused U/s 148 IPC. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence this appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully. 7. Mr. R.S. Cheema, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused has, first and foremost, argued that the F.I.R. in this case had been lodged belatedly and the time had been utilised by the prosecution to cook up a false story and to involve the accused in a case, which was otherwise clearly a terrorists related crime. He has pointed out that it had come in the prosecution evidence itself that village Kaleke had been affected by terrorist violence and that a large number of persons had been killed in the village and that Mal Singh and his family had been targeted on account of the fact that one of his sons was employed in the B.S.F. and the other in the Punjab Police and despite having been warned by the terrorists to resign from their jobs, they had declined to do so. He has, in this connection, further argued that the medical evidence was completely at variance with the ocular version as atleast two weapons of different calibres and not one had been used in the murders. 8. As against this, Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab representing the State of Punjab, has urged that as PWs 2 and 4 Bhupinder Singh and Mohinder Singh, respectively, had been injured in the incident, their presence at the spot could not be doubted and as the two victims were the brother and mother of these two witnesses, the question of false implication did not arise. He has further urged that from a cumulative reading of the medical evidence as also the evidence of Dr. He has further urged that from a cumulative reading of the medical evidence as also the evidence of Dr. S.N. Sharma of the Forensic Science Laboratory, who was examined under the orders of this Court, it was clear that only one weapon i.e. a shot gun had been used, as was the prosecution story. 9. The incident is said to have taken place at about 6.30 P.M. on February 11, 1993 in village Kaleke, 18 Kms. from Police Station, Chowk Mehta. In the incident Mal Singhs wife and a son had been done to death and whereas the other two sons, Bhupinder Singh and Mohinder Singh had received injuries. Mal Singh thereafter arranged for a conveyance and took the injured to the hospital in Amritsar for treatment and it was only thereafter that he had made an attempt to lodge the F.I.R. It has come in the evidence that he had met a police party headed by SI Satwant Singh, five minutes after mid-night on the night intervening 11/12.2.1993 and had made his statement to him and on its basis, the formal F.I.R. had been registered in the police station 30 minutes later; with the special report being delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at 6.11 P.M. on February 12, 1993. Even assuming, therefore, that there was a justifiable delay of 6 hours in the lodging of the F.I.R., we find absolutely no justification as to why the special report had been delivered at 6.11 P.M. on February 12, 1993. It has also come in the evidence that the police papers had reached the doctor at 4.40 P.M. on February 12, 1993. It is, therefore, apparent that the F.I.R. could have been registered at any time prior to that fixed moment. The fact that the special report had been delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at 6.11 P.M. is, therefore, indicative of the fact that the first information report had been registered belatedly. 10. The prosecution story and the defence version would have to be examined in this background. 11. It is the positive prosecution case that accused Lal Singh had first fired a shot from his licensed gun hitting Major Singh on his chest and thereafter accused Dial Singh after snatching the gun from his father, Lal Singh, had fired the second shot at Dalip Kaur, when she had come forward to save her son. 11. It is the positive prosecution case that accused Lal Singh had first fired a shot from his licensed gun hitting Major Singh on his chest and thereafter accused Dial Singh after snatching the gun from his father, Lal Singh, had fired the second shot at Dalip Kaur, when she had come forward to save her son. We have gone through the post-mortem reports conducted on the two dead bodies as also the evidence of PW.10 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai, who had conducted the post-mortems as also Dr. S.N. Sharma, Deputy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, who was examined as an expert under the orders of this Court. Mr. Cheema had conceded and we feel, rightly so, as in the light of the report given by Dr. Gurmanjit Rai, there could be no doubt that Dalip Kaur had died of shot gun wounds as wads and pellets had been recovered from her body. We, however, serious reservation as to the weapon used on Major Singh. It is worth reiterating that the prosecution story is that Lal Singh had first fired shots at Major Singh and his brothers with his licensed gun and that the said gun had thereafter been snatched away by Dial Singh and a shot had then been fired by him at Dalip Kaur. It is true that in a case of an eye-witness account and that too supported by an injured witness, the eye witness account should be given preference but in the light of the positive prosecution stand that both the deceased had been shot by one and the same weapon, the fact as to whether one or more weapons had been used becomes significant. 12. We reproduce here the injuries found on the person of Major Singh: "1. A lacerated wound 1.5 x 1 cm on the front of right side of chest oval in shape, 17 cms from nipple at 7 Oclock position. Margins of the wound were inverted. Abrasion collar was present and clotted blood was also present. 2. A lacerated wound 2 x 1.3 cms present on the left side of the chest, 17 cms below nipple at 5 O clock position. Margins of the wound were everted. Clotted blood was present. 3. Lacerated wound 1.5 x 1 cm on the front of chest in mid line over the xiphisternum, abrasion collar was present. Margins were inverted. Clotted blood was present. 4. Margins of the wound were everted. Clotted blood was present. 3. Lacerated wound 1.5 x 1 cm on the front of chest in mid line over the xiphisternum, abrasion collar was present. Margins were inverted. Clotted blood was present. 4. Lacerated wound 2 x 1` cm on the left side of chest 16 cms below the tip of axilla, in mid-axillary line of 4 O clock position to nipple. Margins were everted. 5. Lacerated wound 1.5 x 1 cm on the left side of epigastric region 2 cms from mid line, 15 cms above umbilicus at 1 Oclock position. Margins were inverted. Abrasion collar was present. 6. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm on the left side of abdomen at 3 O clock position to umbilicus, 16 cms away. Margins were everted. Clotted blood was present. 7. Lacerated wound 1.5 x 1 cm at the hypogestic region 5 cms above umbilicus at 1 O clock position to umbilicus. Abrasion collar was present. Margins were everted. 8. A lacerated wound 2 x 1.2 cm on the left side of abdomen, 5 cms above iliac spine, 14 cms below umbilicus at 5 O clock position. Margins were everted. On dissection of the chest and abdomen; injury No. 1 was found communicating with 2, 3 and 4, 5 with 6, and 7 with 8 after lacerating both pleure, both lungs, fracture of fourth and fifth ribs on left side of chest. Laceration of stomach, liver, peritonium and right kidney and small intestine about 1200 c.c. of clotted and fluid blood was present in pleural cavity and about 1500 c.c. blood mixed with chyme and food particles were present peronium cavity. 9. Four lacerated wounds of the size varying from 1 x 0.9 cms to 1 x 0.75 cms. on the back of left elbow and upper and one-third of left fore-arm. Margins were four inverted. Clotted blood was present. 10. Four lacerated wounds. Their size varied from 1.5 x 1 cm to 1.5 x 0.9 cm on the front of left fore-arm and the margins were found everted. On dissection, injury Nos. 9 and 10 were found communicating with each other. Radius and ulna bones were found fractured and muscles were found lacerated." 13 Dr. Rai, in the course of his cross-examination, stated that the probability that the bullet had been fired from a high velocity weapon, could not be ruled out. On dissection, injury Nos. 9 and 10 were found communicating with each other. Radius and ulna bones were found fractured and muscles were found lacerated." 13 Dr. Rai, in the course of his cross-examination, stated that the probability that the bullet had been fired from a high velocity weapon, could not be ruled out. He also stated that it appeared that the bullets had apparently been fired from different directions and that this was the reason that had made him to arrive at this conclusion. In the last part of his cross-examination, he further stated that "the direction of injuries in case of injury Nos. 1, 3 and 4 being in opposite direction from each other, the possibility of their having been caused with more than one shot cannot be ruled out." He also observed that injuries Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 7 on the person of Major Singh were independent injuries but was not sure that injury No. 9 was the result of a single shot or different shots. 14. It was probably to get over this confusion in the statement of the doctor, that a Division Bench of this Court while hearing the appeal on May 30, 2000 had directed that an expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory be summoned to explain the inconsistency and vagueness in the doctors statement. Dr. S.N. Sharma was accordingly examined as CW-1 under the orders of this Court. While admitting that the medical officer, who had conducted the post-mortem examination, was the best person to judge as to the nature of injuries caused and the weapon used, he admitted that normally a shot gun did not cause a through and through penetrating injury although in the present case several such injuries had been noticed. He also admitted that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were at a level parallel to the ground whereas injuries Nos. 7 and 8 were vertical. He, however, stated that it appeared that the injuries could have been caused by buck shot from a shot gun, which would go in different directions after scattering and that the direction of the pellets could change due to gravitational force as well as the wind velocity even before the projectile had touched the body. He, however, denied that the injuries on the person could have been caused with a high velocity weapon. 15. We have examined the statement of Dr. He, however, denied that the injuries on the person could have been caused with a high velocity weapon. 15. We have examined the statement of Dr. Gurmanjit Rai and Dr. S.N. Sharma. We have absolutely no doubt that the evidence of Dr. Rai must be given more weight as he had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies. We, however, find that on one issue both the doctors are unanimous i.e., that atleast three of the injuries on the dead body of Major Singh were caused by a projectile travelling from different directions and if that be the position, the question of injuries being caused by one shot cannot arise. There is yet another significant factor in the nature of injuries suffered by Major Singh. A look at the injuries would reveal that all the wounds of entry were encircled by an "abrasion collar". These collars are caused by a spring actuated motion of a high velocity projectile as it enters the body. This clearly supports the view given by Dr. Rai that the injuries on the person of the deceased, could have been caused by a high velocity projectile. The learned Sessions Judge while dealing with the matter observed that even a shot gun could fire a high velocity projectile. This assertion is palpably erroneous. In Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology Twenty Seventh Edition (Butterworths), it has been observed that the muzzle velocity of a shot gun is about 800 to `000 ft. per second whereas a rifle would have a velocity of 1800 to 4000 ft. per second depending on the kind of ammunition used (also Dr. B.R. Sharmas Forensic Science in Criminal Investigations and Trials). When questioned about the presence of the abrasion collar, Dr. Sharma stated that he did not agree with the suggestion that this collar could be cause by gyration and rotation of a projectile fired from a rifled fire arm but he could not give any reason to support his view. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the possibility that Major Singh had suffered more than one gun shot caused by a rifle, cannot be ruled out. 16. The suggestion put forth by the defence with regard to what could have happened must now be examined in this background. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the possibility that Major Singh had suffered more than one gun shot caused by a rifle, cannot be ruled out. 16. The suggestion put forth by the defence with regard to what could have happened must now be examined in this background. It has been admitted by Mal Singh that a police post in the village had been established on account of terrorist activity in the village and that in the year 1992, terrorists had given a call that those who were in the police should leave their jobs and on account of this fact many persons had shifted to other places for security purposes. It has also been conceded by him that a large number of persons had been killed in the village by terrorists. It is admitted position that PW.2 Bhupinder Singh was an employee of the B.S.F. whereas PW.4 Mohinder Singh another son of Mal Singh, was employed in the Punjab Police and posted at Batala at the relevant time. The possibility, therefore, that the defence story may just be correct, cannot be ignored. 17. It is true that the two of the prosecution witnesses had injuries on their persons. We have, therefore, examined the ocular version in the light of the injuries suffered by these two witnesses. Mohinder Singh is said to have been caused injuries by Atma Singh, Sajjan Singh and Karam Singh, all armed with sharp edged traditional weapons. The doctor, however, found that there was only one simple injury caused by a blunt weapon on Mohinder Singhs head. Likewise, we find that there is no conclusive proof to identify the kind of weapon that had been used to cause an injury on the person of Bhupinder Singh (PW.2). Even assuming, however, that the injury suffered by him was by a shot gun yet we are of the opinion that in the light of the facts stated above, it may have been caused by a stray pellet from the shot that had been fired at Dalip Kaur. 18. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution case suffers from glaring infirmities. We accordingly allow the appeal and order the acquittal of all the accused. 19. Crl. Revision No. 279 of 1997 is accordingly dismissed.