R. Balasubramanian, J.: The appellant in this appeal stands convicted in S.C. No. 114 of 1993 on the file of Court of Sessions, Chinglepet for offences under Sec. 302, I.P.C., Sec. 3 and Scc.7 read with Sec. 25(l-B) of the Indian Arms Act for which he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and 3 years rigorous imprisonment respectively together with a fine of Rs.5,000 carrying a default sentence. Hence, the present appeal. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2. The facts of the prosecution case are as follows: (a) Humayun Kabir, a Railway Protection Police Force Constable was shot dead around 9.4S a.m. on 3.5.1991 inside the Ticket Collector’s office at St.Thomas Mount Suburban Railway Station, Madras. P.W.3 is the Ticket Collector on duty at that time in the station. The deceased brought a person with him (later on identified as the accused, who was put up for trial) complaining that he was travelling without ticket in the train. P.W.3 directed Humayun Kabir, since deceased, to search the accused to find out whether he had any money. The accused, even at that stage, stated that he was not travelling in the train. The accused was searched in the presence of P.W.3 in his office and only at that time, the occurrence is shown to have taken place resulting in the accused firing at Humayun Kabir. We will refer to the occurrence in detail later on in the judgment. The occurrence had taken place around 9.45 a.m. On hearing the commotion, P.W.1 came to the office of P.W.3 and found Humayun Kabir lying down bleeding profusely. After giving First Aid, he was sent to the Government General Hospital for treatment. Then he informed the Station Master, Tambaram, (P.W.2) who in turn lodged the complaint with the Police. He came to know that Humayun Kabir breathed his last around 4.30 p.m. on the same day in the hospital. P.W.17, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered Ex.P-1 in Crime No. 133 of 1991 on the file of Tambaram Railway Police Station for offences under Sec. 307, I.P.C. and Sec. 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act at 10.40 a.m. P.W.2 is the Station Master of Tambaram. He would speak about the information passed on to him by P.W. 1 about the incident and lodging of Ex.P-1 with the Police. He would speak about the information passed on to him by P.W. 1 about the incident and lodging of Ex.P-1 with the Police. (b) P.W. 19 is the Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Force, Egmore on the relevant date. On receipt of the information relating to this crime from P.W.2 at 10.40 a.m. on 3.5.1991, he directed the said complaint to be forwarded to P.W. 17, who registered that crime on the file of that Police Station. P.W. 17 accordingly registered Ex.P-1 in Crime No.133 of 1991 for offences referred to earlier. Ex.P-23 is the printed First Information Report prepared by him. P.W. 19 collected the material records thereafter and reached the scene of occurrence at 11 a.m. Between 11.15 a.m. and 12 noon, in the presence of P.Ws.4 and 13, he prepared Ex.P-2, the observation mahazar and Ex.P-25, the rough sketch. In the presence of the same witnesses, he recovered M.O.3 and M.O.9 (a fired bullet and an empty cartridge) under a Mahazar. At 1 p.m., in the presence of the same witnesses, he recovered blood-stained earth and sample earth under Ex.P-18. At 4 p.m., in the presence of the same witnesses, he recovered M.Os.2 and 15 under Ex.P-3 mahazar. He also examined P.Ws. 1 to 4, 7, 8, 13 and 15 and recorded their statements. At 6 p.m. on that day, he received Ex.P-5 death intimation from the hospital. He altered the section of offence into one under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and prepared altered Express First Information Report - Ex.P-26, which was sent to the Court as well as to the higher officials. From 6.30 a.m. till 9.30 a.m. on 4.5.1991, he conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared Ex.P-27, the inquest report. Then he gave a requisition through P.W.16 for post-mortem. At 10 a.m. on that day, he recovered blood-stained khaki shirt, a khaki pant, blue-coloured inner wear and uniform belt under Ex.P-28. He examined further witnesses and recorded their statements. Then, as per the orders of his higher-ups, he transferred the investigation to the file of St. Thomas Mount Police Station. P.W.20 is the Inspector of Police during the relevant time in the St.Thomas Mount Police Station. On receipt of the transferred material records in Crime No. 133 of 1991, he prepared Ex.P-29, printed First Information Report on the file of his police station. Thomas Mount Police Station. P.W.20 is the Inspector of Police during the relevant time in the St.Thomas Mount Police Station. On receipt of the transferred material records in Crime No. 133 of 1991, he prepared Ex.P-29, printed First Information Report on the file of his police station. Pursuant to the orders of the higher-ups, he handed over the investigation to the ‘Q’ branch of the State Police Wing on 20.5.1991. P.W.21 is the Inspector of Police of the ‘Q’ branch. On receipt of the transferred records on 21.5.91, he examined P.Ws.3 and 5 and recorded their statements. He was transferred on 17.8.1991 and he was succeeded by another Inspector of Police. (c) P.W.4 witnessed the preparation of Ex.P-2, the Observation Mahazar. He also witnessed the recovery of M.Os.2 and 15 under Ex.P-3 in the evening at 4.30 p.m. P.W.5 is the Police Constable in the Railway Protection Force. He would depose that on the date of occurrence, he saw the deceased escorting a person to the room of P.W.3; after ten minutes, he heard a gun-shot sound; then he saw the escorted person fleeing away from the scene of occurrence with a pistol in his hand and that though he gave a hot chase, yet the said person managed to escape. P.W.6 is the father of the deceased, who speaks about the death of his son in unnatural circumstances. P.W.7 is the Casualty Medical Officer in the Government Hospital at Madras before whom Humayun Kabir was brought at 9.30 a.m. on 3.5.1991 for injuries stated to have been sustained by the firing of a pistol. He found various symptoms on him as noted in Ex.P-4, the Accident Register. P.W.8 is another Medical Officer in the Government Stanley Hospital, Madras. At 10.30 a.m. on 3.5.1991, he admitted Humayun Kabir in the hospital and performed surgery on him. However, the patient died at about 4.30 p.m. and Ex.P-5 is the death intimation. The Doctor is of the opinion that the injuries found on the dead body could have been caused by firing a weapon like M.O.1. P.W.9 is the Doctor, who did post-mortem on the dead body and during post-mortem, he found various symptoms as noted in Ex.P-7, the post-mortem certificate. The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased died of bullet injuries. P.W.9 is the Doctor, who did post-mortem on the dead body and during post-mortem, he found various symptoms as noted in Ex.P-7, the post-mortem certificate. The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased died of bullet injuries. The symptoms as noted in Ex.P-7 are as follows: "Antemortem Injuries: (1) Mid line surgical sutured wound present over the abdomen 27 cms in length in which 21 suture are intact. On removal of sutures: All the abdominal layers deep to the wound found sutured layer by layer. (2) Right side sub costal surgical wound present over the upper part of the right side of abdomen extending from the mid line to right lateral part of abdomen 19 cms in length, 13 sutures are present. On removal of sutures deep to the wound the layers of the wound found sutured layer by layer. (3) An oval shaped obliquely placed entry wound present over the lateral part of left side hypochondrium region 26 cms below the left anterior axillary fold 113 cms above the left lateral held. Transverse diameter of the woundmeasures 1.3 cms. Vertical diameter of the wound measures 1.5 cms. No blackening seen around the wound. Margins inverted. An abraded collar present close to the margins of the wound. Abraded collar close to the lower half of the margin of the wound is broader than the upper half. The width of the abraded collar of the lower part of the wound measures O.5 cms. The upper half of the width of abraded collar close to the margin of the wound measures 0.3 cms. Loss of cuticle close to the margin of the wound present. The wound is deep to abdominal cavity. Soft tissues deep to the wound found sutured 2 cms in length. Contusion around the sutured wound present. (4) An oval shaped lacerated exit wound present over the postere lateral surface of right side abdomen 24 cms below the level of right armpit and below the level of 12th right rib. 115 cm above the right heel. The vertical diameter of the exit wound is 2.6 cms and the transverse dia is 1.25 cms. Margins of the wound everted. No blackening seen around the wound. No singeing seen. Soft tissues deep to the wound found sutured. (5) A surgical drainage wound with a male chot catheter in situ seen over the lower part of right side flank. The vertical diameter of the exit wound is 2.6 cms and the transverse dia is 1.25 cms. Margins of the wound everted. No blackening seen around the wound. No singeing seen. Soft tissues deep to the wound found sutured. (5) A surgical drainage wound with a male chot catheter in situ seen over the lower part of right side flank. (6) A surgical drainage wound deep to abdominal cavity with corrugated rubbed drainage tube seen on the lateral surface of lower part of left side flank. (7) On dissection of abdomen: Sutured lacerated wound present on the inferior and superior surface of right lobe of liver seen 10x3 x 5 cms. A roller gauze packing found covering over the superior surface of sutured wound of right lobe of liver. (8) Contusion of retre peritoneal soft tissues extending from sub hepatic region caecal junction seen. (9) Surgical repair of mesentery and its vessels close to the jejunal border 3 cms in length. The sutured wound lies 23 cms distal to duodone jojunal junction. (10) Surgical repair of mesentery sutured wound seen 90 cms distal to duodone jojunal junction 2cms in length. (11) Sutured wound present over the splenic flexure of transverse colon 2 cms in length. Both layers of the wound closed perfectly. (12) Sutured wound present on the anterior surface of hepatic flexture of transverse colon 2 cms in length. (13) Repair of anterior mesenteric border promixal part of jejunum present 2.8 cms length.‘ (14) Gall bladder found collapsed. Stomach, Spleen, Diaphragm intact. Direction of the wound from entry to exit obliquely upwards, backwards from left to right in a transverse plane. HEART: All chambers contained fluid and clotted blood. Both coronaries patent. LUNGS: Both lungs pleuras intact. HYOID BONE: Intact. KIDNEYS: Pale BLADDER: Empty. BRAIN: Superficial brain vessels pale. Cut Section: Cerebre spinal fluid clear. OPINION: “DIED OF BULLET INJURIES”, (d) P.W.10 is the Ballistic Expert. Exs.P-12 and P-14 are the requisitions received by him from Court to examine the articles sent with them respectively. His respective reports are Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9. P.W. 11 is the Section Officer in the District Collectorate at Kancheepuram, who speaks about Ex.P-10, the sanction order passed by the Collector to prosecute the accused for the offence under the Indian Arms Act. His respective reports are Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9. P.W. 11 is the Section Officer in the District Collectorate at Kancheepuram, who speaks about Ex.P-10, the sanction order passed by the Collector to prosecute the accused for the offence under the Indian Arms Act. P.W. 12 is the Magisterial Clerk, who speaks about the receipt of the case properties; sending the same to the laboratory and receipt of Exs.P-15 and P-16, the Chemical Examiner’s Report and Serologist’s Report respectively. P.W.13 speaks about the recovery of M.Os.3 and 4 under Ex.P-17 from the scene of occurrence. He also speaks about the recovery of blood-stained cement flooring and sample cement flooring from the scene of occurrence under Ex.P-18. He also speaks about the recovery of M.O.2 - black-coloured ‘slip-on’ shoes under Ex.P-3. P.W.14 is the Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the test identification parade on 7.4.1993 and in that parade, P.Ws.3 and 5 correctly identified the accused twice. P.W.15 is the photographer, who took photographs of the scene of occurrence. M.O.12 series and M.O.13 series are the photographs and the negatives respectively. P.W.16 is the Police Constable, who was present during postmortem and after post-mortem, he recovered the personal wearing apparel found on the dead body under Ex.P-22 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. (e) P.W.22 continued the investigation. On 17.3.1993, when he was conducting a routine check of the vehicles at Kodambakkam - Arcot Road - 100 feet road junction, he stopped the motor-cycle bearing No.TN-01-C-1387 and enquired the person who was driving the motorcycle. The person gave his name as Easan and the name of the pillion rider as Lankeswara Raja. The driver of the motor-cycle was found to be shaky and when questioned, he gave inconsistent answers. This made P.W.22 to search him which revealed a green-coloured cloth bag on his waist and it contained M.O.1 - 9 mm pistol fully loaded with 12 cartridges. The bore number for the pistol is C.2621. The accused was arrested around 9.30 a.m. and the material objects, namely the pistol and the cartridges were recovered under Ex.P-24. Both Easan and Lankeswara Raja were brought to the Police Station and examined further. Lankeswara Raja informed that he knows Easan, but denied any knowledge about the crime. Their photographs were taken and their fingerprints were also obtained. At 1 p.m., they were produced before the Court. Both Easan and Lankeswara Raja were brought to the Police Station and examined further. Lankeswara Raja informed that he knows Easan, but denied any knowledge about the crime. Their photographs were taken and their fingerprints were also obtained. At 1 p.m., they were produced before the Court. The Court granted police custody of Easan (the present accused put up for trial) till 24.3.1993 and Lankeswara Raja was sent for judicial remand till 31.3.1993. Easan was produced before the Court on 19.3.1993 and he was remanded to judicial custody till 31.3.1993. The pistol as well as the cartridges were sent to the Court with a requisition to send the same to the laboratory. Then a requisition was given to the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 26.3.1993 to conduct a test identification parade, which was accordingly conducted on 7.4.1993. P.W.22 examined P.W.5 again and recorded his statement. Ex.P-30 was submitted to the Court by the Investigating Officer to compare the footprints of the accused with the shoes - M.O.2 by sending the same to the Forensic Science Department and a report in regard thereto was obtained on 28.4.1993. Ex.P-32 is the left and right foot prints of the accused. The Investigating Officer sent a requisition to the Court to send Ex.P-32 containing the foot impressions of the accused to a Forensic Science Expert for his opinion, which was accordingly forwarded as an enclosure to Court’s letter Ex.P-3 3. Ex.P-34 is the report of the Forensic Science Expert. After completing the investigation, he filed the final report in Court against the accused on 14.6.1993 for the offences referred to earlier. Lankeswara Raja was not proceeded with in accordance with law. As per Court’s order, the motor-cycle was returned to its owner, namely Panchalingam. (f) When the accused was questioned under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C, he denied the entirety of the prosecution case as false and contrary to facts. During his examination, the accused stated before the Court that even before the test identification parade was conducted, he was shown to the witnesses both in the Court at Poonamallee as well as in the Central Jail at Vellore. He would also state that the ‘Q’ branch Police had shown his photograph to the witnesses. During his examination, the accused stated before the Court that even before the test identification parade was conducted, he was shown to the witnesses both in the Court at Poonamallee as well as in the Central Jail at Vellore. He would also state that the ‘Q’ branch Police had shown his photograph to the witnesses. He denied his arrest as spoken to by the Investigating Officer, but would state that he was arrested on 8.3.1993, opposite to Vadapalani Police Station, by the Traffic Police when he was asked to show his driving licence. He would admit that his left and right foot-prints were taken by the ‘Q’ branch Police and said that he did not know anything else. In summing up his answers, he had stated as follows: “He came to India in the year 1987 with his son; his son is studying in a school in Ooty; he was running a STD booth in Madras; he owns a Maruti Gypsy Car, an Ambassador Car and a motor-cycle; he was distributing films in partnership; a misunderstanding arose between him and his partners in money transaction; he asked for return of his money from Kumaresan, a film distributor; The said distributor, with the help of his police clout, put him behind the bars under the provisions of”MISA“; he was a detenu for one year; thereafter, he was released; Kumaresan threatened his house-owners not to provide any accommodation for him; only at his instance, he came to be arrested by the Vadapalani Police; he had never travelled by train locally; he had gone twice to Delhi by train; he has no connection whatsoever with the case; he had lost all his properties on account of his detention in the prison; when he questioned the Investigating Officer of the ‘Q’ branch as to why he had been falsely implicated in this case, he was told that on pressure from higher-ups, the case had been foisted upon him; after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, he and his family members registered themselves in the Police Station in the year 1991; he sent his son in the year 1994 to Canada to join his (accused) younger brother; he is innocent and he had not committed any crime on Indian soil.” 3. Mr.K. Veeraraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly contended that the accused is admittedly a stranger to P.Ws.3 and 5, whose evidence alone is relied upon by the prosecution to connect the accused with the prime. In the absence of any specific details regarding the identity of the accused disclosed to the police at the earliest point of time by P.Ws.3 and 5, their evidence that they identified the accused in the test identification parade held on 7.4.1993 as well as before the Court lacks credibility; If the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 is eschewed from consideration, then there is no legal evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Therefore, no evidentiary value at all could be attached to the oral evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 that each one of them identified the accused. The learned counsel pressed into service two judgments of the Apex Court, namely, Suryamoorthi v. Govindaswamy, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1410 and State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.V. Ramana Reddy, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1938 to contend that in the given circumstances of the case on hand, P.W.3 and P.W.5 are not dependable witnesses. The learned counsel also highlighted that the identification parade had come to be conducted almost 20 months after the incident and therefore, it would not be safe to accept the oral evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 about they identifying the accused. The evidence of Ballistic Expert coupled with Ex.P-9, in the absence of M.Os.3 and 4 before him at the time of his examination of other objects, that M.Os.3 and 4 could have been fired from M.O.1 can have no credibility at all. It is next contended by the learned counsel that the inconsistency in the oral evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 about the specific and distinguishing features of the accused which they noticed, when tested with the details regarding the same found in the inquest report and other materials available on record, would lead this Court to disbelieve their evidence. 4. Contending contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the Ballistic Expert/P.W. 10 had not been cross-examined at all in any worthwhile manner with reference to his report Ex.P-9 and his evidence is that M.Os.3 and 4 could have been fired only from the pistol-M.O.1 and hence, the evidence of that expert can be easily accepted. 4. Contending contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the Ballistic Expert/P.W. 10 had not been cross-examined at all in any worthwhile manner with reference to his report Ex.P-9 and his evidence is that M.Os.3 and 4 could have been fired only from the pistol-M.O.1 and hence, the evidence of that expert can be easily accepted. As far as the identification parade is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the arrest of the accused was only on 17.3.1993 and therefore, the identification parade conducted on 7.4.1993 cannot be said to be belated. In other words, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is close proximity between the date on which the test identification was conducted and the date on which the accused was arrested. The next submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that there is no material at all to conclude that either the accused himself or any of his photographs was shown to P.Ws.3 and 5 and therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 cannot be doubted on the score that P.W.22 had stated that on the date of arrest of the accused, his photograph was taken and the said photograph appeared in one of the dailies on that day. However, P.W.22 had denied having given the information to the daily. 5. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, we went through the materials on record. Let us now apply our mind to the cause of death as spoken to by P.W.9, the Doctor, who did post-mortem on the dead body. Ex.P-7 is the post-mortem report. The medical evidence shows that the deceased died due to bullet injuries. In the oral evidence, the Doctor would state that symptoms 1 and 2 are surgical wounds and symptoms 5 and 6 are wounds which are preparatory in nature to surgery. Injury No.3 had been caused by a bullet and injury No. 4 is the one through which the bullet had come out of the body (i.e.) in other words ‘exit wound’. He had given in detail as to how he came to the conclusion that injury Nos.3 and 4 are the entry and exit points of the bullet that was fired at the deceased. Internal injury Nos.7 to 13 are injuries consequent to the entry of a bullet into the human body and its exit therefrom. He had given in detail as to how he came to the conclusion that injury Nos.3 and 4 are the entry and exit points of the bullet that was fired at the deceased. Internal injury Nos.7 to 13 are injuries consequent to the entry of a bullet into the human body and its exit therefrom. Therefore, the medical evidence leaves no room at all to doubt that the deceased died due to gun-shot injuries. 6. P.W.10 is the Ballistic Expert. M.O.3 is the empty cartridge case and M.O.4 is the fired bullet. The prosecution had definitely proved that these two material objects were recovered from the scene of occurrence, i.e. from the office room of P.W.3 at St.Thomas Mount Railway Station. The evidence of P.W.22 would show that the accused was arrested on 17.3.1993 at Kodambakkam-Arcot Road 100 ft. road junction. The accused had also admitted that he was arrested near Vadapalani Police Station during his examination under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C, though according to him, the date of his arrest is 8.3.1993. But from the answers given by the accused and from the oral evidence of P.W.22, we have no doubt at all in our mind that the place of arrest of the accused is more or less one and the same. The evidence of P.W.22 would show that M.O.1 - pistol, fully loaded with 12 cartridges was recovered. Both M.O.1 and the 12 cartridges were sent through Court to P.W.10, the Ballistic Expert. P.W.10, in his evidence would state that out of the 12 cartridges, he fired 5 cartridges, out of which only four fired and one misfired, thus leaving 7 unused cartridges. The misfired cartridge is marked as M.0 9; the burnt cartridges are marked as M.O.10 and the remaining 7 cartridges are marked as M.O.11. P.W.10’s evidence coupled with his report Ex.P-9 shows that M.O.1 was in working condition and that by the special features noted by him in M.Os.3, 4 and M.Os.9 to 11, M.Os.3 and 4 could have been fired only from M.O.1. P.W.10 had deposed that he had examined M.O.3 and M.O.4, besides the other objects. His report on M.O.3 and M.O.4 is Ex.P-8. We find that this witness had not been cross-examined at all on his evidence that M.Os.3 and 4 could have been fired only from M.O.1. P.W.10 had deposed that he had examined M.O.3 and M.O.4, besides the other objects. His report on M.O.3 and M.O.4 is Ex.P-8. We find that this witness had not been cross-examined at all on his evidence that M.Os.3 and 4 could have been fired only from M.O.1. Had he been cross-examined on this aspect, P.W.10, being an expert, would have given an answer which could have been either accepted or rejected by the Court. Therefore, we hold that the failure to cross-examine this witness on this material aspect does not advance the case of the accused in any manner. But, it should be noticed that when P.W.10 examined M.Os.3 and 4 and sent his report, it is needless to state that being a public officer, he would have definitely retained a copy of the said report with him and that would have been available with him on 23.3.1993 when he examined M.O.1 with 12 live cartridges. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the argument of Mr.K. Veeraraghavan, learned counsel for the appellant to reject the evidence of P.W. 10 that M.Os.3 and 4 could have been fired only from M.O.1. Therefore, the following position is clear. Humayun Kabir died due to gun-shot injuries. M.Os.3 and 4 were recovered from the scene of occurrence. The evidence of P.W.3 is that the deceased was shot at using a pistol. M.O.1 recovered from the accused had been used in firing M.Os.3 and 4. 7. Having held so, our next attempt is to find out whether the prosecution had established that it is the accused, who is responsible for causing the death of the victim in this case by firing at him from point-blank range. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, to decide the fate of the prosecution, we have the oral evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 alone. P.W.3 is the Ticket Collector. His evidence shows that Humayun Kabir/the deceased escorted a person into his room and as the said person was being searched, he suddenly took out a pistol from his pocket. On seeing that, Humayun Kabir ran out of the room for his life and closed the door from outside. His evidence also shows that as. P.W.3 is the Ticket Collector. His evidence shows that Humayun Kabir/the deceased escorted a person into his room and as the said person was being searched, he suddenly took out a pistol from his pocket. On seeing that, Humayun Kabir ran out of the room for his life and closed the door from outside. His evidence also shows that as. the accused was pointing the pistol at him, he shouted at Humayun Kabir, who was standing outside, to open the door stating that as otherwise he would be shot at. As the door was not opened, the accused and P.W.3 pulled the door from inside and at that time, the assailant fired at Humayun Kabir and ran away. From the evidence of P.W.3, it is clear that the assailant was in the office room of P.W.3 for a considerable time. It is also pertinent to note that till the accused drew the pistol from his pocket, there was no tense atmosphere and the search was conducted in normal circumstances. Therefore, the possibility of P.W.3 observing the assailant minutely cannot be totally ruled out and in fact, it stands probabilised substantially. It was only after the assailant drew the weapon from his pocket, a sense of fear entered the mind of P.W.3 and the deceased, which made the deceased to run out of the room. The evidence of P.W.3 shows that the accused attempted to shoot him. However, even in that grip of fear, there is every possibility for P.W.3 to have once again observed the features of the accused in close quarters. The Apex Court in Daya Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001 S.C.C. (Crl.) 553 held as follows: “Power of perception and memorising differs from man to man and also depends upon situation. It also depends upon the capacity to recapitulate what has been seen earlier. The Apex Court in Daya Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001 S.C.C. (Crl.) 553 held as follows: “Power of perception and memorising differs from man to man and also depends upon situation. It also depends upon the capacity to recapitulate what has been seen earlier. But that would depend upon the strength or trustworthiness of the witnesses who have identified the accused in the Court earlier.” There is yet another judgment of the Apex Court in Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2000 S.C.C. (Crl) 113, where it has been held that: “When there is the possibility of the witnesses, being the target at the hands of the assailant, to perceive the features of the assailant in their mind can be sustained, then failure to conduct a test identification parade would be of no consequence at all.” Only one rider is added in that judgment namely that the evidence of such witnesses must be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, we are inclined to say without any fear of contradiction or hesitation that P.W.3 would have been definitely in a better position to observe the assailant, who was standing before him, as referred to earlier. 8. P.W.5, during the relevant time, was working as a Police Constable in the Railway Protection Force. Being a Police Constable, his power of observation would definitely be on a better footing and of high standards than persons placed in ordinary walks of life. Police personnel are bound to have an investigative mind and it is a known fact that once they see an occurrence or an object, it gets registered in their memory. The ruling of the Supreme court referred to supra would also enable us to hold that the power of perception of P.W.5 cannot be easily ignored. Police personnel are bound to have an investigative mind and it is a known fact that once they see an occurrence or an object, it gets registered in their memory. The ruling of the Supreme court referred to supra would also enable us to hold that the power of perception of P.W.5 cannot be easily ignored. Now we analyse the evidence of P.W.5, which shows the following: “When he was on duty in the platform, he saw the deceased escorting a person by putting his hands around his shoulder to the office room of the Ticket Examiner; when some passing comments were made, the deceased said that the Ticket Examiner Selvam had caught hold of the person, whom he is escorting, for having travelled without a ticket and therefore, he is taking him to the Ticket Collector’s office; after sometime, he heard a gun-shot in the office of the Ticket Collector (P.W.3); immediately, he saw the person, who had earlier been escorted by Humayun Kabir running away with a pistol in his hand towards Guindy and though he and Govinda Pillai gave a hot chase,they failed.” This evidence of P.W.5, in our considered opinion, would have enabled him also to observe the assailant with an amount of certainty. Therefore, we have no doubt at all in our mind that P.Ws.3 and 5 would have been in a position to distinctly note the features of the assailant and they are persons competent enough to retain the memory of the same. The following are the exact words of the Honourable Judges of the Apex Court from the decision referred to supra: “If reasons for gaining an enduring impression of the accused in the memory of the witnesses are made out, then mere theoretical possibility of perception of the eye-witnesses having become distorted due to their emotional imbalances on sight of the occurrence cannot be a ground to discard their evidence.” The crux of the above observation by the Apex Court is that once the Court is convinced that the witnesses could have gained an enduring impression of the accused in their memory, then any shortfalls or shortcomings in their evidence alone placed before the Court about the identifying features of the assailant would not, by itself, enable the Court to discard their evidence. 9. 9. In the face of our conclusion as referred to above and in the context of the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to above, we went through the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 to find out whether there are really any shortcomings in their evidence regarding the identifying features of the assailant. It is no doubt true that in Ex.P-1, the identity of the assailant is shown as unknown. However, P.W.3, in his evidence in cross-examination, would admit as follows: “The accused is fair in colour; he has curly hair; no person with a dark complexion, short in stature, unkempt hair and a broad nose is available in Court; when I was examined by the Investigating Officer regarding the physical features, complexion and height of the assailant, I gave him all the details; I do not remember whether I told the Investigating Officer that the assailant was short and dark in complexion.” P.W.5, in his evidence in cross-examination, would state as follows: “I saw the assailant at the time of occurrence; he may be around 30-35 years of age; his height may be around 5=feet; he was dark-complexioned; he had groomed his hair towards the back; I identified the person with the above features in the Central Prison; on 7.4.19931 was asked to identify the accused in the test identification parade; the accused is now medium in complexion; he has curly hair and a sharp nose; his height would be around 5 - feet and he is short; a short person with dark complexion aged about 30 years with his hair groomed towards the back is available in Court and he is the accused.” Therefore, there appears to be some sort of variation in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 when compared to each other as to the exact appearance of the assailant. Changes in hairstyle, complexion and in the shape of nose, can be brought about on account of the advancement in modern technology. Therefore, the contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5, when they deposed in Court regarding the appearance of the accused cannot be taken in letter and spirit to disbelieve their evidence which is otherwise found to be trustworthy. Therefore, the contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5, when they deposed in Court regarding the appearance of the accused cannot be taken in letter and spirit to disbelieve their evidence which is otherwise found to be trustworthy. It may be noticed here that neither P.W.3 nor P.W.5 is shown to have any animosity or hatred against the assailant though P.W.5 is a Police Constable in the same force where the deceased was working. We do not find any materials on record to show that they have any common cause either to support the prosecution or to speak against the accused. It is no doubt true that Ex.P-27, the inquest report, the description of the assailant given is as follows: “A 22 year old male, short, dark-complexioned with unkempt hair and a moustache.” The above is found revealed in column 11 of the inquest report. P.W.22, the Investigating Officer had been cross-examined on this material found in Ex.P-27. But, he came out with an answer and it is as follows: “I have read Ex.P-27, the inquest report; I have also seen the identity of the assailant noted therein; however, the copy of the inquest report is not in my file.” What would be the evidentiary value of the inquest report is the subject matter of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Suresh Rai and others v. State of Bihar, (2000) 3 Crl.L.J. 3457 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “Under Sec. 174 read with Sec. 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Inquest Report is prepared by the Investigating Officer to find out prima facie the nature of injuries and the possible weapon used in causing those injuries as also the possible cause of death. In Podda Narayana v. State of A.P., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1252, it was held by this Court that the identity of the accused is outside the scope of Inquest Report prepared under Sec. 174, Crl.P.C. In George v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1376, it has been held that the Investigating Officer is not obliged to investigate, at the stage of inquest or to ascertain as to who were the assailants. This Court has consistently held that Inquest Report cannot be treated as substantive evidence but may be utilised for contradicting the witness of inquest.” In this case, inquest was done by P.W.19. This Court has consistently held that Inquest Report cannot be treated as substantive evidence but may be utilised for contradicting the witness of inquest.” In this case, inquest was done by P.W.19. He had not been cross-examined at all on the aspects as found reflected in columns 9 and 11 of the inquest report - Ex.P-27. Having failed to contradict this witness, who alone can speak about the entries in Ex.P-27, we are of the considered opinion that the description of the assailant as found in columns 9 and 11 of the inquest report cannot be used in any manner to the advantage of the accused. Therefore, we conclude here, at this stage, that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 regarding their identification of the accused in the test identification parade cannot be brushed aside solely on the ground of any alleged variation or inconsistency in their evidence with reference to the special identifying features of the assailant noticed by each one of them. 10. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that on account of the delay in conducting the test identification parade, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 that they identified the assailant cannot be given any importance at all is only to be noted to be rejected, In this case, the accused was arrested on 17.3.1993 (according to the accused, he was arrested on 8.3.1993) and the test identification parade was conducted on 17.4.1993. Therefore, it is not possible to say that there is any inordinate time gap between the date of arrest of the accused and the date on which the test identification parade was conducted. Even assuming there is any delay, the question that arises is how far that delay would have an impact on the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5. For this, we fall back upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Daya Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001 S.C.C. (Crl.) 553, where the test identification parade was conducted about 7 or 8 years after the incident and only in that parade, the witnesses identified the accused. For this, we fall back upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Daya Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001 S.C.C. (Crl.) 553, where the test identification parade was conducted about 7 or 8 years after the incident and only in that parade, the witnesses identified the accused. On the facts available in that case, the Apex Court held that, “where the identifying witnesses had perceived an enduring impression of the identity of the accused in their mind, the delay in conducting the test identification parade would not vitiate the prosecution case.” It may be noticed here, as seen from Ex.P-19 that the Investigating Officer had given a request on 26.3.1993 itself to the Court to conduct the test identification parade. In the context of the law laid down as to what would be the evidentiary value of the identifying witnesses and the impact of any de-lay in conducting the test identification parade, the two judgments brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant were perused and we are of the respectful opinion, in view of the categorical ruling of the Apex Court in the judgment referred to above, that on facts, the two judgments brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant do not apply to the case on hand. In any event, there is no convincing material on record to show that either P.W.3 or P.W.5 had seen the accused, any time after the occurrence, prior to the test identification parade. Though P.W.22 would admit that the photograph of the accused was taken on the date of his arrest and the photograph appeared in one of the dailies for which he was not responsible, yet, we do not get any material at all to show that either P.W.3 or P.W.5 had seen the daily containing the photograph of the assailant. It may be noticed here that P.Ws.3 and 5 have categorically denied having seen the accused at any point of time after the date of occurrence till they were called to identify the accused in the test identification parade in the Central Prison at Vellore. 11. It may be noticed here that P.Ws.3 and 5 have categorically denied having seen the accused at any point of time after the date of occurrence till they were called to identify the accused in the test identification parade in the Central Prison at Vellore. 11. In addition to the direct evidence of P.W.3; res gestae evidence of P.W.5 and the evidence of these two witnesses identifying the accused in the test identification parade, we also have one other material, which though by itself may not be substantive, yet can be taken into account as a supplementary material to the materials already available on record. It is Ex.P-34. The shoes marked as M.O.2 were thrown by the accused on the platform while he was fleeing away from the scene of occurrence. The accused had admitted when he was questioned that his left and right foot impressions were taken by the Investigating Officer. The inner soles of the two shoes are given serial numbers 7 and 8 in Ex.P-34. The right and left foot impressions of the accused taken by the Investigating Officer on the date of his arrest are given serial numbers 1 to 3 and 4 to 6 respectively. The opinion of the expert in Ex.P-34 is that serial numbers 1 to 3 tally with serial number 7 and serial numbers 4 to 6 tally with serial number 8. In other words, by Ex.P-34, the prosecution had definitely established that the shoes (M.O.2) are those worn by the accused, which he had thrown on the platform while escaping from the scene of occurrence. In other words, we are inclined to take Ex.P-34 to reinforce our conclusion that the prosecution had definitely established the involvement of the accused in the crime. 12. It is useful to refer in this context to the latest judgment of the Apex Court in Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2960. In other words, we are inclined to take Ex.P-34 to reinforce our conclusion that the prosecution had definitely established the involvement of the accused in the crime. 12. It is useful to refer in this context to the latest judgment of the Apex Court in Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2960. The relevant reflection of mind of the Honourable Judges is extracted as hereunder: “This apart the science of identification of foot-prints is not a fully developed science and, therefore, if in a given case - unlike the present one - evidence relating to the same is found satisfactory it may be used only to reinforce the conclusions as to the identity of the culprit already arrived at on the basis of other evidence.” We have already found in this judgment that the evidence relating to the recover)‘of M.O.2; the accused wearing M.O.2 shoes at the time of the occurrence and the lifting of the foot-prints of the accused have been satisfactorily explained. 13. In the light of our discussion as referred to above, we find that there are no merits in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.