Honble SHARMA, J.–The appellant, a security guard, was indicated before the learned Special SC & ST (Prevention of Attrocity Cases) Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 20/95 (171/1994) for having committed murder of Head Constable Ganpat Paswan and Constable Ahmed Ali. The learned trial Judge vide judgment dated May 20, 1997 convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and sentenced him in each of the section to undergo imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer six months Rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. In the instant appeal the appellant has assailed the aforesaid finding of the learned trial Judge. (2). On the Tower Posts that have been constructed all round the Central Jail Ajmer, the CRPF deploys its security guards to keep 24 hours vigil on the inmates of the Jail. On the fateful day of June 30, 1994 Head Constable Ganpat Paswan and constable Ahmed Ali, after discharging their security duties were sleeping on their respective cots in a tent. Constable Ramjilal Meena (PW.1) who was on security duty from 10 a.m. to 12 noon, handed over his charge to constable Lalit Chand Deka (appellant) and after taking food at the Mess, he proceeded to sleep around 12.30 p.m. on his cot in the tent. He suddenly awoke on hearing shouts of gun fire and got up from his cot then he saw the appellant firing bullets from the rifle on Ganpat Paswan and Ahmed Ali. Thereafter appellant turned towards another Tent and opened fire at Subedar Gurudayal Singh. The incident of firing happened at 1.40 p.m. as a result of which Ganpat Paswan and Ahmed Ali died at the spot. Ramjilal Meena could some how reach to the Police Station and submitted written report. Incharge Police Station with police squad came to the spot and appellant was forced to surrender and police arrested him. The Police Station Civil Lines Ajmer registered a case under Section 302 and 307 IPC and chalked out formal FIR Ex.P.29 bearing No. 119/94. (3). Ramjilal Meena could some how reach to the Police Station and submitted written report. Incharge Police Station with police squad came to the spot and appellant was forced to surrender and police arrested him. The Police Station Civil Lines Ajmer registered a case under Section 302 and 307 IPC and chalked out formal FIR Ex.P.29 bearing No. 119/94. (3). Commencing the investigation, Investigating Officer drew site plan, inquest reports, recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., got conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of Ganpat Paswan and Ahmed Ali, seized the fire arm, blood stained soil, pellets, empty cartridges from the site, guard duty register, blood stained clothes of the deceased as well as other relevant documents. On conclusion of the investigation charge sheet was laid. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Ajmer. Charges under sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case and got exhibited 30 documents. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant claimed innocence. No defence witness however was examined. The learned trial judge on hearing the final submission convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated hereinabove. (4). We have heard the submissions advanced before us and scanned the record. It is contended by Mr.J.S. Rathore, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the presence of Ramjilal Meena at the spot was highly doubtful and the injuries sustained by the witness Gurudayal Singh were as per the medical evidence not caused by fire arm. The prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are not of sterling worth. The first information report was suppressed by the prosecution and false case was concocted against the appellant. Rifle allegedly used in committing the offence was not recovered at the instance of the appellant and no document was produced to prove that the rifle used in commission of offence was allotted to the appellant. The investigation was not conducted by the investigating officer and necessary memos were not drawn by him. Motive to cause death was not introduced during the investigation and it was brought out for the time before the trial court. The FIR was sent late to Ilaqa Magistrate. The investigation was not conducted by the investigating officer and necessary memos were not drawn by him. Motive to cause death was not introduced during the investigation and it was brought out for the time before the trial court. The FIR was sent late to Ilaqa Magistrate. Under these circumstances the learned trial Court has committed illegality in convicting the appellant. Reliance is placed on Jai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1), Ganesh Dhavan Patel and another vs. State of Maharashtra (2), Chandrabhan vs. State of Rajasthan (3), Ram Narain vs. State of Punjab (4). (5). Per contra Mr. S.S. Rathore, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended that the appellant was rightly convicted by the learned trial judge. (6). The superstructure of the prosecution case is based on the testimony of Ramji Lal Meena (PW.1) and Guru Dayal Singh (PW.2), which is sought to be corroborated by the testimony of Dr. L.N. Singaksha (PW. 7) and investigating officer Sahdev Kaviya (PW.12). (7). We intend to refer at the outset the injuries sustained by the deceased. As per post mortem report (Ex.P.26), deceased Ganpat Paswan sustained following injuries: 1. Wound of entry 3x1 cms. x ? elliptical, with invested margins and abraded collar 2.5 cm. lateral to the outer angle of the Rt. orbit. The blackening is present around the wound. 2. Wound of entry- 1.00 x 1/2 cms 16.5 cms. up and lateral from the Rt. nipple in the Rt. Axilla, elliptical, with inverted margins and abraded collar. The depth is unknown. The blackening is present around the wound. 3. Wound of entry 1.00 x 1/2 cms. 4.00 cms. above and slightly, lateral to the I. No. II elliptical, the margins are inverted with abraded margins. The blackening is present around the wound. The depth is unknown. On dissection- The underlying bone is missing (of Rt. temporal) in area of 3 x 2cms. on further dissection the Rt. frontal bone Rt. parietal bone and left parietal bones are fracturalus area of 10x8 cms. as shown in figure, under the wound of exit measuring 12x4 cms. on left fronto parietal region. The meninges are found torn at places with extra dural, subdural and intra cerebred haemorrhages and tearing of brain at many places. The wound of exit is bigger irregular with margin irregular. Direction-Tongential passing from to the infront to the left fronto parietal region. on left fronto parietal region. The meninges are found torn at places with extra dural, subdural and intra cerebred haemorrhages and tearing of brain at many places. The wound of exit is bigger irregular with margin irregular. Direction-Tongential passing from to the infront to the left fronto parietal region. These are antemortem in nature caused by riffled fire arm ammunitions and are of fresh duration prior to time of post mortem examination. Following the axillary wounds on further tracing the first four ribs are found fractured and also clavicle Rt. side. About 1 litre below us the Rt. side of pleural cavity. Upper 1/2 of the Rt. lung is turning to five pieces. Further trachea shows two wound on either side measure 3 x 1 cms. on Rt. and 5x3 cms. On It, side (skin intact on Rt. side of chest. On reflecting the skin the chest muscles contains clots on upper 1/2 and shows 8x5 cms. perforation on upper III of the Rt. side of chest wall). The another wound (exit) measuring 12x12 cms. irregular on It. sub mandibular, region, eviding middle III of mandible fractured. In the path all the soft tissue structures are disturbed. No foreign body found. Direction -Obliquely inward, upward and left lateral side of body. Cause of death is shown coma due to intra cranial haemorrahages injury to the brain, Rt. lung and the structure of neck as a result of fire arm injuries (riffled fire arm ammunition). (8). Deceased Ahmed Ali sustained following injuries as per post mortem report Ex.P.25. Wound of entry 2x1cms. x ? on the middle part of Rt. supra orbital margin, the wound is elliptical. (Rt. eye brow, middle III). 2. Wound of Exit- 14 x 14 cms. on the left parietal eminevee- Depth? The wound is irregular. The brow matter is emerging from the wound. Details of wound of entry One elliptical, shape, irregular wound with margins inverted, and showing collar of abrasion around. During of the hairs, blackening on forehead. Rt. side of over middle III of Rt. eye brow. On dissection The under lying bone is absent in an area of 1x4cms. (frontal bone, Rt. side). On further dissection the parietal bone on it. side underneath the wound of exit is found absent in an area of 4x1 cms. During of the hairs, blackening on forehead. Rt. side of over middle III of Rt. eye brow. On dissection The under lying bone is absent in an area of 1x4cms. (frontal bone, Rt. side). On further dissection the parietal bone on it. side underneath the wound of exit is found absent in an area of 4x1 cms. The menings are found torn at places with extra dural subdural and intra cerebral haemorrhages and tearing of brain at places. The wound of exit is at bigger wound, irregular with margin irregular. No blackening. Direction of injury- Through and through passing from at frontal region in front, to the left parietal region. Almost of the same angle, straight, way. Distance of firing. A close contact shot. These are antemortem in nature caused by riffled fire arm ammunition. The wound and fresh in duration prior to the time of death. The cause of death is coma due to intra cranial haemorrhage and injury to the brain as a result of fire arm injury (Riffled fire arm ammunition). (9). For the purposes of microscopic examination the I.O. had sent following articles recovered and seized during investigation to the FSL : 1. One 7.62 mm. Rifle (SLR) No. EB 8273 & Butt No. 227 (without magazine) marked W/1. 2. One rifle magazine, marked w/2. 3. Thirteen 7.76 mm K.F. /OFV Cartridges (found loaded in magazine) w/2) marked L/1 to L/13. 4. Three 7.62 mm. K.F./O.F.V. cartridge cases, marked C/1 toC/3. 5. Four 7.62 mm. K.F. O.F.V. cartridge cases, marked C/4 to C/7. 6. Four pieces of copper jacketed bullets marked B/1 to B/4. 7. Two lead pieces of core of bullet marked B/5 & B/6. (10). As per the FSL report (Ex.P.31) result of examination was as under : 1. One 7.62 mm. rifle (W/1) from packet `A is a serviceable fire arm. 2. The examination of the barrel residue indicates that submitted 7.62 mm. riffle (w/1) from packet `A had been fired. However, the definite time of its last fire could not be ascertained. 3. Four pieces of copper jacket (B/1to B/4) and two lead pieces ofcore of bullet (B/5 and B/6) from packet `Gha are parts of 7.62 mm. bullets. 4. Based on stereo and comparison microscopic examination, it is the opinion that : (a) seven 7.62 mm. cartridge cases (C/1to C/7) from packets `Da and `Ga have been fired from 7.62 mm. 3. Four pieces of copper jacket (B/1to B/4) and two lead pieces ofcore of bullet (B/5 and B/6) from packet `Gha are parts of 7.62 mm. bullets. 4. Based on stereo and comparison microscopic examination, it is the opinion that : (a) seven 7.62 mm. cartridge cases (C/1to C/7) from packets `Da and `Ga have been fired from 7.62 mm. rifle (w/1) from packet `A. (b) It has not been possible to link definitely four 7.62 mm. multilated copper jacketed bullets (B/1 to B/4) and two pieces of lead core of bullet (B/5 and B/6) with submitted 7.62 mm. rifle (W/1 due to lack of sufficient evidence. 5. Thirteen 7.62 mm. cartridges (L/1 to L/13) from packet `Ba fireworthy ammunition. Six cartridges (L/1 to L/6) were also testified from 7.62 mm. rifle (W/1) in the laboratory. (11). Let us now examine the credibility of the prosecution witnesses through whom the prosecution has to establish the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial judge based the conviction of the appellant primarily on the testimony of Ramjilal Meena (PW.1) and Guru Dayal Singh (PW.2). Coming to the testimony of Ramji Lal Meena (PW.1) it may be noticed that he instituted the FIR of the occurrence. In his deposition Ramji Lal Meena stated that since 1993 he was working as constable in D-77 Company of CRPF at Central Jail Ajmer. The CRPF deploys its security guards on the ten tower posts that encircled the Jail, to keep 24 hours vigil. Lalit Chand Deka was also working as constable in the D-77 Company of CRPF since May 93. On June 29, 1994 Lalit Deka and Head Constable Ganpat Paswan who was incharge of Post No.5, hurled abuses to each other. Ganpat Paswan made a written complaint about the indiscipline of Lalit Deka to Havaldar Major of the Company. On that basis O.C. Gurudayal Singh called for explanation from Lalit Deka about his indiscipline within 24 hours. On June 30, 1994 Ramji Lal Meena was on duty from 10 a.m. till 12 noon and when his duty was off he handed over his charge to Lalit Deka and proceeded to Mess to take his food. Lalit Deka was up on duty at Post No.5. On June 30, 1994 Ramji Lal Meena was on duty from 10 a.m. till 12 noon and when his duty was off he handed over his charge to Lalit Deka and proceeded to Mess to take his food. Lalit Deka was up on duty at Post No.5. Ramji Lal Meena took about 30 to 45 minutes in taking food in the mess and thereafter he came to the tent where Guard Incharge Ganpat Paswan and constable Ahmed Ali on their respective cots were sleeping, and slept on his not. On hearing shout of gun fire Ramji Lal Meena awoke and got up from the cot then he saw Lalit Deka standing at the door of tent and fired bullets from the rifle on Ganpat Paswan and Ahmed Ali who were then sleeping. He had seen the bullets hit the bodies of Ganpat Paswan and Ahmed Ali and blood oozing from the wounds. Lalit Deka then proceeded towards the tent of Gurudayal Singh and opened fire at him but he managed to escape. At the same time Ramji Lal Meena rushed to the Police Station Civil Lines and narrated the incident. The SHO along with police persons immediately reached to the Central Jail. At that time Lalit Deka was standing with rifle at Tower No. 5. SHO warned Lalit Deka to come down from the tower post. Lalit Deka then left the weapon and came down. The police arrested Lalit Deka and some police persons took him to the police station. At that time the weapon was not seized. The SHO with remaining staff went at the site and then took the weapon in their possession. Thereafter they had seen Ganpat Paswan and Ahmed Ali lying dead on the cots. There were bullet wounds on their bodies and blood was oozing. Ramji Lal submitted written report (Ex.P.1) at the Police Station. (12). Ramji Lal Meena disowned some portion of his police statement (Ex.P.4). In the written report Ex.P.1 and police statement Ex.P.4 he did not mention that Lalit Deka and Ganpat Paswan were hurling abuses at each other on June 29, 1994. In the cross examination he stated that he did not see the letter of complaint written by Ganpat Paswan and while handing over charge he did not give his rifle to Lalit Deka because each guard possession his own rifle. In the cross examination he stated that he did not see the letter of complaint written by Ganpat Paswan and while handing over charge he did not give his rifle to Lalit Deka because each guard possession his own rifle. He further deposed that SHO provided him pen and paper and he wrote the report at the police station. Cot of Ganpat Paswan was at a distance of two feet from the door of tent where Lalit Deka was standing and the cot of Ahmed Ali was only one or half feet away from the cot of Ganpat Paswan. (13). Gurudayal Singh (PW.2) deposed that on June 30, 1994 he came to his tent from the office at 1.30 p.m. when he was changing his clothes he heard the shout of gun fire, he then came out of the tent, and saw constable Ramji Lal Meena running. On being inquired Ramjilal Meena told that Ganpat Paswan and Ahmed Ali were killed. Hearing this Guru Dayal Singh also started running, Lalit Deka opened fire at him and the bullet hit heel of his left foot. Guru Dayal Singh then commanded to all the posts to control Lalit Deka. In the meanwhile Lalit Deka did climb on the tower and conveyed that he would only surrender before the police. When police reached Lalit Deka surrendered himself. Guru Dayal Singh then went to the tent of Ganpat Paswan and Ahmed Ali and found them dead. He was escorted to Hospital by the police for treatment. Guru Dayal Singh further deposed that on June 29, 1994 he had received written complaint of Ganpat Paswan against indiscipline of Lalit Deka and he then summoned Lalit Deka, Ganpat Paswan and three constables including Ahmed Ali for preliminary enquiry. Lalit Deka denied the allegation but constable Ahmed Ali asserted that Lalit Deka defied the orders of Hawaldar Ganpat Paswan. Vide written letter Ex.P.5 Explanation of Lalit Deka was called by him. Written complaint of Ganpat Paswan was also got exhibited by him as Ex.P.6. Guru Dayal Singh was subjected to searching cross examination. He was confronted with his police statement Ex.D.1. in regard to certain omissions and contradictions. Injury report of Gurudayal Singh is Ex.P.23 according to which he sustained following injuries. (i) Lacerated wound 2-1/2 x 1/8 cm. x skin deep on outer surface of left foot. (ii) Lacerated wound 1 1/4 x 1/8 cms. He was confronted with his police statement Ex.D.1. in regard to certain omissions and contradictions. Injury report of Gurudayal Singh is Ex.P.23 according to which he sustained following injuries. (i) Lacerated wound 2-1/2 x 1/8 cm. x skin deep on outer surface of left foot. (ii) Lacerated wound 1 1/4 x 1/8 cms. x skin deep on postero lateral surface of left heel. Both the injuries were simple and caused by blunt object. (14). Dr. L.N. Singhaksha (PW.7) in the deposition gave details of antemortem injuries sustained by the two deceased and clarified that the said injuries were caused by a close range fire. In cross examination no question in respect of injuries sustained by Guru Dayal Singh was however asked. Basant Kumar Behra (PW. 9) was appointed as `Kot-Commander in the month of May 94 in the CRPF at Central Jail Ajmer. On May 3, 1994 at 9.15 a.m. he had issued S.L.R. Rifle, 40 live cartridges and two magazines to Lalit Deka. First page of Issue Register was exhibited as Mark A. Page of the Register on which the entry in regard to issuance of Rifle, Cartridges and Magazines was made was exhibited as `Mark-B and the entry was marked as A to B. Lalit Deka put his signatures at place `X whereas signatures of Basant Kumar Behra were at place `Y. (15). Sahdev Kaviya (PW. 12) deposed that on June 30, 1994 he was posted as SHO Civil Lines Ajmer. On that day Ramji Lal Meena came running to him at the Police Station Civil Lines and orally informed him that Lalit Chand Deka after killing two persons was standing at post with SLR rifle. He alongwith police squad reached to the Central Jail Ajmer where Ramji Lal Meena submitted a written report to him. He warned Lalit Chand Deka to surrender. Lalit Chand Deka got down leaving the SLR rifle at the post. Lalit Chand Deka was taken in custody. At the time of arrest one magazine loaded with 20 cartridges, photo copy of complaint and explanation were seized from the possession of Lalit Chand Deka vide memo Ex.P.8. S.L.R. rifle and magazine loaded with 12 cartridges and one cartridge lying out side, that were left by Lalit Chand Deka at the post were seized vide memo Ex.P.9 All the seized articles were got sealed. S.L.R. rifle and magazine loaded with 12 cartridges and one cartridge lying out side, that were left by Lalit Chand Deka at the post were seized vide memo Ex.P.9 All the seized articles were got sealed. Two lead pieces of core of bullet four pieces of copper jacketed bullets seven cartridge cases found lying near the costs of the deceased and near the post No. 5 were seized and sealed vide memos No. Ex.P.9.A and Ex.P.10. Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12. Guard duty register was seized vide memo Ex.P.13. Witnesses Suresh Kumar (PW.3) and Dharam Pal (PW. 8) were the motbirs of aforesaid recoveries P.S. Manocha (PW. 13) Deputy Director FSL gave details of microscopic examination and proved FSL report Ex.P.31. (16). Fact situation emerges from the material on record may be summarised thus- (i) On May 3, 1994 S.L.R. Rifle, two Magazines and 40 live Cartridges were issued to the appellant by Basant Kumar Behra (Kot Commander) and since then the said articles had been in the possession of the appellant. (ii) One June 29, 1994 Ganpat Paswan, Post Commander, of Post No. 5 made a written complaint (Ex.P.6) to the Company Commander, against the appellant with the averments that the appellant on various occasions hurled abuses at him and defied his orders. (iii) Guru Dayal Singh, Commanding Officer on June 30, 1994 wrote a letter (Ex.P.5) to the appellant asking for his explanation. Copy of complaint of Ganpat Paswan (Ex.P.6) was annexed with the letter. (iv) Ramji Lal Meena was on security duty from 10 a.m. till 12 noon and thereafter from 12 noon the appellant took over the charge and was up on security duty. (v) Ganpat Paswan, Ahmed Ali and Ramji Lal Meena were sleeping in a tent. On hearing the shout of gun fire Ramji Lal Meena awoke and got up from his cot then he saw the appellant standing at the gate of the tent and firing bullets from the rifle on Ganpat Paswan and Ahmed Ali as a result of which both of them died at the spot. (vi) Appellant then turned towards another tent and opened fire at Subedar Guru Dayal Singh who received injuries on the heel of his left foot. (vii) Written report was immediately lodged by Ramji Lal Meena and the appellant was arrested. (vi) Appellant then turned towards another tent and opened fire at Subedar Guru Dayal Singh who received injuries on the heel of his left foot. (vii) Written report was immediately lodged by Ramji Lal Meena and the appellant was arrested. SLR rifle possessed by the appellant alongwith magazine loaded with 20 cartridges and one cartridge lying outside were seized and sealed from the post from where the appellant got down for courting arrest leaving behind the rifle, magazine and cartridges. Lead pieces of core of bullets, copper jacketed bullets and cartridges cases were also seized from the place of incident. (viii) As per the post mortem reports the cause of death of Ganpat Paswan and Ahmed Ali was fire arm injuries. The distance of firing was close contact shots. (ix) The examination of barrel residue indicated that seized 7.62 mm rifle had been fired and pieces of copper jacket and core of bullets were parts of 7.62 mm. bullets. Seven 7.62 mm. cartridge cases had been fired from 7.62 mm. rifle. (17). Coming to the submissions of Mr. Jai Singh Rathore learned counsel for the appellant it may be noticed that there is inconsistency in the testimony of Ramji Lal Meena (PW.1) and Sahdev Kaviya (PW.12) in regard to institution of written report. Ramjilal Meena on one hand deposed that SHO provided him pen and paper and he wrote the report at the police station whereas on the other hand Sahdev Kaviya SHO stated that Ramji Lal Meena submitted written report to him at Central Jail. According to learned counsel this is a serious infirmity and suggests that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence. Substantiate his arguments learned counsel urged that in fact Ramjilal Meena did not see the incident, his presence at the time of incident is highly doubtful. Guru Dayal Singh is also not a truthful witness. No gun shot injury was found on his person which falsify his entire ocular testimony. Recovery of riffle, magazines and cartridges was not made at the instance of the appellant. The motive to commit offence was also introduced for the first time at the trial and the appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of tainted investigation. The delay according to learned counsel in sending FIR to the Ilaqa Magistrate is also fatal. (18). The motive to commit offence was also introduced for the first time at the trial and the appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of tainted investigation. The delay according to learned counsel in sending FIR to the Ilaqa Magistrate is also fatal. (18). The discrepancy referred to by learned counsel in regard to institution of written report in our considered opinion, is not very much material in the facts and circumstances of the case. We have considered the evidence of Ramji Lal Meena from the point of view of trustworthiness and we are satisfied that he had not spoken untruth and his testimony had not been polluted. He was subjected to searching cross examination but nothing could be elicited to shatter his evidence. His presence at the time of incident was natural. On completion of his duty he ate his food and then proceeded to sleep in the same tent where Ganpat Paswan and Ahmed Ali were sleeping. It is established from record that Ramji Lal Meena, Ganpat paswan, Ahmed Ali and the appellant were posted at Tower Post No.5. It was therefore quite natural that Ramji Lal Meena on completion of his duty would first go to mess and then for rest to the tent installed for the guards of Post No.5. The statement of Ramjilal Meena under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded instantly i.e. on June 30, 1994. Report of the incident was also lodged at 2.5 p.m. on June 30, 1994 and was entered into Rojnamcha at item No. 1327. The report was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate at 9 a.m. on the next day i.e. July 1, 1994. Thus we do not find any delay in forwarding the FIR to the Ilaqa Magistrate. Statement of Sahdev Kaviya (PW. 12) that Ramjilal Meena submitted written report to him at the Central Jail although against the version of Ramji Lal Meena but this inconsistency may be on account of natural error of memory due to lapse of time. We are therefore not inclined to disbelieve the truthful statement of Ramji Lal Meena. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki and others (5), propounded thus (Para 7) ``In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. We are therefore not inclined to disbelieve the truthful statement of Ramji Lal Meena. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki and others (5), propounded thus (Para 7) ``In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. (19). In so far as the testimony of Guru Dayal Singh is concerned it may be seen that he is not an eye witness of the killing of Ganpat Paswan and Ahmed Ali. After hearing the shout of gun fire when he came out of his tent he saw Ramji Lal Meena running. Then he found the appellant firing at him. He some how managed to save himself but a bullet hit the heel of his left foot and he sustained two lacerated wounds. It has been established from the record that Guru Dayal Singh was commanding officer at Post No.5 on June 30, 1994. On June 29, 1994 Ganpat Paswan, Post Commander of Post No.5 made a written complaint to him against the appellant and on June 30, 1994 he demanded explanation from the appellant. It is thus established that the appellant had animus against Gurudayal Singh. We find presence of Gurudayal Singh at the time of incident natural. It is quite possible that bullet might not hit the heel directly but only passed just touching the heel. Without cross examining Dr. L.N. Singhaksha (PW. 7) in this regard an attempt was made by the learned counsel to pursuade us to reject the testimony of Gurudayal Singh but we are not impressed by this argument. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in G.S. Walia vs. State of Punjab (6), propounded thus- ``Moreover, a blow given by an axe with its sharp side pointing towards the victim may not always result in causing an incised wound. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in G.S. Walia vs. State of Punjab (6), propounded thus- ``Moreover, a blow given by an axe with its sharp side pointing towards the victim may not always result in causing an incised wound. What type of injury it will cause would depend upon various factors like the position of the assailant and the victim, angle at which it hits the body, the part of the body where it lands, the force with which it hits the body etc. To reject the evidence as untrue in such circumstances considering it as inconsistent with medical evidence without considering the relevant factors would mean mechanical appreciation of such evidence. The testimony of Gurudayal Singh has been corroborated by the recovery of Copper jacketed bullets and cartridge cases near the tower post No.5 where Gurudayal Singh ran in order to save his life. Thus the inconsistency between the ocular and medical testimony in the facts of this case is immaterial in assessing the culpability of the appellant. (20). We do not also find merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence with regard to motive to commit crime was not collected during investigation. As already stated written complaint (Ex.P.6) and letter of explanation (Ex.P.5) was recovered from the possession of the appellant at the time of his arrest vide memo Ex.P.8. Actuated by anger infuriated on account of complaint and letter of explanation and demonstrating the revengeful attitude the appellant committed unusually usual crime of killing two innocent guards. (21). SLR Rifle that was used for committing crime was issued to the appellant and on the day of the incident it was appellant who opened fire with it, killed Ganpat Paswan and Ahmed Ali and injured Guru Dayal Singh. The said rifle alongwith magazine loaded with 20 cartridges and one cartridge lying outside were seized from the post No.5 from where the appellant got down for courting arrest leaving behind the rifle, magazine and cartridges. Lead pieces of core of bullets coper jacketed bullets and cartridge cases were also seized from the place of incident. Recovery memos Ex.P. 8, Ex.P.9, Ex.P.9 A, Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 were proved by Sahdev Kaviya I.O. and Motbirs Suresh Kumar and Dharam Pal. P.S. Manocha, the Deputy Director FSL gave details of microscopic examination and proved FSL report Ex.P.31. Lead pieces of core of bullets coper jacketed bullets and cartridge cases were also seized from the place of incident. Recovery memos Ex.P. 8, Ex.P.9, Ex.P.9 A, Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 were proved by Sahdev Kaviya I.O. and Motbirs Suresh Kumar and Dharam Pal. P.S. Manocha, the Deputy Director FSL gave details of microscopic examination and proved FSL report Ex.P.31. The examination of barrel residue indicated that 7.62 mm. rifle possessed by the appellant had been fired and pieces of copper jacket and cores of bullets were parts of 7.62 mm. bullets. 7.62 cartridge cases had been fired from 7.62 mm. rifle. (22). The ratio of judicial pronouncements on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no help to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. We are of the opinion that the prosecution has established charges under sections 302 and 307 IPC against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant was rightly convicted by the learned trial judge. (23). In view of what we have discussed hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant appeal, it is accordingly dismissed and the impugned judgment of the learned trial judge stands confirmed.