Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. To appreciate contentions raised, factual matrix, which are not in much details, can be noticed with brevity. As rain water had accumulated in courtyard of Kamleshwari Yadav, Vivekanand Yadav, deceased, was digging channel for outlet of the accumulated water. Allegedly, appellants along with Bimla Devi, resisted Vivekanand Yadav, pursuant to which a wordy duel ensued between them. Bimla Devi, it was alleged, brought a pistol from her house and supplied the same to Chandradip Yadav, pursuant to which on exhortation made by both Bimla Devi and Santlal Yadav, Chandradip Yadav, fired shots on Vivekanand Yadav and in his bid to escape, he suffered another shot in his abdomen when Chandradip Yadav fired shots. Injured Vivekanand Yadav dropped injured near the shop of Mahendra Sao. As he was critical, he was carried to Primary Health Centre, Dharhara, from where he was referred to Munger hospital. It was alleged that while Vivekanand Yadav was being carried to Munger hospital, he succumbed to injuries in the midway. However, he was taken to Munger hospital, where he was declared dead by the doctor. 2. Though prosecution was launched against three persons including the appellants, only appellants were put on trial. Police Officer during investigation, recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, visited place of occurrence, seized blood stained earth from the place of occurrence, secured autopsy report and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that followed, State examined altogether seven witnesses and though the appellants had not outnumbered the State, they too examined six witnesses at trial, ostensibly to counter accusations attributed to the appellants. Defence of the appellants both before the Court below and this Court had been that of innocence and they ascribed their false implication. Explicit defence of the appellants was that when Vivekanand Yadav was digging, channel in front of house of Chandradip Yadav for drainage of water, Chandradip Yadav had registered protest and when Vivkanand Yadav, deceased, wanted to assault him, Chandradip Yadav had made good his escape, and in process of chase when Kamleshwari Yadav fired shots on Chandradip Yadav, aim was lost and it is how that Vivekanand Yadav sustained firearm injuries on his person. Trial Court, however, on appreciation of probative value of testimony of witnesses, while rejecting plea of innocence of the appellants, recorded finding of guilt under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), simpliciter against Chandradip Yadav, Santlal Yadav too suffered conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC, and both the appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. Two-fold contentions were raised on behalf of the appellants to assail the findings recorded by the Court below against the impugned judgment. Contentions were raised that though the doctor, who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased had noticed two entry wounds on the dead body of the deceased, if evidence of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh (DW 6) was to be given credence, injury Nos 1, 2 and 3 may not be possible by different shots, and taking recourse to omission on part of PW 2 about witness not making parallel statement before the Police, for second shot allegedly fired by the assailants, would urge that evidence of ocular witnesses was not in conformity with the finding of the doctor. Unable to offer any meaningful criticism, submission is that if Vivekanand Yadav succumbed to the injuries in midway while being carried to Munger hospital, there did not appear to be good reason for carrying dead body to Munger hospital. Other ground on which finding of the Court below was assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the trial Court while appreciating intrinsic value of the witnesses had totally overlooked evidence of defence witnesses which strongly militates against bona fide of the prosecution version, and also strengthens defence of the appellants about none else but Kamlesh- wari Yadav to be assailant of the deceased. Failure of the State to place on record evidence about seizure of blood stains at the place of occurrence and there being no finding of chemical examiner about blood to be human blood, was also taken to be a ground to highlight the alleged infirmity in the prosecution version. However, to appreciate the contentions raised, narrations made by the prosecution as well as defence witness can be noticed with brevity, which have been fairly spelt out in the judgment of the Court below. 4. However, to appreciate the contentions raised, narrations made by the prosecution as well as defence witness can be noticed with brevity, which have been fairly spelt out in the judgment of the Court below. 4. Those who claimed to have witnessed killing of Vivekanand Yadav, happen to be Ashok Yadav (PW 1), Sunil Kumar (PW 2), Sudhansu Yadav (PW 3] and Kamleshwari Yadav (PW 6). Reiterating his earliest version which he rendered before the Police, Kamleshwari Yadav (PW 6), who was maker of fardbeyan, states at trial that while Vivekanand Yadav was digging channel to drain accumulated water from his courtyard, appellants registered protest, pursuant to which, on exhortation made by Santlal Yadav and Bimla Devi, Chandradip Yadav took arms from Bimla Devi and fired first shot, which hit right arm of the deceased and in quick succession, when Vivekanand Yadav wanted to escape, other shots were fired on him, which hit abdomen and Vivekanand Yadav shorly on receipt of injury dropped injured near shop of Mahendra Sao. Though he was carried for medical assistance, he had succumbed to the injuries. Narrations with sustained consistencies about Chandradip Yadav having shot dead the deceased on exhortation made by Bimla Devi and Santlal Yadav and firearms having been supplied by said Bimla Devi, were made also by Ashok Yadav (PW 1), Sunil Kumar (PW 2) and Sudhansu Yadav (PW 3), as these witnesses too, in the same veins and terms stated about Chandradip Prasad Yadav, having fired shots on the deceased, when he suffered injuries on the right arm and abdomen. As for genesis of the incident, these witnesses would state that since Vivekanand Yadav was digging channel for drainage of accumulated water from the courtyard, protests were registered by the appellants, pursuant to which after wordy duel ensued between them, Chandradip Yadav on supply of firearms by Bimla Devi, shot dead the deceased. 5. Dr. Kumar Raman (PW 4), who held autopsy over dead body of the deceased had noticed one lacerated circular wound 1/2" in diameter with chest cavity deep with inverted margin with blackened edge over left hypocondrium of abdomen. Lacerated oval wound 3/4" x 1/2" on the right auxiliary line, which was exit wound was communicating to injury No. 1, and other lacerated wound which was circular 1/2" in diameter with inverted margin on the mid right arm, was another wound of entry. Lacerated oval wound 3/4" x 1/2" on the right auxiliary line, which was exit wound was communicating to injury No. 1, and other lacerated wound which was circular 1/2" in diameter with inverted margin on the mid right arm, was another wound of entry. During autopsy of the dead body, one pellet was found lodged in the soft tissue of the right arm. Death in opinion of the doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of these injuries caused by firearms. Sant Kumar Soren (PW 7), Sub-Inspector of Police, who visited place of occurrence, found shop, in front of the house of Mahendra Sao, to be place of occurrence where blood stains were noticed by him. Investigating Officer also found signs of digging channel near the house of appellant Chandradip Yadav. 6. Much stress was laid on evidence of Saheb Yadav (DW 5), since he being signatory of the first information report of Kamleshwari Yadav, had turned volte face to the State at trial. However, the witness, in no uncertain terms acknowledged his signature on the fardbeyan of Kamleshwari Yadav. Though he would make all the excuses for appending his signature on the fardbeyan without going through its contents, in view of his acknowledgement, assertion made by him refuting bona fide of prosecution assertions would not be of much value. Though Jafar Yadav (DW 1), and Anil Yadav (DW 2) in their evidences would saddle Kamleshwari Yadav to be the assailant of the deceased, evidence of these two witnesses merits rejection for the reason that statement of Jafar Yadav does not appear to have been recorded by Police during investigation, and as for Anil Yadav, though his statement was recorded by Police during investigation, narration of the incident given by him during investigation was quite otherwise. Though Arjun Yadav (DW 3) and Asharfi Yadav (DW 4) also claim to have witnessed incident in which Vivekanand Yadav allegedly suffered fatal injuries at the hands of Kamleshwari Yadav, they had not taken recourse to public authority. Evidence of these witnesses merits rejection for the simple reason that had they been ocular witnesses to the incident about Kamleshwari Yadav to be assailant of deceased Vivekanand Yadav, there was no good reason for them to withhold themselves from narrating incident before the Police. Evidence of these witnesses merits rejection for the simple reason that had they been ocular witnesses to the incident about Kamleshwari Yadav to be assailant of deceased Vivekanand Yadav, there was no good reason for them to withhold themselves from narrating incident before the Police. Though much stress was laid also on the evidence of Sunil Kumar Singh (DW 6), which we have noticed earlier, his evidence too merits rejection for good reasons. He had not been summoned by the Court and, if he is to be believed, he came in the witness box under orders of the Civil Surgeon, Munger. There does not appear to be good reason as to how this witness was directed by the Civil Surgeon, Munger, to give unsolicited comment on the finding of the doctor who had already been examined by the State. Yet, there are other good reasons for rejection of his evidence. He had deposed in Court with reference to the secondary evidence even though primary evidence was on the record, and to crown all, he was not the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. The finding of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh (DW 6) appears to be based primarily on assumption that since there was no blackening or charring around injury No. 3, all injuries in his opinion were impact of one shot. Be that as it may, even accepting for a moment, the views of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh (DW 6), defence did not have good excuses about presence of injury Nos. 1 and 2, which were communicating to each other, and for which, none else but Chandradip Yadav was suggested to be the assailant of the deceased. Generally , firearm injuries caused from short distance produces blackening and charring. It is not very uncommon that due to introduction of formidable and sophisticated weapon, in all cases, projectile discharged from the firearm would not produce blackening or charring, and we may profitably refer to the view of Modi, who was of the view that injuries produced by projectile discharged from firearm may present characteristic of lacerated wound but their appearance may vary according to nature of projectile, the velocity on which it was travelling at the moment of impact, distance of firearms from the body at the moment of discharge, and the angle on which it stuck part of the body. In opinion of the author, in some cases, tissue may crepitate because of impounded gases but there will be no evidence of burning and tattooing. Considering this aspect of the matter, even though third injury did not bear evidence of charring or blackening, that being entry wound, in view of feature of the wound, there is no escape from conclusion that the third injury was impact of another shot fired by the assailant. 7. In view of narrations of events made by ocular witnesses and witnesses and finding of the doctor examined by the State, neither death of deceased nor appellant Chandradip Yadav to be author of fatal injnry sustained by Vivekanand Yadav, would remain questionable. As for appellant, Santlal Yadav, all the four witnesses, who claimed to be ocular, had narrated with sustained consistencies that he along with Bimla Devi had exhorted the assailant for shoot out, pursuant to which acting on exhortation made by them, Chandradip Yadav had fired two shots which are evidenced by the finding of the doctor, who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. As for genesis of the incident too, that had not only surfaced in the first information report, that being the earliest version of Kamleshwari Yadav, but also gets corroborated from evidence of the eye-witnesses, which unerringly suggest that while Vivekanand Yadav had been digging for drainage of water accumulated in the courtyard, appellants along with Bimla Devi had registered protest, pursuant to which Vivekanand Yadav suffered firearm injuries who eventually succumbed while being carried out to the hospital. Since occurrence took place in the early morning at about 7 a.m. on 2nd May, 1996 and fardbeyan of Kamleshwari Yadav was recorded in Sadar Hospital, Munger in Emergency Ward at 8.15 hours on the same day, there was no chance for concoction or embellishment in the prosecution version. Since prosecution case was lodged with all promptitude, that in our view, reduces all chances of concoction. Since prosecution case was lodged with all promptitude, that in our view, reduces all chances of concoction. Though some suggestions were given to Ashok Yadav (PW 1) that he had come to hospital at 11 a.m. and he was assisted by the Police from the cremation ground, though suggestion, which are quite bald in nature, has not been strengthened by good evidences, in view of fardbeyan of Kamleshwari Yadav having been recorded by Police at 8.15 hours, shortly after death of Vivekanand Yadav, if evidence of Ashok Yadav was to be given any credence, though there are clusters of houses around the place of occurrence but for that reason too, credibility of prosecution case would not be impaired for non-examination of the persons residing in those houses. 8. Having given our anxious and deepest consideration to the evidences available and also facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that finding recorded by the Court below was based on meticulous appreciation of the evidences which did not merit interference. Accordingly, there being no merit, both appeals, being meritless, are dismissed. Since appellant Santlal Yadav in Cr. Appeal No. 53 of 2000 happens to be on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and it is directed that trial Court shall take all coercive steps to consign him to custody to serve out the remainder of sentence awarded by the trial Court. I.P.Singh, J. 9 I agree.