Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. These two appeals arise from the same judgment of the trial court. These were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Criminal appeal no. 458 of 1998 is on behalf of only one appellant, Ambika Singh. He was convicted by the trial court under Ss. 302, 336 and 148 of the Penal Code and Sec. 27, Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life u/s. 302, three years u/s. 148 of the Penal Code and five years for the offence committed under the Arms Act. No separate sentence was given u/s. 336 of the Penal Code. All the sentences awarded to him were directed to run concurrently. 3. Criminal appeal no. 408 of 1998 is on behalf of six appellants, all of whom are convicted under Ss. 302/149, 336 and 147 of the Penal Code. All the appellants in this appeal are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life u/s. 302/149 and two years u/s. 147 of the Penal Code. No separate sentence was given u/s. 336 of the Penal Code and the two sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. All the appellants are closely related to each other. Satya Narain Singh (appellant no.1 in Criminal Appeal No.408 of 1998) is the father of Ambika Singh (the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 458 of 1998) and Pirthwi Singh and Birbahadur Singh (appellants 4 and 5 in Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 1998). Shivji Singh and Sheo Nandan Singh (appellants 2 and 3 in Criminal appeal no. 408 of 1998) are brothers of Satya Narain Singh and Kanhai Singh (appellant no.6 in Criminal appeal No. 408 of 1998) is their nephew, being the son of another brother. 5. The occurrence in which one person Meghnath Singh lost his life and four others sustained injuries started as a verbal quarrel between two neighbours on the day of the festival of Holi in 1993. Satya Narain Singh and Bhagwan Singh (PW 1) have their houses facing each other on the two sides of the village public pathway. The house of Satya Narain Singh, facing east is on the western side of the road. It is a big house, in length running from south to north and in width from east to west. Satya Narain Singh and Bhagwan Singh (PW 1) have their houses facing each other on the two sides of the village public pathway. The house of Satya Narain Singh, facing east is on the western side of the road. It is a big house, in length running from south to north and in width from east to west. Along its eastern side is the Sahan (open ground adjoining the house) which has a depth sufficient to park the truck owned by the family in one corner. To the east of the Sahan is the road, the width of which is described variously from 15 to 20. To the east of the road is the Sahan of Bhagwan Singh and on its northern side is his Naad. Further east, adjoining the Sahan is the Dalan and ladies quarters jointly owned by Bhagwan Singh (PW 1), Ram Sakal Singh (PW 11) and Raj Grin Singh (PW 9). The house of Satya Narain Singh is situate at the western extremity of the village. Adjacent north to it is a narrow lane running from west to east. This lane intersects the north south road separating the Sahans and houses of Satya Narain Singh and Bhagwan Singh and in the east runs into the village going towards the house of the deceased Meghnath Singh. 6. According to the prosecution case, at sun-set time on the day of Holi (the date being 9.3.1993) Bhawan Singh (PW 1) was sitting at his Dalan. Satya Narain Singh came there in an inebriated state and started quarreling with him and abusing him. Bhagwan Singh asked him to stop the abuses and to go away. On this Satya Narain Singh called his family members. Ambika Singh, one of his three sons came armed with his licensed gun; others carried sticks, stones and brick pieces in their hands. On hearing the hulla a number of villagers came there. Some of them were singing Holi songs at the nearby Devi Asthan and on hearing the noise they came to the Dalan of Bhagwan Singh. Others who were neighbours also came on hearing the hulla. The villagers coming there asked Satya Narain Singh to stop the quarrel and scolded him. Satya Narain Singh then took his people to his roof-top and from there they started throwing stones and pieces of bricks at the tiled roof of the house of Bhagwan Singh. Others who were neighbours also came on hearing the hulla. The villagers coming there asked Satya Narain Singh to stop the quarrel and scolded him. Satya Narain Singh then took his people to his roof-top and from there they started throwing stones and pieces of bricks at the tiled roof of the house of Bhagwan Singh. Satya Narain Singh urged his son Ambika Singh to open fire from his gun. Ordered by his father, Ambika Singh fired a shot that hit Meghnath Singh on his back and as a result he fell down and died. Ambika Singh fired seven to eight shots that caused pellet injuries to Ram Pran Singh (PW 3), Sri Ram Singh (P:W 10) and Umesh Singh (PW 6). One of the stones thrown by Swaminath Singh hit and Suraj Singh (PW 5) and caused injury to him. After the occurrence the injured were carried on a tractor to Ara town where they were admitted to the Sadar Hospital and were treated there for about a week. 7. Sitaram Singh (PW 15) who at that time was the Officer Incharge of Ayar P.S. was on the round of the villages under his P.S. for maintaining peace and order on the day of Holi. At village Bargaon he came to learn that gun shots were fired at Medhapur village. From there he proceeded to Medhapur alongwith an armed police party and reached there at about 10.30 in the night. There he recorded the statement of Babulal Singh (P.W. 12, the brother of the deceased) in presence of a witness Baleshwar Singh(P.W. 2). The statement was recorded as fard-e-bayan (Ext. 1) on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. (Ext. 7) was later drawn up on 10.3.1993 at 00.30 hours, giving rise to Jagdishpur (Ayar) PS Case No.27 of 1993. After recording the fard-e-bayan he took up investigation of the case, recorded the statments of other witnesses who were available there, examined the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report (Ext. 2) of the deceased Meghanath Singh. 8. On completion of investigation he submitted charge sheet against the appellants. They were put up on trial and at the end were convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 9. It may be mentioned here that in regard to the same occurrence a case was instituted from the side of the appellants as well. 2) of the deceased Meghanath Singh. 8. On completion of investigation he submitted charge sheet against the appellants. They were put up on trial and at the end were convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 9. It may be mentioned here that in regard to the same occurrence a case was instituted from the side of the appellants as well. That was registered as Jagdishpur (Ayar) PS Case No.28 of 1993 under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 323, 447, 337 and 325 of the Penal Code and sec. 27, Arms Act. In that case some of the witnesses examined by the prosecution in the present case, alongwith some others were named as accused.That case is said to be pending trial before a Magistrtate. 10. In this case the prosecution examined 17 witnesses to establish the charges against the accused. PWs 1 to 6 and 9 to 12 came before the trial court as eye witnesses. Among them P.W. 12 was the informant of the case and PWs 3, 5, 6 and 10 had also received injuries in the occurrence. PWs 7 and 17 were simply tendered. PW 8 was a formal witness who was examined to prove the seizure list. PW 13 was the doctor who had held post mortem on the body of the deceased. PW 14 was another doctor who at the material time was attached to the Sadar Hospital, Ara as Civil Assistant Surgeon. He had treated PWs 10, 3, 5 and 6 and he proved their injury reports. PW 16 was yet another doctor who had made the X-ray reports of PWs 10 and 3. PW 15 was the I.O. of the case. 11. Dr. Rambabu Singh (PW 13) who held post mortem on the body of Meghnath Singh stated before the court his findings the relevant parts of which are quoted below : "(i) On external examination gun shot punctured wound scattered over whole of back area of 12" in diameter. Margins of the wound inverted with charring margins, that is, wound of entrance." "(ii) On dissection of scalp:- On opening skull brain matter was found pale. Chest cavity-on opening the chest cavity, there was clotting and semi clotted blood in the cavity side and left both. Both lungs ruptured and twelve pellets recovered from both lungs and sealed in a glass container and handed over to the police. "Heart:All chambers were found empty. Chest cavity-on opening the chest cavity, there was clotting and semi clotted blood in the cavity side and left both. Both lungs ruptured and twelve pellets recovered from both lungs and sealed in a glass container and handed over to the police. "Heart:All chambers were found empty. "Abdominal cavity-Liver, splin, kidney pale. Stomach contained about 4 ounses of semi digested food material. "Urinary blader contains about two ounses of urine. "(iii) All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Time elapsed since death about thirty six hours preceeding the post mortem examination." 12. He further gave his opinion that death was caused due to haemorrhage and shok resulting from the injuries indicated above produced by fire arm, may be a gun. He also said that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He then proved the post mortem report which was marked as Ext. 5. 13. The doctors evidence leaves no room for doubt that the death of Meghnath Singh was caused by gun shot injuries and to that extent supports the case of the prosecution. 14. Dr. Triyogi Narain Pd. (PW 14) stated before the court that on 19.3.1993 at 11.30 p.m. he had examined Sri Ram Singh (PW 10), Sri Ram Pran Singh (PW 3), Suraj Singh (PW 5), Umesh Singh (PW 6) and had treated them. He also proved their injury reports which were marked as Exts. 6 to 6/3 respectively. The injury reports of the four injured prosecution witnesses are re-produced below : Ext.6: Injury report of Sri Ram Singh, (P.W.10) "(1) One abrasion mark on left side of back of chest (lower part) size 1/4" x 1/4". M.I. One black til on left wrist. Age of injury: Within 6 hours. Nature : Simple in nature. Caused by : Hard blunt substance." Ext. 6/1: Injury report Sri Ram Pran Singh, (P.W.3). "(1) Multiple small lacerated wound on face and upper part of chest. Size 1/6" x 1/6" skin deep to fat deep. Advice : X-ray face including neck. M.I. One black spot on front of chest. Age of injury : Within 6 hours. Nature : Simple in nature. Caused by : Fire arm injury." Ext. 6/2: Injury report of Suraj Yadav, (P.W.5) "(1) Lacerated wound on right side of temporal region of scalp size 1" x 1" skin deep. Age of injury : Within 6 hours. M.I. One black spot on front of chest. Age of injury : Within 6 hours. Nature : Simple in nature. Caused by : Fire arm injury." Ext. 6/2: Injury report of Suraj Yadav, (P.W.5) "(1) Lacerated wound on right side of temporal region of scalp size 1" x 1" skin deep. Age of injury : Within 6 hours. Nature : Simple in nature. Caused by : Hard blunt substance. M.I. Old scar mark on roof of left index finger." Injury report of Umesh Singh, Ext.6/ 3. "(1) Two small lacerated wound on face region. Size 1/8" x 1/8" skin deep. M.I. old scar mark on dorsal of hand. Age of injury : Within 6 hours. Caused by : Fire arm injury." 15. Dr. Arun Prakash Pandey (PW 15) produced before the court and proved the X-ray plates and the reports of Sri Ram Singh, (PW 10), Sri Ram Pran Singh, (PW3) and Umesh Singh, (PW 6). According to him the X-ray plate of Sri Ram Singh showed a foreign body in his abdomen. The X-ray plate of Umesh Singh showed a foreign body in his fore-head. The X-ray of Sri Ram Pran Singh did not show any abnormality. 16. From the medical evidence, it is evident that Umesh Singh (PW 6), Ram Pran Singh (PW 3) and Sri Ram Singh (PW10) had received pellet injuries and Suraj Singh (PW 5) had received injury by some hard and blunt substance and to that extent the case of the prosecution finds support from the evidence of the two doctors, PWs 13 and 14. 17. Another circumstance that strongly supports the prosecution case is the objective findings by the I.O., (PW 15) at the place of occurrence. The findings at the place of occurrence are recorded in paragraphs 2 and 25 of his deposition. According to him, at a distance of about 21 towards west from the Dalan of Rajgrih Singh was the Naad. Between the Naaa and the Dalan, he found the dead body of Meghnath Singh lying on its back at a distance of about 15, from the Dalan. There was blood under the body. He found stones and brick pieces scattered in large numbers around the Naad and the tiled roof (of the house" of PWs 1, 9 and 11), in front of the Dalan of the accused. There was blood under the body. He found stones and brick pieces scattered in large numbers around the Naad and the tiled roof (of the house" of PWs 1, 9 and 11), in front of the Dalan of the accused. He also found the tiles of the roof of the Dalan and the house of Rajgrih Singh (PW 9), Ram Sakal Singh, (PW 11) and Bhagwan Singh (PW 1) damaged and broken. He further stated that the northern wall of the house of Ramgrih Singh was facing west. In the wall he found 30-40 small holes (caused by pellets). On scratching some of the holes he was able to recover three gun shot pellets that he seized. 18. The objective findings at the place of occurrence, thus, show that stones and brick pieces were thrown at and around the tiled roof of the house of Bhagwan Singh, Ramgrih Singh and Ram Sakal Singh that caused damage to the tiles on the roof. Also, gun shots were fired from the west and some of the pellets were lodged in the kuchcha wall of the house of Ramgrih Singh facing towards west. 19. In addition to the medical evidence and the objective findings, recorded by the I.O., at the place of occurrence there is the ocular evidence of as many as ten witnesses, four of whom had received injuries in the same occurrence. 20. Bhagwan Singh, PW 1 with whom the appellant Swaminath is said to have picked up the quarrel that led to the stone throwing and firing of gun shots has supported the prosecution case from the begining to end. He stated before the court that while he was sitting at his Dalan at the time of sun-set on the day of Holi (the date being 9.3.1993), Satya Narain Singh came there in a drunken state. He started quarreling with him and abusing him. He (the witness) asked him to stop the abuses and to go away. He (the accused) called his men. Ambika Singh carried his licensed gun and others had sticks, stones and brick-pieces in their hands. An altercation took place and hearing the nulla a number of co-villagers came there. They asked Satya Narain Singh to stop mouthing profanities and admonished and scolded him. On this he took his men to his roof-top from where they started throwing stones and brick-pieces at his house and Dalan. An altercation took place and hearing the nulla a number of co-villagers came there. They asked Satya Narain Singh to stop mouthing profanities and admonished and scolded him. On this he took his men to his roof-top from where they started throwing stones and brick-pieces at his house and Dalan. Swaminath asked his son Ambika to open fire from his gun. Urged by his father, Ambika fired a shot hitting Meghnath Singh on his back. As a result Meghnath Singh fell down and died. The second shot fired by Ambika caused pellet injuries to Ram Fran Singh on his face, left chest and near his left eye; the third shot caused pellet injury to Sri Ram Singh, PW 10 on the left side of his rib cage and the fourth shot caused injuuries to Umesh Singh in his face. A stone thrown by Swaminath hit Suraj Singh, PW 5 and caused injury to him. 21. The testimony of PW 1 is fully supported by other eye witnesses who are co-villagers. Some of the witnesses stated that they were singing Holi songs at the Devi Asthan, situate close by and on hearing nulla they came to the Dalan of Bhagwan Singh. Some other witnesses were neighbours who similarly came to the P.O. on hearing the nulla. The villagers scolded Swaminatth and asked him and his men to stop the quarrel. On this they went to their roof top and started throwing stones. Urged by his father, Ambika Singh opened fire from his gun causing the death of Meghnath Singh and injuries to atleast three witnesses. Another witness Suraj Singh, PW 5 received injury from a stone thrown by Swaminath. 22. The ocular evidence coupled with the medical evidence and the objective findings at the P.O. as recorded by the I.O. makes the prosecution case practically impregnable. 23. Mr. Kanhaiya Pd. Singh, Advocate assailed the prosecution case on a number of grounds which I now proceed to examine one by one. Mr. Singh submitted that there were material discrepancies between the deposition of PW 12 made before the trial court and his statement recorded by the I.O. as the fard-e-bayan. Mr. Singh pointed out that in the fard-e-bayan he had said that after singing Holi songs he and his brother were returning. Mr. Singh submitted that there were material discrepancies between the deposition of PW 12 made before the trial court and his statement recorded by the I.O. as the fard-e-bayan. Mr. Singh pointed out that in the fard-e-bayan he had said that after singing Holi songs he and his brother were returning. When they passed by the house of Bhagwan Singh, PW 17, he found the accused throwing stones from the roof of their house and then urged by his father Ambika Singh fired a shot from his gun that hit his brother Meghnath Singh on the back. As a result, he fell down and died. At the end of the fard-e-bayan, the earlier quarrel between Satya Narain Singh and Bhagwan Singh, PW 1 is mentioned as the genesis of the occurrence to which the informant was clearly not a witness. But in his deposition before the court, Mr. Singh pointed out, PW 12 like other prosecution witnesses before him, narrated the occurrence right from the stage of quarrel between Satya Narain Singh and Bhagwan Singh and while the appellants were still on the ground near the Dalan of Bhagwan Singh. He stated that he and his brother arrived there while Satya Narain Singh and his men were abusing Bhagwan Singh and quarreling with him. On being admonished by the villagers Satya Narain Singh took his men to the roof top and they started throwing stones from there. 24. Mr. Singh further pointed out that in the fard-e-bayan, it was simply said that on receiving the gun shot Meghnath Singh fell down and died on the spot, unlike the story sought to be made out in court that on receiving the shot Meghnath Singh staggered forward a few steps and then fell down in front of the Dalan of Ramgrih Singh. Learned counsel also pointed out that in the fard-e-bayan there was no mention of any injuries caused to Suraj Singh, (PW 5) and Umesh Singh, (PW 6). Mr. Singh further pointed out that about a month after the occurrence the informant, PW 12 had filed a protest petition on 8.4.1993 making grievances about the police investigation. The protest petition was on record as Ext. 4. In the protest petition he had made a statement quite similar to his statement in the fard-e-bayan. Mr. Singh further pointed out that about a month after the occurrence the informant, PW 12 had filed a protest petition on 8.4.1993 making grievances about the police investigation. The protest petition was on record as Ext. 4. In the protest petition he had made a statement quite similar to his statement in the fard-e-bayan. But his deposition before the trial court made three years after the occurrence was materially different from his earlier statements and contained many embellishments. 25. Similarly, in regard to Sri Ram Singh (PW 10) learned counsel submitted that his evidence was quite unreliable. He pointed out that while he was being treated at the Sadar hospital, Ara, he was examined there on 10.3.1993 at 11.30 p.m. by a policeman posted at the Ara town P.S. His statement was recorded as fard-e-bayan that was sent to Jagdishpur RS. This was brought on record as Ext.A, at the instance of the defence. The statement of Sri Ram Singh made at that time was very brief and simple. He only said that on the previous evening at about 7-8 p.m. while he was singing Chaita at his Darwaza, he heard the noise of quarreling at the Darwaza of Satya Narain Singh. The quarrel was between his cousin uncle Bhagwan Singh and Satya Narain Singh and stones were being thrown from both the sides. In the mean while Satya Narain Singh ordered to open fire. On this Ambika fired a shot from his gun causing the death of one person. When he (Sri Ram Singh) went to see him (the deceased), he also received a gun shot. Mr. Singh submitted that this statement did not even identify the deceased and clearly stated that stones were being thrown from both the sides. 26. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by Mr. Singh, I find that both the statements of Babulal Singh, (PW 12) recorded as the frard-e-bayan of this case and of PW 10 recorded by someone from the Ara Town P.S. correctly present the case of the prosecution case. That is, Ambika Singh on being asked by his father fired a shot from his gun hitting someone and causing his death. The additions and embellishments pointed out by Mr. Singh in the testimony of PW 12 appear to be supplemental in nature. But even if the submissions of Mr. That is, Ambika Singh on being asked by his father fired a shot from his gun hitting someone and causing his death. The additions and embellishments pointed out by Mr. Singh in the testimony of PW 12 appear to be supplemental in nature. But even if the submissions of Mr. Singh are accepted and if the evidences of PWs 10 and 12 are excluded from consideration, there still remains the testimonies of atleast eight eye witnesses three of whom themselves suffered injuries in the occurrence and I find no good reason to disbelieve the evidence of the remaining prosecution witnesses. 27. Mr. Singh next contended that in the light of the doctors evidence and the post mortem report of the deceased Meghnath Singh, the entire prosecution case appeared to be untrue and false. Mr. Singh pointed out with much emphasis that the punctured wounds caused by the pellets on the back of the deceased were found by the doctor to have charred margins (para 1 of PW 13 and para 1 of post mortem report, Ext.5). He submitted that charring could result only in case the shot was fired from a very close distance of not more than one foot. Then on the basis of the distances between the different points as stated in the depositions of PWs 1 and 15 he tried to show that Ambika Singh while firing the shot could not possibly be at a distance of less than 30-40 from the victim. Mr. Singh contended that from such distance no charring of wounds was possible and according to him on this score alone the prosecution case was liable to be disbelieved and rejected. 28. On this point I find that the doctors evidence and the post-mortem report have two findings that are mutually exclusive. On external examinattion of the body the doctor found : "(i) Gun shot punctured wound scattered over whole of back area of 12" in diameter. (Emphasis added). (ii) Margin of the wound inverted with charring margins."(Emphasis added). 29. The pre-condition for any one of the two findings would negate and exclude the other. The shot in order to get scattered over an area of 12" diameter must be fired from some distance. On the other hand the charring of the wounds of entry would demand that the shot be fired from a distance of no more than a foot. The shot in order to get scattered over an area of 12" diameter must be fired from some distance. On the other hand the charring of the wounds of entry would demand that the shot be fired from a distance of no more than a foot. Modis test book of Medical Jurisprudence (21st edition) has the following passage on pages 268-269: "The effects produced by small shot fired from a shot-gun var[By according to the distance of the weapon from the body, and choking device. A charge of small shot, fired very close to, or within a few inches. of the body enters in one mass like a sinle bullet making a large irregular wound with scorched and contused edges, and is followed by the gases of the discharge which greatly lacerate and rupture the deeper tissues. Particles of unburnt powder expelled from the weapon behind the missle driven to some distance, through the wound, and some of them are found embedded in the wound and the surrounding skin which is also signed and blackened by the flame and smoke of combustion. The exit wound of a close range shot may show greater damage of tissues than the entrance wound, the margins are everted, but there is no evidence of blackening or singeing. At a distance of one to three feet small shot make a single aperture with irregular and lacerated edges corresponding in size to the bore of the muzzle of the gun, as the shot enter as one mass, but are scattered after entering the wound and cause great damage to the internal tissues. The skin surrounding the wounds is blackened, scorched and tattooed, with unburnt grains of powder. On the other hand, at a distance of six feet the central aperture is surrounded by separate openings in an area of about two inches in diameter made by a few pellets of the shot which spread out before reaching the mark. The skin surrounding the aperture may [Dnot be blackened or scroched. but is tattooed to some extent. At a distance of twelve feet the charge of shot spreads widely and enters the body as individual pellets producing separate openings in an area of five to eight inches in diameter depending on the choke, but without causing blackening, scorching or tattooing of the surrounding skin. but is tattooed to some extent. At a distance of twelve feet the charge of shot spreads widely and enters the body as individual pellets producing separate openings in an area of five to eight inches in diameter depending on the choke, but without causing blackening, scorching or tattooing of the surrounding skin. At a distance of about 50 a patter measuring about 14 inches from a fully choked barrel and about 28 inches from an unchoked barrel are produced and at about 100 feet the spread pattern on the target is about 30 inches from a fully choked barrel and 50 inches from an unchoked one. A rule of thumb in long usage is that the diameter of the spread of the shot pattern on the skin in inches is roughlv equal to the distance from the muzzle in yards. The scattering of shot depends upon the choke of the gun, the charge of the poweder and the distance of the gun from the body, the dispersion of pellets should however be studied with the gun and similar ammunition in question. Country-made hand guns with short barrels give unusually high dispersion-data (Forensic Science Laboratory, Bombay)." (emphasis added) 30. It may be recalled here that according to the prosecution case the shot was fired by Ambika Singh not from a country made gun but by his licensed gun which was seized by the I.O. on the morning following the occurrence. 31. From the point of medical jurisprudence, therefore, it is evident that the two findings cannot co-exist. That being the position I would have ignored the doctors evidence in regard to the wounds having charred margins. But the difficulty is that the I.O. in the inquest report (as well as in his deposition in court) indicated the same finding. In column 5 of the inquest report (Ext.2) it is noted that he found at many spots on the back of the deceased black marks and bleeding wounds and the same black marks at the elbow of the left hand. In his deposition too, the I.O. (PW 15) stated that at many spots on his back there were marks of burning (by gun-shot) and bleeding wounds (Peeth ke kai asthan par jalne ewam khoon bahne ka zakhm tatha bayan haath ke kehuni ke upar peeche se kai asthan par goli se jalne ka chinha paya gaya). 32. In his deposition too, the I.O. (PW 15) stated that at many spots on his back there were marks of burning (by gun-shot) and bleeding wounds (Peeth ke kai asthan par jalne ewam khoon bahne ka zakhm tatha bayan haath ke kehuni ke upar peeche se kai asthan par goli se jalne ka chinha paya gaya). 32. In my view, it is unlikely that both the I.O. and the doctor will commit the same mistake and, therefore, one has to proceed on the basis that both the findings as recorded by the doctor (PW 12) were actually present. When it was pointed out to Mr. Singh that the two findings are mutually exclusive, he was unable to give any satisfactory explanation. Honestly speaking, I too am unable to think of any explanation for both the findings being present together, that is to say, the charge from the shot getting scattered over an area of 12" diameter and yet the punctured wounds caused by the pellets showing signs of charring. But on a careful consideration of the matter, I am totally convinced that this does not in any way affect the credibility of the prosecution case which stands firmly established by the medical evidence, the findings at the P.O. and the ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 33. Mr. Singh then submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish the spot on the roof from where Ambika had fired the gun shot and the exact spot in the lane and/or in front of the appellants house where Meghnath Singh was standing when he was hit by the shot. He embarked upon an elaborate argument referring to and picking out statements from different witnesses. He referred to PW 1, para 17 (line one) at page 19 of the paper-book, PW 15, 17th line from his deposition at page 140. PW 2, para 1 at page 24 and para 4 at page 32, PWs 3, line 11 at page 38, PW 4, para 1, at page 50 and para 7 at page 59 and to other similar statements. 34. He also referred to the statement of PW 12 where he said that while firing the shot, Ambika Singh was bending down from his waist and was holding the gun down-wards. Mr. 34. He also referred to the statement of PW 12 where he said that while firing the shot, Ambika Singh was bending down from his waist and was holding the gun down-wards. Mr. Singh submitted that these distortions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were on account of their anxiety to make the distance between Ambika Singh and the victim Meghnath appear to be very short so as to explain the charring of the wounds. 35. We have listened to the arguments very carefully and we have also examined the statements of witnesses referred to and relied upon by learned counsel but we are unable to see there anything of significance for the defence. When PW 12 said that Ambika Singh was holding the gun down-wards, he simply meant that the gun had a down-ward slant which is quite natural when a person standing on the roof top is aiming at someone on the ground. He never meant, as suggested by the learned counsel that Ambika was holding the gun vertically down-wards. 36. Learned counsel next submitted that the injured witnesses PWs. 3, 5, 6 and 10 were examined by the I.O. for the first time on 18.3.1993, that is, nine days after the occurrence. In this regard, he further submitted that from the injury reports it was clear that they had suffered only simple and trivial injuries and, therefore, there was no reason for them to stay in the hospital for about a week. Learned counsel submitted that those witnesses having been examined by the police so late, had lost all credibility and reliability and hence, the court should not accept their testimony. I am unable to accept the submission. From the evidence of the I.O., it is evident that when he reached the village Medhapur, he found those persons in an injured condition and he sent them to Sadar hospital, Ara with requisitions for their treatment. He then took the statements of witnesses who were available in the village at that time and examined those witnesses only after they were discharged from the hospital. 37. Mr. Singh lastly submitted that though the gun was seized in the morning following the occurrence, it was not sent for any forensic examination etc. to find out whether any shots were fired from it. 37. Mr. Singh lastly submitted that though the gun was seized in the morning following the occurrence, it was not sent for any forensic examination etc. to find out whether any shots were fired from it. It may indeed be a lapse on the part of the I.O. but on that ground the prosecution case cannot be rejected or disbelieved which is otherwise supported by good quality evidence. 38. Thus, on a careful consideration of the entire materials on record and the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, I am satisfied that the trial court arrived at the appellants conviction properly and legally and their conviction and sentence do not merit any interference in appeal before this court. 39. The six appellants in Criminal Appeal no. 408 of 1998 are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender to serve out their remaining sentence. In case they fail to surrender within six weeks from today, the trial court shall take all steps to secure their arrest so as to make them serve out their respective sentences. 40. We find no merit in either of the two appeals which are accordingly dismissed. B.K.Jha, J. 41 I agree.