JUDGMENT S.S. Grewal, J. - By this common judgment, Criminal Appeal No. 481-DB of 1999 Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Criminal Appeal No. 435-DBA of 2000 State of Punjab v. Kuldip Singh and another are being disposed of having arisen out of judgment dated 31.8.1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot. Criminal Appeal No. 481-DB of 1999 has been filed by appellant Rajinder Singh for setting aside the judgment of his conviction and order of sentence for life and fine under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for causing the murder of Harinder Kumar and to undergo RI for a period of three years and fine under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The second appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 435-DBA of 2000 has been filed by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of Kuldip Singh and Rachhpal Singh. 2. On the statement of Madan Lal son of Jangir Chand Aggarwal, complainant, Ex. PD, FIR No. 75 dated 30.11.1995, Ex. PD-2 was recorded at Police Station Mehan. The prosecution version is that the complainant is a resident of village Daudhar Sarki. He was having brick-kilns at Villages Madoo Ke and Ajitwal and the same were joint with accused Rajinder Singh. About one year prior to the occurrence, a family settlement was arrived at and brick kiln of village Maddoke had fallen to the share of the complainant and that of village Ajitwal fell to the share of Rajinder Singh, appellant. A truck bearing registration No. PJB 2155 also fell to his share. Rajinder Singh, appellant was to pay Rs. 1,68,000/- to the complainant. On 30.11.1995, the brick kiln of village Maddoke was with the complainant and on that day, he along with his son Harinder Kumar, Shamsher Singh and Anil Kumar had gone to the above said brick kiln at about 7.30 A.M. so as to make payment to the labourers. When they reached there, they saw that bricks were being loaded in a tractor- trolley. They asked Rajinder Singh, Rachhpal Singh and Kuldip Singh accused as to with whose permission they were loading the bricks. At that time, they were standing on the platform. Rajinder Singh accused was armed with a single barrel gun. Rachhpal Singh accused was having a double barrel gun. Kuldip Singh was armed with a double barrel gun. The loading was being done by 4-5 other persons. At that time, they were standing on the platform. Rajinder Singh accused was armed with a single barrel gun. Rachhpal Singh accused was having a double barrel gun. Kuldip Singh was armed with a double barrel gun. The loading was being done by 4-5 other persons. When the complainant-party prevented the accused from carrying the bricks, then Rachhpal Singh gave a lalkara (alarm) asking Rajinder Singh accused to fire so as to teach them a lesson for preventing them from carrying bricks and for not transferring the brick-kiln of village Ajitwal. Then Rajinder Singh accused fired a shot from his gun towards the complainant party and the same hit his son Harinder Kumar on his left eye and the fire shot came out from near the right ear. On receipt of fire shot injury, Harinder Kumar fell down. They started looking after the injured. Rachhpal Singh and Kuldip Singh fired shots towards them, when they raised alarm of "killed-killed" and the accused while firing ran away. The persons, who were loading the bricks on the tractor-trolley also escaped with their tractor trolley. The complainant, Shamser Singh and Anil Kumar removed Harinder Kumar to the hospital at Moga in a car, but he died on the way near village Takhanwadh. Regarding motive, the complainant gave the cause that Rajinder Singh accused wanted that he should transfer the brick-kiln of Ajitwal in his name and the complainant was demanding Rs. 1,68,000/- and the truck before the transfer of the same in his name and due to that, the occurrence took place. 3. All the accused i.e. appellant Rajinder Singh (in Criminal Appeal No. 481- DB of 1999) and Kuldip Singh and Rachhpal Singh (respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 435-DBA of 2000) were charged under Sections 302, 302/34, 120-B Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1, Dr. Iqbal Singh, PW-2 Madan Lal (complainant), PW-3 Shamsher Singh, PW-4 Anil Kumar, PW-5 ASI Suraj Pal Singh, PW-6 Gursewak Singh, PW-7 Const. Bhinder Singh, PW-8 LC Balwinder Singh, PW-9 ASI Devinder Singh, PW-10 LC Dalbir Singh, PW-11 LC Makhan Singh and PW-12 SI Mal Singh and after tendering certain documents, closed its evidence. 5. Iqbal Singh, PW-2 Madan Lal (complainant), PW-3 Shamsher Singh, PW-4 Anil Kumar, PW-5 ASI Suraj Pal Singh, PW-6 Gursewak Singh, PW-7 Const. Bhinder Singh, PW-8 LC Balwinder Singh, PW-9 ASI Devinder Singh, PW-10 LC Dalbir Singh, PW-11 LC Makhan Singh and PW-12 SI Mal Singh and after tendering certain documents, closed its evidence. 5. The accused were examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code and they pleaded false implication. In their defence, the accused examined DW-1 DSP Manminer Singh, DW-2 Jagjit Singh, DW-3 Jaswant Singh, DW-4 Mohinder Singh, DW-5 Narinderpal Singh SP(H), DW-6 Dr. H.K. Singla, DW-7 AMHC Joginder Singh, DW-8 Head Constable and after tendering certain documents, closed their evidence. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Rajinder Singh has argued that in this case deceased Harinder Kumar had received bullet injury as is apparent from statement of PW-1, Dr. Iqbal Singh, while dealing with injury No. 1. He has referred to book titled "Taylors Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence" edited by A. Keith Mant (Thirteenth Edition) wherein it has been mentioned that the "Firearms fall naturally into two groups : those designed to file a single projectile and those designed to fire shot." The cartridge for a rifled firearm consists of a brass case in which the bullet or projectile is firmly held. Under the head "Wounds from refiled firearms", it has been mentioned as under :- "Wounds from rifled firearms : the wound is circular unless the missile has ricocheted and will be of slightly smaller diameter than the calibre of the gun. The edges will be narrowly abroaded (abrasion collar) due to the inversion and stretching of the skin by the missile as it enters the body. Where a bullet has been greased some grease may be detected in the edges of the wound." 8. In this case, two empty cartridges of 315 bore were recovered from the spot by PW-9 ASI Devinder Singh. Rajinder Singh, accused and Mohinder Singh were also injured but when they went to the hospital at Moga, complainant party was already there and then they went to the hospital at Jagraon. In this case, two empty cartridges of 315 bore were recovered from the spot by PW-9 ASI Devinder Singh. Rajinder Singh, accused and Mohinder Singh were also injured but when they went to the hospital at Moga, complainant party was already there and then they went to the hospital at Jagraon. On QST being received by PW-9, he obtained the MLRs of accused Rajinder Singh and Mohinder Singh from the Police Station and recorded the statement of Mohinder Singh and as per the statement of Rajinder Singh, a rifle of 315 bore of Anil Kumar and 12 bore gun of Madan Lal were used in the occurrence. So, the version that Harinder Kumar had been hit by bullet fired by the rifle of Anil Kumar son of Madan Lal had come at a very early stage. The police should have collected the weapon of Anil Kumar and got it compared with empties recovered from the spot. This was not done. So the police was siding with the complainant-party. 9. In this case, PW-2 Madan Lal is the father of deceased and Shamsher Singh, PW-3 is partner in the brick-kilns and shamsher Singh is also "No. 10" in the police record. So, the witnesses are interested and are of bad character. Madan Lal had made a statement Ex. PD that Rajinder Singh was armed with rifle. Then, he changed his statement in the supplementary statement recorded by the Police. Madan Lal, PW-2 when cross-examined and confronted with this stated that Rajinder Singh was armed with rifle. He admits that he made this statement and later on, he changed the statement that Rajinder Singh was in fact armed with a single barrel gun. The injuries on the person of Rajinder Singh is gun-shot whereas two fingers of Mohinder Singh has been partially amputated and it has not been suggested to the doctor or the other witnesses that these injuries were self-suffered. When the injuries on the accused and any other person present on the spot are not explained by the prosecution and the genesis and the origin of the occurrence is suppressed, the accused are entitled to acquittal. When the injuries on the accused and any other person present on the spot are not explained by the prosecution and the genesis and the origin of the occurrence is suppressed, the accused are entitled to acquittal. In support of this, learned senior counsel referred to the judgment in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2263 and the decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 239-DB of 1996 decided on 1.2.1999, titled Inderbir Singh and another v. State of Punjab. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal filed by Rajinder Singh, accused be allowed and he be acquitted of the charge and the State appeal filed against the respondents- Kuldip Singh and Rachhpal Singh be dismissed. 10. Learned State Counsel on the other hand has argued that the prosecution has examined PW-2 Madan Lal and Shamsher Singh, PW-3, who fully supported the prosecution version and the same is corroborated by the medical evidence. Though the injury seems to be of bullet but bullet injury could be caused by gun also. He further argued that all the accused namely Rajinder Singh, Kuldip Singh and Rachhpal Singh were armed with guns and fired towards the complainant party. So, Kuldip Singh and Rachhpal Singh were not entitled to any acquittal. 11. It is an admitted fact that PW-9 ASI Devinder Singh visited the spot and picked up two empties of 315 bore rifle. He also took 13 empty cartridges from different places. The same were made into separate parcels and sealed vide Memo Ex. PE. SPO Balbir Singh came to the spot and produced before him a QST received from P.S. Saddar Jagraon regarding the admission of Mohinder Singh and Rajinder Singh in the Jagraon hospital. He then collected the MLRs from the Police Station Jagraon and went to the hospital. After making the enquiry from the doctor regarding the fitness of injured to make statement, he recorded the statement of Rajinder Singh and Mohinder Singh. In the cross- examination, he has admitted that as per statement of Mohinder Singh, rifle of 315 bore of Anil Kumar and 12 bore gun of Madan Lal were used in the occurrence but no effort was made to collect the gun of Anil Kumar and send it to Forensic Laboratory for testing. DW-6, Dr. H.K. Singla had found the following injuries on the person of the accused :- Mohinder Singh 1. DW-6, Dr. H.K. Singla had found the following injuries on the person of the accused :- Mohinder Singh 1. Obliquely and partially amputated terminal phalanx of right little finger of right hand. The distal portion of the terminal phalanx of right little finger had been cut through and through. There was raw surface 2.5 cms. x 1.5 cm present. Bleeding from the wound was present. Cut end of the terminal phalanx of right little finger was seen and felt in the wound. 2. Obliquely and partially amputated terminal phalanx right ring finger of right hand the distal portion of the terminal phalanx of right ring finger had been cut through and through. There was raw surface 2.5 cm x 1.75 cms (1.75) present. Bleeding from the wound was present. Cut end of the terminal phalanx of right little finger was seen and felt in the wound. General condition of the injured was satisfactory. Pulse was 78 per minute, BP 120 x 80 mm of HG. 3. Respiratory rate was 18 per minute. Pupils were equal and reacting. No vomitting was present. Rajinder Singh 1. Irregular/lacerated wound 15 cms x 7 cms muscle deep on back of right lower leg in calf region about 9 cms from the popilteal fossa and going downwards and medially from the upper outer end. There was tatooing of skin 1.75 cms x 1.5 cms on upper and outer part of upper end of wound and on sides of upper end of the wound. The heirs were partially burnt in this area. The upper and outer end of the wound for 3 cms was bruised and blackened and the margins of the wound in this area were inverted. The margins of the wound turned inwards at this point that is 3 cms from upper and outer end. The muscle for about 1.5 cms depth was lacertated. Subscutaneous tissues and muscles were blackened in upper and outer part of this wound. Bleeding was present from the wound. There were three holes in the right leg of the pyjama and the pyjama was also blood-stained. There was blackening around two smaller holes in the pyjama. X-ray of the right lower leg was advised. Movements of the right lower leg were impaired and painful. Injury was kept under observations and weapon was also kept under observation. The probable duration of the injury was within 6 hours." 12. There was blackening around two smaller holes in the pyjama. X-ray of the right lower leg was advised. Movements of the right lower leg were impaired and painful. Injury was kept under observations and weapon was also kept under observation. The probable duration of the injury was within 6 hours." 12. No suggestion was put to him that these were self-suffered. Counsel for the State admitted that injury on the person of Harinder Kumar deceased is of a single bullet but that could be fired from 12 bore gun also and there is no evidence on the file that such a cartridge was used or available now in the market, whereas clear different version has been put by Rajinder Singh accused and Mohinder Singh, DW that when Rajinder Singh and Harinder Kumar were grappling, Anil Kumar fired shot towards Rajinder Singh, which unluckily hit Harinder Kumar. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh and others (supra) has observed as under :- "In murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences : (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses, who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one." 14. This has been followed by this Court in the case of Inderbir Singh (supra). Injuries on the person of accused Rajinder Singh and Mohinder Singh have not been explained. Thus, it is apparent that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus, not presented the true version. Thus, the accused are entitled to be acquitted. 15. Injuries on the person of accused Rajinder Singh and Mohinder Singh have not been explained. Thus, it is apparent that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus, not presented the true version. Thus, the accused are entitled to be acquitted. 15. Injury on the person of Harinder Kumar deceased is a single bullet injury, which could be caused by rifle only. None of the appellant/accused was armed with rifle according to eye witnesses PW-2 Madan Lal and PW-3 Samsher Singh. Appellant Rajinder Singh was armed with single barrel gun while acquitted accused Kuldip Singh and Richpal Singh were armed with double barrel guns. This casts doubt and contradiction on the prosecution evidence/version. Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and entitled to acquittal on this score also. 16. As a result, Criminal Appeal No. 481-DB of 1991 filed by the accused Rajinder Singh is allowed. He is accordingly acquitted of the charge. Further Criminal Appeal No. 435-DBA of 2000 filed by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of Kuldip Singh and Rachhpal Singh is dismissed. Appeal allowed.