JUDGMENT : Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. Appellant-Suresh Chand (hereinafter referred to as the accused) faced trial in Sessions trial No. 8 of 2001 for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the Indian Penal Code'). The learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur found the accused to be guilty for the murder of Kuldip Singh alias Kuldip Kumar and convicted him. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial may briefly be stated thus :- 3. PW-1 Shashi Kant is running a P.C.O. in Berthin within Police Station Sadar. On 15.11.2000 around 9.30 a.m. Kuldip Singh alias Kuldip Kumar resident of Jhambrariyan asked PW-1 to give him company to the house of PW-7 Neelam Kumari, daughter of Amar Nath, resident of village Gandhir. Kuldip Singh was in love affairs with PW-7 but her marriage was settled with the accused by her family members. PW-1 and Kuldip Singh firstly went to the house of one Parkash Chand resident of village Sengashwin who was not present in the house. Kuldip Singh asked the wife of Parkash Chand whether he should go to the house of PW-7 as he was invited by the accused there. The wife of Parkash Chand advised Kuldip Singh that he should visit the house of PW-7 in the presence of the accused who is a good person. Kuldip Singh and PW-1 went to the house of PW-7 in a Maruti Car. When they reached at the house of PW-7, they found PW-7 along with her grand father PW-2 Anant Ram and accused present in the compound of the house of Amar Nath father of PW-7. On seeing PW-1 and Kuldip Singh, PW-7 went inside the house. Kuldip Singh touched the feet of PW-2 and shook hands with the accused. In the meantime grand-mother PW-8 Smt. Urmila Dhiman mother, 'Massi' (mother's sister) and Aunt of PW-7, also came there. When Kuldip Singh wanted to touch the feet of grand mother of PW-7, she did not allow him to do so and asked him as to why he had come at their house. Kuldip Singh replied that he was invited by the accused. When Kuldip Singh wanted to touch the feet of grand mother of PW-7, she did not allow him to do so and asked him as to why he had come at their house. Kuldip Singh replied that he was invited by the accused. He also told her that PW-7 had sent a letter to him to finalise her marriage with him otherwise she would kill herself by taking poison. Accused also told the grand mother of PW-7 that he had invited Kuldip Singh there. PW-7 was engaged to the accused. Kuldip Singh wanted to many her. The accused told Kuldip Singh that they should inquire from PW-7 as to she wanted to marry the accused of Kuldip Singh. The accused and Kuldip Singh exchanged hot words with each other. The accused went inside the house of the father of PW-7 and came out armed with a gun. PW-7 however remained inside the house. 4. Further case of the prosecution was that when the accused was armed with the gun, Kuldip Singh told him that the latter had visited the house of PW-7 at the request of the accused to ascertain the willingness of PW-7 regarding her marriage with either of the two and there was no occasion for the accused to take out the gun and if that was the attitude of the accused, then in future he would talk about the marriage of PW-7. Massi of PW-7 asked Kuldip Singh to finalise the talk regarding her marriage. The accused in the meantime fired a gun shot at the Kuldip Singh from a close range as a result thereof the pallets of the gun struck against his chest. Kuldip Singh fell down and died at the spot. The accused took out second cartridge from his pocket and loaded it in the gun. Apprehending danger to his life, PW-1 asked the accused not to fire gun shot at him. The accused asked PW-1 to leave the scene of occurrence. PW-1 accordingly fled from there. He took lift in a truck up to Berthin. 5. PW-1 again visited the scene of the occurrence after the arrival of the Police. He made stater at Ext. PA to PW-12 ASI Nidhi Singh which was sent through Constable Joginder Singh to Police Station for registration of the case. PW-1 accordingly fled from there. He took lift in a truck up to Berthin. 5. PW-1 again visited the scene of the occurrence after the arrival of the Police. He made stater at Ext. PA to PW-12 ASI Nidhi Singh which was sent through Constable Joginder Singh to Police Station for registration of the case. On the basis of Ext.PA First Information Report Ext.PT came to be registered by PW-10 Head Constable Vijay Pal at 6 P.M. in Police Station, Talai. PW-12 ASI Nidhi Singh conducted the investigation of the case at the spot. He took photographs of the dead body Exts. P-16 to P-22 and prepared seizure memo Ext.PE of the dead body of Kuldip Singh alias Kuldip Kumar. He held inquest reports PJ and PH. PW-13 Anjani Kumar Station House Officer also reached at the spot and took over further investigation from PW-12. On search of the house of PW-2, gun Ext. P-6 was recovered by PW-13 which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PF. Site plan Ext.PB was prepared. He recovered one used cartridge from the pocket of the, shirt of the accused which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PK. The dead body of the deceased Kuldip Kumar was sent to Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur for post mortem. On 19.11.2000 PW-8 Smt. Urmila Dhiman mother of PW-7 had produced two live cartridges Exts. P-79 and P-80 which were taken into possession by PW-12 vide seizure memo Ext. PM. Amar Nath father of PW-7 produced his gun license Ext. P-81 which was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PU. Statements of the witnesses were recorded by PWs. 12 and 13. Sealed parcels of the recovered articles were deposited in the Police Station which were taken to F.S.L. Junga by PW11 L.H.C. Joginder Singh. On receipt of the post mortem report Ext.PN from PW-9 Dr. NX Sankhayan, Senior Medical Officer, Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur, Chemical Examiners reports Exts. PP and PY, PW-13 laid charge sheet against the accused before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin. The report of the ballistic expert Ext. PZ was filed by PW13 with the supplementary challan. 6. The trial of case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 7. In order to bring home the accusations, sixteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 8. PZ was filed by PW13 with the supplementary challan. 6. The trial of case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 7. In order to bring home the accusations, sixteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 8. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code pleaded false implication and claimed to be innocent. However, in defence, the accused led no oral evidence except tendering a copy of F.I.R. Ext.DA. 9. The trial Court found the evidence of PW-1 Shashi Kant the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW-3 Sardar Inder Singh, PW-4 Sukh Dev recovery witness, PW-9 Dr. N.K. Sankhayan, PW-10 Head Constable Vijay Pal, PW-12 Nidhi Singh and PW-13 Anjani Kumar, S.H.O. corroborated by post mortem report Ext. PN, Chemical Examiner reports Exts.PP and PY and report of the ballistic expert Ext. PZ cogent and reliable. Placing reliance on the evidence, the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 27.5.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence upon him, the accused has preferred this appeal. 10. We have heard Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned Counsel for the accused and Mr. Som Dutt Vasudeva, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State. Mr. Anup Chitkarar has challenged the judgment of conviction on the following grounds :- 1. That the presence of PW-1 Shashi Kant at the spot of the alleged incident is doubtful, therefore, no reliance should be placed on his evidence. 2. The report Ex.PS allegedly recorded at the instance of the accused is neither proved nor is admissible in evidence and no reliance can be placed upon such evidence. 3. Recovery of empty cartridge Ext. P-15, allegedly recovered from the pocket of the shirt of the accused is not proved and, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon such evidence. 11. In response, learned Additional Advocate General for the State supported the judgment of the learned trial Court and further submitted that in view of the analysis of the evidence made by the learned trial Court and the nature of the injuries proved to have been inflicted on the person of the deceased, no interference is called for by this Court in the judgment of the learned trial Court. 12. 12. In order to consider the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, we will briefly refer to the evidence on record. Ground No. 1 13. Mr. Anup Chitkara contended that the presence of PWA Shashi Kant at the spot of the incident is full of doubtful; therefore, no reliance should be placed on his evidence. He contended that there is no corroboration to the testimony of PW-1 to prove that he was accompanying the deceased to the house of PW-2 after visiting the house of Parkash Chand as the wife of Parkash Chand being a material witness was to examined by the prosecution to lend corroboration to his testimony. PWA was the friend of the deceased. He deposed that on the day of incident Kuldip Singh alias Kuldip Kumar (deceased) came to his P.C.O. at 9.30 a.m. and asked to accompany the deceased to the house of Parkash Chand. He obliged the deceased. When they reached at the house of Parkash Chand, he was not present there. The wife of Parkash Chand was alone in the house. Kuldip Kumar had a talk With the wife of Parkash Chand about the marriage of PW-7 Neelam Kumari. She told Kuldip Kumar in his presence that accused Suresh Kumar on that day was in the house of PW-7. Kuldip Kumar asked her, if he should go to the house of PW-7 because he had also been invited by the accused there. She told him that as the accused Suresh Kumar is a good man and he too should go to the house of PW-7. They went to the house of PW-7 in a Maruti Car. He stated that when they reached at the house of PW-7, she along with her grand father PW-2 and the accused was present in the compound of the house and seeing them; PW-7 went inside the house. Kuldip Kumar had touched the feet of PW-2 and shook hands with the accused. They sat in the compound of the house of PW-7. The Grand-Mother, Mother, Massi and Aunt of PW-7 also came there. Kuldip Kumar wanted to touch the feet of Grand-Mother of PW-7, but she did not allow him to do so and inquired from him as to why he had come there. Kuldip Kumar replied that he was invited by the accused. The Grand-Mother, Mother, Massi and Aunt of PW-7 also came there. Kuldip Kumar wanted to touch the feet of Grand-Mother of PW-7, but she did not allow him to do so and inquired from him as to why he had come there. Kuldip Kumar replied that he was invited by the accused. He also told that PW-7 had sent a letter requesting him to take her with him otherwise she would kill herself by taking poison. Kuldip Kumar and PW-7 were having love affairs with each other and he wanted to marry her but she was engaged with the accused by her family members. The accused and Kuldip Kumar talked to each other. The accused told that PW-7 herself should be asked to come in the compound and she should tell them as to whom she wanted to marry out of the two. The accused went inside the house of the father of PW-7 and came out armed with a gun. PW-7 did not come out of the house. Kuldip Kumar asked the accused the purpose of the gun as he had come there at the instance of the accused. He also stated that Massi of PW-7 asked Kuldip Kumar to finalise the matter regarding the marriage of PW-7. The accused suddenly fired a gun shot at the chest of. Kuldip Kumar who fell down dead. The accused took up second cartridge from his pocket and loaded it in the gun. The witness stated that apprehending danger to his life, he asked the accused not to fire gun shot at him and the accused directed him to run away from the scene of occurrence and according when he came to know that the police had reached there. His statement Ext.PA under Section 154 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded by the Investigating Officer. This witness in the cross-examination has admitted the suggestion that when the gun shot was fired at Kuldip Kumar by the accused, his face was to towards the accused and it was towards the grand-mother of PW-7 and he faced the accused when gun shot was fired by him at the person of the deceased. Further suggestion of the defence that he was deposed falsely against the accused as the deceased was his friend was categorically denied by him. Further suggestion of the defence that he was deposed falsely against the accused as the deceased was his friend was categorically denied by him. In reply to a question by the defence, he stated that on 15.11.2000 (the day of occurrence), when he accompanied the deceased, he had asked Ahswani Sharma, owner of music corner adjoining to his P.C.O. to look after his P.C.O. He stated that he had disclosed to the police at the time of recording of his statement Ext.PA that he was asked by the deceased to accompany him to the house of Parkash Chand but the police had not recorded the said fact in the statement. A suggestion of the defence that he did not accompany the deceased on the day of the occurrence to the house of PW-7 is emphatically denied by him. He stated in the cross examination that on return to attend his P.C.O. he narrated the entire incident to his room mate Ashwani Kumar. He did not inform the police about the incident because he was perturbed and terrified after the murder of his friend Kuldip Kumar. He was told by his friend that the police had reached at the scene of occurrence and thereafter he went again to the house of PW-7 and made statement Ext.PA to the Police. He denied the suggestion of the defence that he made statement Ext.PA at the instance of the Police. He has shown his ignorance about lodging of F.I.R. No. 62/99 by one Sunil Kumar against him at Police Station, Talai under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code Further suggestion of the defence that he along with the deceased used to do the business of resin extraction in the forest ad joining to the place of occurrence and they had employed two persons for extraction of resin and there was some dispute between Kuldip Kumar on one hand and those two employees on the other hand, is emphatically denied by him. He further denied the suggestion that on the day of occurrence there was a quarrel between Kuldip Kumar and those two employees regarding outstanding payment. He further denied the suggestion that on the day of occurrence there was a quarrel between Kuldip Kumar and those two employees regarding outstanding payment. The suggestion of the defence that on 15.11.2000 he along with Kuldip Kumar went to the jungle in search of those two employees and those two persons had fired gun shot at Kuldip Kumar and killed him, too is emphatically denied by him. He also stated that after the accused had fired the gun shot killing the deceased, he had put another cartridge in the gun and aimed the gun at him. But that part of the statement was not recorded by the Police in Ex.PA. The gun shot was fired by the accused at the deceased from the direction of the verandah of the house of PW-7. The testimony of this witness in spite of length cross-examination by the defence has no been shattered, discredited and impeached. His evidence is consistent, cogent and reliable to prove that on the day of occurrence he had gone to the house of PW-7 along with the deceased where the accused was present. The deceased was shot-dead with the gun shot in the compound of the house of PW-2 grand father of PW-7. The presence of the deceased and the accused in the house of PW-7 has been proved by PW-2, PW-3, PW-7 and PW-8 who have turned hostile to the prosecution. 14. It is the evidence of PW-2 that on the day of occurrence at about 11.15 a.m. he heard sound of gun shot coming from the side of the compound of his house. When he came to the compound, he saw one person lying dead. He called Udham Singh and Inder Singh from the neighbouring houses. He stated that he saw one person running towards the main road. The accused was sitting on the slab of their house along with his grand daughter PW-7 and daughter-in-law PW-8 when the deceased was lying dead on the compound of the house. He admitted the suggestion of the learned Public Prosecutor that the name of his eldest son is Amar Nath who is employed in the Army and PW-7 is one of his daughters of Amar Nath who at the time of the incident was studying in B.A. final in Government College, Kallari at Ghumarwin. He admitted the suggestion of the learned Public Prosecutor that the name of his eldest son is Amar Nath who is employed in the Army and PW-7 is one of his daughters of Amar Nath who at the time of the incident was studying in B.A. final in Government College, Kallari at Ghumarwin. He admitted that the accused is employed in I.T.B.P. and he is the friend of Mohinder Singh his neighbourer. Mohinder Singh is also employed in I.T.B.P. The accused stayed in his house to attend the marriage of Mohinder Singh which was solemnized between 11.11.2000 to 14.11.2000. He has admitted the suggestion of the learned Public Prosecutor that he had gone to village Balh after the incident to give telephonic information to the police at Police Station, Talai but his call could not mature. He admitted that one Kuldip Kumar resident of village Gandhir had informed the police regarding the incident of murder of Kuldip Kumar. The evidence of this witness proves that the deceased was killed by gun shot at the compound of his house where the accused was present and one person after seeing the dead body of Kuldip Kumar had run away towards the road side. The presence of the accused and the deceased in the compound of the house of witness has been established by him. 15. PW-3 Sardar lnder Singh is the uncle of Mohinder Singh whose marriage was celebrated on 13.11.2000 in village Gandhir. He stated that on 15.11.2000 Guru Granth Sahib Path was held in his house and at about 10/11.00 a.m. Kuldip Kumar deceased came in a Car and stopped his vehicle in front of the house of his brother Udham Singh. The house of Udham Singh is ad-joining to the house of PW-2 the grand-father of PW-7. Kuldip Kumar and one more person got down from the car and they both went towards the house of PW-2. When they were busy in the Bhog of Path, PW-2 called him and his brother Udham Singh to his house as those persons who had come in the car were quarreling with his family members. He heard the sound of the gun shot from the side of the house of PW- 2. He along with his brother Udham Singh immediately rushed to the house of PW-2 and on reaching there they saw one person lying dead with blood injury on his chest. He heard the sound of the gun shot from the side of the house of PW- 2. He along with his brother Udham Singh immediately rushed to the house of PW-2 and on reaching there they saw one person lying dead with blood injury on his chest. On inquiry, they came to know that his name was Kuldip Kumar. He turned hostile to the prosecution and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. He admitted in the cross-examination that the accused was present in the Dera of Barat in his village who had exchanged hot arguments with Kuldip Kumar deceased. He admitted that PW-7 was engaged with the accused. He admitted the suggestion that the father of PW-7 is employed as Subedar in Indian Army. 16. PW-4 Sukh Dev at the relevant time was the president of Gram Panchayat, Gandhir. In his presence the Investigating Officer seized gun Ext. P-6 from the house of PW-2 belonging to the father of PW-7. Pithu bag Ext. P- 7, Hand bag Ext. P-8, T-Shirt Ext.P-9, Identity Card Ext. P-10 and Currency Notes of Rs. 1855/- taken from the possession of the accused in his presence were identified by the witness in the Court. Used cartridge Ext. P-15 recovered from the possession of the accused was also identified by him. 17. PW-5 Ganga Singh is the father of deceased Kuldip Singh alias Kuldip Kumar. He was working as Deputy Ranger in H.P. Forest Department during the relevant time. On 15.11.2000 he was on leave. It is the evidence of this witness that at about 12.30 noon or 1 p.m. one Suresh Kumar a resident of adjoining village, Gochar came to his village Jhambrariyan and told that some quarrel had taken place with his son Kuldip Kumar whose correct name was Kuldip Kumar and not Kuldip Singh. After some time said Suresh Kumar told the village people of his village that his son Kuldip Kumar had been shot dead by Suresh Chand (accused) at village Gandhir at the house of PW-2. On receiving the said information, he along with Ashok Kumar and Om Parkash etc. went to the house of PW-2 in a Jeep. On reaching there at about 4.30 p.m. they fecund the dead body of his son lying on the compound of the house of PW-2 with bullet injury. On receiving the said information, he along with Ashok Kumar and Om Parkash etc. went to the house of PW-2 in a Jeep. On reaching there at about 4.30 p.m. they fecund the dead body of his son lying on the compound of the house of PW-2 with bullet injury. He made inquiry from PW-2 and his wife Smt. Rupan Devi about the dead of his son who told him that Suresh Kumar accused who had come from Hamirpur had shot dead his son. Some more persons who were present on the scene of the occurrence and Smt. Urmila Devi PW-8 wife of Amar Nath also told him that Suresh Kumar accused had killed his son with a gun shot. The police prepared inquest reports Ext.PH and PJ in his presence. He deposed that his son Kuldip Kumar used to go to the house of PW-2 because he wanted to marry PW-7 and on the day of occurrence as well he had gone there. The deceased prior to his death had told him that on comparison of his horoscope with the horoscope of PW-7 Neelam Kumari, they did not tally with each other. A suggestion of the defence that he was not told by PW-2 and other members of his family and also by the villagers that his son was shot dead by the accused, was denied by him. 18. PW-7 Neelam Kumari deposed that she was engaged to the accused on 21.7.2000 and her marriage was fixed for 17.2.2001 but the same could not be solemnized due to the pendency of the present case. She stated that on 11.11.2000 the accused had come to her village in connection with the marriage of Mohinder Singh and he stayed there from 11.11.2000 to 15.11.2000. On 15.11.2000 at about 11.00 a.m. when she was sitting with her mother PW-8 and accused on the slab of their old house, they heard sound of gun shot. They saw one person running towards their fields who could not be identified. They came to the compound of the house and found dead body of one person lying there with gun shot injury. The accused told them that he would go to the Police Station to lodge a report regarding the dead body. She stated that she did not know the name of the dead person. They came to the compound of the house and found dead body of one person lying there with gun shot injury. The accused told them that he would go to the Police Station to lodge a report regarding the dead body. She stated that she did not know the name of the dead person. In cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor she admitted that in the month of November, 2000 she was a student in Kallari college. Her engagement was settled with the accused with the mediation of Mohinder Singh whose marriage was solemnized on 11.11.2000 in their village. She admitted her friendship with PW-15 Anjana Kumari v/ho washer class fellow in Kallari college. She denied writing of letters Exts. P-30 to P-63 to the deceased before his death. 19. PW-8 Smt. Urmila Dhiman is the mother of PW-7. She deposed that the marriage of PW-7 was settled with the accused about two years prior to recording of statement in the Court on 4.5.2001. On 15.11.2000 at about 11.15 a.m. she was sitting with PW-7 and the accused in the room of the upper storey of their house when they heard noise of some gun shot. They saw one man running away in the fields. One dead body was lying on the compound of the house. She admitted the suggestion of the learned Public Prosecutor that Devrani (husband's brother's wife) is the sister-in-law of Deinesh the elder brother of the deceased. She has shown her ignorance about writing of love letters Exs. P-30 to P-63 by her daughter PW-7 to the deceased before his death. She admitted the suggestion of the learned Public Prosecutor that her father-in-law PW-2 had made a noise that one person had been killed. She stated that two live cartridges were handed over to the Police during the investigation of the case by her husband and not by her. In cross-examination of the defence, she admitted a suggestion that on the day of incident, many people gathered in the compound of their house and disclosed that the deceased was the son of PW-5 Ganga Ram. 20. PW-9 Dr. N.K. Sankhyan at the relevant time was posted as Senior Medical Officer in Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 7.11.2000 at 8.30 a.m. and found the following ante mortem injuries. "1. 20. PW-9 Dr. N.K. Sankhyan at the relevant time was posted as Senior Medical Officer in Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 7.11.2000 at 8.30 a.m. and found the following ante mortem injuries. "1. There was reddish coloured contusion in area of 4.5 cm. x 3.5 cm. as shown in the diagram in the postmortem report, 5 cm. lateral to left nipple, in between left anterior axillary line and left mid axillary line. 2. There was oval shaped perforated wound on front of chest 5.5 cm. from right nipple and 8.5 cm. from left nipple, shallow on its right side and deep on its left side, perforating skin, subcutaneous tissue, inter costal muscles, thoracic muscles, cartilages, portion of ribs and sternum, pleurae, pericardium, heart, lung left side and inner and middle portion of thoracic wall on left side with fracture 6th rib left side with contusion in area of 8 cm.x6.5 cm. The shape and dimension shown in the diagram in the postmortem report the adjoining area of fractured rib in between anterior axillary line and mid axillary line- The major portion of the heart was missing (absent) only a small portion of heart was present, that is, posterior walls of Atrium and ventricles. The opening portion of superior and inferior cavity and other large vessels were absent. There was perforation in the middle portion medial side of left lung and the lung was collapsed. The left throacic cavity was having about 350 ml. of blood fluid. The said oval shaped perforation was 6.5 cm x 4.5 cm. as shown in the diagram in the postmortem report and directing from right to left side almost horizontally placed. The adjoining area of said perforation was soiled with blood. After dissecting the skin and subcutaneous tissue, the said perforation over the thoracic case was 7 cm. x 4.5 cm. as shown in the diagram in the postmortem report. There were few foreign particles were detected over front and lateral surface (left side) of chest and same were sealed. Three pellets from heart muscles, six pellets from left lung tissue, eight pellets from the contused area of left side thoracic wall and eight pellets from blood fluid in left thoracic cavity were detected, that is, total 25 pellets were detected from the body of the deceased and same, were sealed. Three pellets from heart muscles, six pellets from left lung tissue, eight pellets from the contused area of left side thoracic wall and eight pellets from blood fluid in left thoracic cavity were detected, that is, total 25 pellets were detected from the body of the deceased and same, were sealed. Right lung was normal. Red coloured plastic wad was detected from the contused area of inner and middle portion of left thoracic wall of shape as shown in diagram in the postmortem report and the same was sealed with other foreign articles detected." 21. Dr. N.K. Sankhyan opined that the deceased Kuldip Singh died due to hypovolumic shock and injuries to vital organs i.e. heart, large vessels and left lung from gun-shot wound from a distance of about one meter to three meters from muzzle end of the gun. The gun shot wound was directed from right to left side. The probable 'time that elapsed in between injuries and death was instantaneous to few minutes. After conducting the post mortem examination, he handed over the reconstituted dead body, police inquest papers, post mortem report Ext.PN, belongings of the deceased, viscera, pellets and forming particles etc. to the Police for analysis by the Chemical Examiner. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner Ext.PP, Dr. Sankhayan maintained his earlier opinion for the cause of death of deceased Kuldip Singh. He deposed that the deceased died due to injury No. 2 which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death with gun shot injury. He stated that injury No. 2 could have been caused by shot fired from gun Ext. P-6 which was shown to him in the Court. In cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion of the defence that there was only one gun short injury on the front portion of the chest of the deceased. He denied the suggestion of the defence that the gun short injury found on the dead body of the deceased could have been caused by way of suicidal act. 22. PW-10 Heard Constable Vijay Pal was posted in Police Station, Talai when he received telephonic information at about 2 p.m. on 15.11.2000 from Kuldip Singh resident of village Gandhir that a murder had been committed in the compound of the house of Anant Ram of village Gandhir. He recorded the information in rapat Rojnamcha Ext. PR. 22. PW-10 Heard Constable Vijay Pal was posted in Police Station, Talai when he received telephonic information at about 2 p.m. on 15.11.2000 from Kuldip Singh resident of village Gandhir that a murder had been committed in the compound of the house of Anant Ram of village Gandhir. He recorded the information in rapat Rojnamcha Ext. PR. He stated that on the same day Suresh Kumar accused came to the Police Station and lodged a report that he had shot dead Kuldip Singh in village Gandhir. The said information was recorded by him in rapat rojnamcha Ext.PS. At about 6 p.m. he recorded the formal First Information Report Ext.PT on the basis of rukka Ext.PA. On 22.11.2000 he handed over eleven sealed parcels to Constable Joginder Singh vide R.C. No. 105/2000 to be delivered in F.S.L. Lunga. He stated that the sealed parcels remained in his custody in the Malkhana. In cross-examination of the defence, he stated that the accused came to the Police Station on 15.11.2000 at about 4 p.m. and not at 2 p.m. as suggested to him. The police had already left for the scene of incident before the arrival of the accused at the Police Station. 23. PW-11 Joginder Singh handed over the sealed parcels in the F.S.L. Junga. PW-12 Nidhi Singh on 15.11.2000 was conducting investigation of case F.I.R. No. 152 at Berthen when he received information that murder had taken place in village Gandhir. He immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and on reaching there; he recorded state merit of PW-1 Ext. PA under Section 154 Criminal Procedure Code which was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case. Photographs of dead body Exts. P-16 to P-22 were taken on the spot. Inquest reports Exts. PJ and PH were held and blood which was present on the spot was taken into possession. The investigation was thereafter taken over by PW-13 Anjani Kumar, S.H.O. who also reached at the scene of the occurrence. PW-12 took into possession two live cartridges Ext. P-79 to Ext. P-80 handed over to him by PW-8 Smt. Urmila Devi on 19.11.2000. Gun license Ext. P-81 belonging to Amar Nath father of PW-7 was taken into possession. He recorded the statements of some of the witnesses. He denied the suggestion of the defence that the statements of PWs. 1, 7 and 8 were not recorded by him correctly. P-80 handed over to him by PW-8 Smt. Urmila Devi on 19.11.2000. Gun license Ext. P-81 belonging to Amar Nath father of PW-7 was taken into possession. He recorded the statements of some of the witnesses. He denied the suggestion of the defence that the statements of PWs. 1, 7 and 8 were not recorded by him correctly. 24. PW-13 Anjani Kumar S.H.O. recovered SBBL gun Ext. P-6 from inside the house of PW-2 which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PF. Articles Exts. P-7 to P-14 belonging to the accused were also taken into possession. He prepared site plan Ext.PB and recorded the statements of some of the witnesses. He recovered one used cartridge from the pocket of the shirt of the accused. He denied the suggestion of the accused that during the investigation of the case, it came to his knowledge that before the gun shot was fired two persons had some to the scene of occurrence. Further suggestion that used cartridge was not recovered from the pocket of the shirt of the accused and a false case has been made against him has been specifically denied by him. 25. PW-15 Ajnana Kumari was studying with PW-7 in B.A. Part-1 in Govt. Degree College, Ghumarwin in the year 1988. She stated that deceased Kuldip Kumar belonged to her village and he was her god brother. PW-7 Neelam Kumari had love affairs with Kuldip Kumar in the year 1998. This witness stated that PW-7 used to hand over love letters to her to be delivered to Kuldip Kumar. She admitted that letters Exts. P-30 to P-63 were written by PW-7 to the deceased as she is acquainted with her hand writing. She denied the suggestion of the defence that she has deposed falsely against the accused under the presser (?) of the police as also at the instance of the parents of the deceased. PW-16 Mohinder Singh, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla examined the letters Exts. P-30 to P-63. He stated that after careful and thorough examination of the original documents i.e. letters Exts. P-30 to P-63, he came to the conclusion that the writing in red enclosed portions stamped and marked Q-1 to Q-65 and S-1 to S-10 have all been written by one and the same person. P-30 to P-63. He stated that after careful and thorough examination of the original documents i.e. letters Exts. P-30 to P-63, he came to the conclusion that the writing in red enclosed portions stamped and marked Q-1 to Q-65 and S-1 to S-10 have all been written by one and the same person. The hand writing of the letters on comparison was tallied with the specimen hand writing of PW-7 taken by the Court for comparison. 26. It is not in dispute that deceased Kuldip Kumar had died due to gun short injury and his dead body was laid in the compound of the house PW-2 on the day of incident. Gun Ext. P-6 used for killing the deceased belongs to Amar Nath son of PW-2 Anant Ram. Empty cartridge of the gun was recovered from the pocket of the accused by the Investigating Officer on the day of the incident. The evidence of PW-1 the eye-witness of the occurrence noticed above is cogent, reliable and inspiring confidence to prove that it was the accused and non-else who brought gun Ext. P-6 from inside the house of PW-2 and fired a gun shot at the chest of the deceased who instantaneously died at the spot. The medical evidence corroborates the death of the deceased with gun short injury. The contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that the presence of PW-1 at the scene of the occurrence was doubtful cannot be accepted. Non-examination of the wife of Parkash Chand was not material doubting the testimony of PW1. The scene of the occurrence was the compound of the house of PW-2 where PW-1 accompanied by the deceased had gone on the day of the occurrence. PW-3 Sardar Inder Singh, a hostile witness has admitted in the cross-examination of learned Public Prosecutor that on the day of the occurrence the accused and the deceased had exchanged hot arguments at the Dera of the Barat of his nephew. He deposed that on 15.11.2000 at about 10 or 11 a.m. when Kuldip Kumar (deceased) stopped his car in front of the house of his brother Udham Singh, he was accompanied by one more person and they both went towards the house of PW-2. He deposed that on 15.11.2000 at about 10 or 11 a.m. when Kuldip Kumar (deceased) stopped his car in front of the house of his brother Udham Singh, he was accompanied by one more person and they both went towards the house of PW-2. In cross-examination of the defence, PW-1 said : "it is correct that when the gun shot was fired, my face was not towards the accused and it was towards the grand mother of Neelam. It is correct that I saw towards accused Suresh Kumar when gun shot was fired at Kuldip Singh." This portion of the statement made at the suggestion of the defence corroborates the testimony of PW-1 that he was at the scene of the occurrence accompanying the deceased when the accused fired a gun shot resulting the death of Kuldip Kumar. The contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that the conduct of PW-1 in not immediately lodging the report of the incident to the Police being a fried of the deceased would prove that this witness was not present at the scene of the occurrence, does not merit acceptance. There is no set rule that one must react in a particular way. The natural reaction of man is unpredictable. Everyone reacts in his own way. Such natural human behaviour is difficult to be proved by credible evidence. It has to be appreciated in the context of the given facts and circumstances of each case. It is the positive and cogent evidence of PW-1 that after firing gun shot at the chest of the deceased who died instantenously on the spot, the accused took out another cartridge from his pocket, put the same is the gun and aimed the gun at him. Apprehending danger to his life, he asked the accused not to fire gun short at him who ordered that he (PW-1) should run away from the scene of occurrence and he accordingly sped away. There is absolutely no reason why PW-1 would give a false statement against the accused. The testimony of PW-1 is fairly reliable on the factum of the incident and the same cannot be discarded merely being a friend of the deceased. There is absolutely no reason why PW-1 would give a false statement against the accused. The testimony of PW-1 is fairly reliable on the factum of the incident and the same cannot be discarded merely being a friend of the deceased. It is well settled that the evidence of the witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is neither partisan or interested or both, if otherwise the same is found to be reliable and credible. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of Delhi, 2002 (4) Supreme Court Cases 76, State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh and others, 2002 (3) Supreme Court Cases 234, Rajinder v. State of Haryana, 2004 AIR SCW 5029, Israr v. State of H.P., 2004 AIR SCW 6916 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram, 2004 (8) Supreme Court Cases 660. In the present case, the evidence of PW-1 the eye-witness stands corroborated-by the medical evidence, report of the ballistic expert Ext.PZ and the evidence of the Investigation Officer, prompt lodging of the First Information Report and dispatching the same to the Magistrate has further strengthened the belief that there was no possibility that wrong person being impleaded as accused or the person who has not seen the occurrence is produced as an eye-witness. The learned trial Court has examined the testimony of PW-1 carefully and we find ourselves able to agree with the view taken by him. Ground No. 2 27. The learned Counsel contended that daily diary report Ext.PS allegedly made by the accused to the Police is not admissible piece of evidence against him, as such, no reliable can be placed upon such document. The accused in answer to question No. 47 of the statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code has admitted that he had gone to Police Station, Talai on 15.11.2000 at about 2 p.m. and not at 4 p.m. as recorded in Ext. PS. He told the Police that one dead body of unknown person was lying in village and he did not now the name of the village and the police should record the rapat. PS. He told the Police that one dead body of unknown person was lying in village and he did not now the name of the village and the police should record the rapat. The police inquired from him as to why he had gone to the village of PW-2 when he replied that he had gone there in connection with the marriage of his friend and thereafter the police did not allow him to go back and he was kept him in the Police Station. This document has been proved on record by PW-10 Vijay Pal, who, as noticed above, denied the suggestion of the defence that the accused came to the Police Station on 15.11.2000 at 2 p.m. and not at 4 p.m. This document is admissible to the extent that the accused had gone to the Police Station on the day of occurrence after seeing the dead body of the deceased in the compound of the house of PW-2. Daily diary report No. 30 Ext.PR was recorded by Constable Subhash Chand on telephonic information received by him from Kuldip Kumar son of Daulat Ram resident of village Gandhir at 2 p.m. disclosing that some one had killed. Kuldip Kumar son of Ganga Ram with gun shoft in the compound of the house of PW-2 and the action may be taken by visiting the spot. On receipt of the said information, Head Constable Surender Kumar, L.H.C. Goverdhan Singh, L.H.C. Joginder Singh were dispatched to the scene of occurrence for taking action. The Station House Officer was also being contacted on telephone who at that day had gone to give evidence in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur camp at Ghumarwin. The police had already proceeded to visit the spot of incident after recording of daily diary report Ext.PR at 2 p.m. and, therefore, the version of the accused that he had visited the Police Station at 2 p.m. is belied by document Ext.PR. Ext.PS is inadmissible to the extent of treating it to be an extra-judicial confession made by the accused. Ground No. 3 28. The learned Counsel for the accused next contended that there is no corroborative evidence to the recovery of used cartridge Ext.PX as Om Parkash and Yoginder Parsad the recovery witnesses have not been examined and it was fabricated piece of evidence to implicate the accused in a false case. Ground No. 3 28. The learned Counsel for the accused next contended that there is no corroborative evidence to the recovery of used cartridge Ext.PX as Om Parkash and Yoginder Parsad the recovery witnesses have not been examined and it was fabricated piece of evidence to implicate the accused in a false case. Recovery memo Ext.PX reveals that it was prepared by PW-13 the Investigating Officer in the presence of Om Parkash, Pradhan, and Yoginder Parsad, Up- Pradhan Gram Panchayat. Vide this memo, a sum of Rs. 1260/- was recovered from the pocket of the shirt of the accused along with one empty cartridge on 15.11.2000. Both these witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. PW-4 Sukh Dev has categorically stated in his deposition that used cartridge Ext.P-15 and currency notices Ext.P-11 were recovered by the Investigating Officer from the possession of the accused in his presence on the day of the incident. His evidence has not been shattered by the defence in the cross- examination. The Investigating Officer has corroborated the version of PW-1 The recovery of the empty cartridge fired from SBBL gun by the accused at the chest of the deceased has been proved by PW-4 and the Investigating Officer. We have no good and cogent reason to disbelieve their testimony. The non-examination of recovery witnesses Om Parkash and Yoginder Parsad whose names find mentioned in memo Ext.PX cannot be held fatal to the prosecution case. Thus, we do not find any substance in this submission as well. 29. The learned Counsel for the accused next contended that the report of the Scientific Officer (Ballistic) Ext.PZ is not admissible in evidence under Section 293 Criminal Procedure Code because it was not issued by any of the authority under the said Section. We do not find any merit in this submission. In report Ext.PZ. Scientific Officer (Ballistic), State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga opined that gun Ext.P-6 was in the working order and empty cartridge Ext. P-15 (KHA/1) was fired from the same gun. 25 pallets in different sizes collected by the doctor from the dead body of the deceased at the time of postmortem were found having been fired from gun Ext.P-6. He also opined that plastic wad may be of empty cartridge Ext. P-15 (KHA/1) and two live cartridges handed over by PW-8 Urmila Devi to the Investigating Officer could be fired from gun Ext. He also opined that plastic wad may be of empty cartridge Ext. P-15 (KHA/1) and two live cartridges handed over by PW-8 Urmila Devi to the Investigating Officer could be fired from gun Ext. P-6 as per this report. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Mast Ram, 2004 (8) Supreme Court Cases 660, has held that sub-Section (4) of Section 293 Criminal Procedure Code envisages that Court is to accept the documents issued by any of this six officers enumerated therein as valid evidence without examining author of the documents. Thus, the report of the ballistic expert Ext.PZ is per-se admissible as it has been prepared and issued by authorised officer. 30. No other point was urged by the parties. 31. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused, as such no interference is called for by this Court. 32. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.