Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a first information report was lodged with Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur at the instance of one Ramji Lal S/o Narayan, who was then posted as Sub Inspector of Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur at 2.15 P.M on 111.1999. In the report, it was stated that an information was received about a quarrel between a group of persons in the area of police station Ramganj. On receiving this message, Shri Hulasa Ram, SHO sent complainant Ramjilal and constable Sedu Ram to the site of the disturbance. It was stated that the SHO Hulasa Ram along with Head Constable Sultan Singh, Rameshwar and Ishwar Singh also followed them on foot. While the SHO Hulasa Ram was making efforts to pacify people, all of a sudden Head Constable Sultan Singh kicked a beggar sitting on the foot-path and overturned thelas of some hawkers and scattered their goods and misbehaved with the persons who were passing by. SHO Hulasa Ram repremanded Sultan Singh for this but he became angry. Hulasa Ram again tried to pacify him stating that Ramganj was highly sensitive area and that he should not misbehave with public in such a manner. All of them came back to the police station. SHO asked Sultan Singh and Rameshwar to deposit their self loaded rifles (for short, SLR) in the malkhana. Hearing this, Head Constable Sultan Singh was infuriated and refused to deposit the SLR and went towards the mess situated in back side of Police Station. Suspecting any untoward incident. SHO alongwith sepoy Rameshwar and Chhitar followed Sultan Singh and complainant Ramji Lal also followed them. At that time Sita Ram who was taking meals also came out in varandha. SHO Hulasa Ram was trying to pacify Sultan Singh by addressing him as his son. Suddenly, Sultan Singh turned back and pointed SLR at SHO Hulasa Ram and shouted by saying as to how he (SHO) asked him to deposit the weapon. Sultan Singh also abused SHO and opened fire towards him. First bullet fired by Sultan Singh hit on right hand of SHO Hulasa Ram. Head Constable Sita Ram pulled the SHO towards varandah. Sultan Singh at that stage fired another shot at SHO with the intention of killing him which, hit him on his back. Sultan Singh also abused SHO and opened fire towards him. First bullet fired by Sultan Singh hit on right hand of SHO Hulasa Ram. Head Constable Sita Ram pulled the SHO towards varandah. Sultan Singh at that stage fired another shot at SHO with the intention of killing him which, hit him on his back. SHO could hardly move two steps while pressing his chest with hands and fell down behind the room of the head-moharrir. Accused Sultan Singh continued to fire from behind the tin-shed by saying that if anyone tried to catch him, he would shoot him. One such fire also hit a neighboring house. It was also stated that informant along with constable Gajraj Singh, Bachhu Singh, RamRoop and Ram Kumar Singh immediately took the injured Hulasa Ram in a vehicle driven by constable Mahesh to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where he breathed his last. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid first information report, a case was registered under Sections 302 and 307, IPC at police station Ramganj and investigation started. The accused was arrested on the same day. SLR used in the crime alongwith cartridges were also seized. Statement of all those who were present in police station were recorded by Dy. Superintendent of Police, Ramganj Circle, who was Investigating Officer. Site plan of the place of incident was also prepared on the same day. Some fired and unused cartridges were also recovered from the site of incident. Panchnama of the dead body of Hulasa Ram was also prepared. Clothes of the deceased were seized and SLR used in the crime was also seized from the accused Sultan Singh. Copies of Rapat Rojnamcha dated 111.1999 Arm No. 110, 111, 117 & 151 Police Line and copies of Rojnamcha, Police Station, Ramganj were also simultaneously seized. Bed-head ticket of deceased Hulasa Ram was seized form hospital and record of the malkhana was also seized. Dead body of the deceased Hulasa Ram was sent for post-mortem. 4. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet against the accused appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, was filed. 5. The prosecution has examined 19 witnesses in support of its case and has exhibited 48 documents. The prosecution also got exhibited 9 articles. Accused in his defence examined 4 witnesses and got 12 documents exhibited. 6. 4. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet against the accused appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, was filed. 5. The prosecution has examined 19 witnesses in support of its case and has exhibited 48 documents. The prosecution also got exhibited 9 articles. Accused in his defence examined 4 witnesses and got 12 documents exhibited. 6. Learned trial Court after hearing arguments of both the parties and on examination of evidence on record, convicted the accused appellant under Section 302 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC with fine of Rs. 10,000/-in default of payment of fine, he was required to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. He was also convicted under Section 307, IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5000/-and in default of payment of fine, he was required to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment , the accused appellant has preferred the present appeal. 7. We have heard the argument advanced by Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Counsel appearing for the accused appellant and Shri R.P. Kuldeep and Shri A.K. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutors and perused record. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar argued that the trial Court has erred in not taking into consideration Rojnamcha Report No. 1624 Exhibit P.17, No, 1625 Exhibit P.18 & No. 1627 Exhibit P.20 in its true perspective. He contended that there was no entry in the Rojnamcha Report regarding issuance of SLR to the accused appellant nor was there any other evidence on record to prove that the accused was in possession of the fire arm. Firearm in the police station is issued only when a police personel is going to discharge duties and on return from such duties he is required to deposit the same with malkhana. He further argued that Exhibit P.20 did not bear signature of the Incharge of the police station Ratan Singh and also SHO Hulasa Ram. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that Ratan Singh took the firearm was falsified and there was no mention in any of the Rojnamcha Exhibit P.17 and Exhibit P.20 about the number of times accused appellant allegedly fired. 9. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that Ratan Singh took the firearm was falsified and there was no mention in any of the Rojnamcha Exhibit P.17 and Exhibit P.20 about the number of times accused appellant allegedly fired. 9. He further argued that the learned trial Court has erred in not taking into consideration that even though Senior Police Officers immediately arrived at the Police Station, Ramganj when the alleged incident took place, yet the first information report was not lodged for two and half hours. The prosecution has failed to give any satisfactory explanation about this undue delay. Statement of P.W. 19 Shankar Lal Circle Officer who conducted the investigation itself cast serious doubt about the presence of the so called eye witnesses at the time of incident. Evidence of P.W.1 Ramji Lal, S.I, P.W.2 Mahaveer Singh, P.W. 3 Jabar Mal Head, Constable also cast serious doubt about their presence at the scene of occurrence. He further argued that no sanctity can be attached to the alleged verbal orders of issuance of SLR to the accused appellant. No firearm can be taken out from the strong room without such arm being first issued in the name of concerned police personnel. In the present case, while the SLR allegedly used for commission of crime was on record issued in the name of some other person, but on evidence, the prosecution was now claiming that it was in the hands of the appellant which hardly inspire any confidence. 10. Mr. Biri Singh further argued that learned trial Court failed to take into consideration that Exhibit P.15, entry of issuing licence to Jhabarmal has not been proved. P.W.9 Ganesh Dutt stated in the Court that the said document did not bear his signatures. He argued that no weapon, much less SLR, can be issued to any person permanently and argued that such weapon is issued only for the period of duty. No evidence has been brought on record showing that the seized articles remained intact till the same reached the State FSL. He further argued that neither any armorer nor any expert of the arms was produced before the Court to prove the authenticity of the reports Exhibit P.46 to P.48. He argued that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident and has not come with clean hands before the Court. He further argued that neither any armorer nor any expert of the arms was produced before the Court to prove the authenticity of the reports Exhibit P.46 to P.48. He argued that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident and has not come with clean hands before the Court. Findings of the learned trial Court are based on surmises and conjectures. He, therefore, argued that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused appellant deserves to be acquitted. 11. Shri Biri Singh learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a Judgment of Honble Supreme Court, in the case of Jagat Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1977 SCC (Cri) 95, wherein their Lordship of Supreme Court on the facts of that case held that the appellant having seen the aggressive posture of the students brought the gun from his house to protect himself and then faced with the fury of the students he lost nerve and fired from the gun. Sentence of life imprisonment in these facts was, therefore, reduced to rigorous imprisonment of 7 years. He further cited the Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Surendra Singh @ Bittu vs. State of Uttaranchal, reported in 2006 (3) SC 729. In the said case, the accused on being instigated by his elder brother caused a single gun shot injury to deceased. The Honble Supreme Court noted that basic story of the prosecution was the accused appellant fired gun-shot which hit the deceased on being instigated by his elder brother who was tried alongwith him and was originally convicted by the trial Court but was later acquitted by High Court and another accused too was acquitted. Honble Supreme Court in the circumstances of the case observed that genesis of occurrence was not proved and their Lordships of the Supreme Court, therefore, altered the conviction of the accused from one under Section 302, IPC to Section 304 Part II of IPC. 12. Yet another Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court which has been cited by Mr. Biri Singh in Ishwar Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1976 SC 2423 , is on the point of unexplained delay of 2 days in filing of FIR. 12. Yet another Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court which has been cited by Mr. Biri Singh in Ishwar Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1976 SC 2423 , is on the point of unexplained delay of 2 days in filing of FIR. He further cited the Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) vs. State of U.P., 1994 (5) SCC 188 , which is again a Judgment on the question of delay in lodging FIR which in the facts of that case, was held to be ante-timed to give it colour of a promptly lodged FIR and was eventually disbelieved. This led to giving of benefit of doubt to the accused resulting in their acquittal. One more decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Avadhesh & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1988 (2) SCC 557 , on the question of delay in filing the FIR has been cited. In the fact of that case, their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court held that no reason was given for delay in lodgment of FIR even though the police station was situated at a short distance. In another cited decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Thanedar Singh vs. State of M.P., reported in 2002 (1) SCC 487 , the incident took place in the intervening night of 18/19.05.1982 and the complaint was shown to have been lodged on the morning following the night of the occurrence. But it was received by the Magistrate on 21.05.1982. Unexplained delay in lodging and subsequent sending of FIR to the Magistrate was held to have cast a serious doubt about the presence of eye witnesses at the place and time of occurrence. Lastly, he cited the Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1973 SC 501 , in which it was held that the first information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating oral evidence adduced at the trial. Importance of the such report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. Importance of the such report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. Object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. 13. On the basis of the afore quoted arguments and various case laws relied upon by him in support of his case, the learned Counsel for the appellant has prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned Judgment convicting and sentencing the accused appellant as aforementioned should be set-aside. 14. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor Shri R.P. Kuldeep has supported the Judgment of the trial Court and has argued that there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the charges against the accused appellant. It has been argued that Article 1 SLR was handed over to accused Sultan Singh. According to Rojnamcha Arm No. 1624 and Articles 2,3,4 & 5 being live bullets were seized by the Investigating Officer vide Exhibit P.6, Article 6 contained four small packets, one packet contains 6 empty of SLR from 2nd one bullet live and 3rd test of fired cartridges used in SLR by the accused from place B to C while one bullet is lead fired cartridges. P.W.1 Ramji Lal, P.W. 3 Jhabar Mal, P.W.5 Sita Ram, P.W.6 Ishwar Singh, P.W.13 Rameshwar Prasad are the eye witnesses whose testimony before the trial Court clearly proved the charges against the accused appellant and they have remained unshaken in the cross-examination. P.W. 10 Commando Pratap Singh who overpowered the accused Sultan Singh has also provided corroboration to their evidence. P.W. 12 Suresh Prakash, constable who was at the relevant time on duty with S.P. North, Jaipur City has categorically stated that the accused was firing with SLR. The testimony of this witness also lend support to the prosecution in proving the charges against the accused. 15. P.W. 12 Suresh Prakash, constable who was at the relevant time on duty with S.P. North, Jaipur City has categorically stated that the accused was firing with SLR. The testimony of this witness also lend support to the prosecution in proving the charges against the accused. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of Delhi, reported in 1999 (9) SCC p,149, wherein it was held that the evidence of police officers cannot be discarded when it is found to be reliable. On the strength of this Judgment , it was argued that since the incident took place in the premises of police station, the police personnel present there were the natural witnesses and their testimony has rightly been relied upon by the trial Court for convicting the accused appellant. The learned Public Prosecutor has also relied upon the Judgment in case of Leela Ram vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1999 (9) SCC 525 , wherein their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court held that irregularity or illegality during investigation ought not to be treated as a ground to reject the entire prosecution case if it has been proved before the trial Court by lead of evidence. It has been held that there are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. The Honble Court further observed that corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. In this case, it was further held that the evidence of ballistic experts cannot be brushed aside since it is in the normal course of events, valuable material viz-a-viz the use of gun and the injury. Minor contradictions from the medical evidence does not travel to the root of the nature of the offence and would not constitute discrepancy in the totality of situation. Learned Public Prosecutor has also relied upon yet another Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Sheelam Ramesh & Anr. vs. State of A.P., reported in 1999 (8) SCC 369 , wherein the companion of the deceased immediately went to the police station which was situated at a distance of 200 Ft. Learned Public Prosecutor has also relied upon yet another Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Sheelam Ramesh & Anr. vs. State of A.P., reported in 1999 (8) SCC 369 , wherein the companion of the deceased immediately went to the police station which was situated at a distance of 200 Ft. and returned with a police constable and took the injured first to the hospital where he died 55 minutes after the incident and thereafter returned to the police station and lodged a normal first information report. In the circumstances, the delay of one hour in lodging FIR was held to have been explained. It has therefore been argued that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused appellant for the charges leveled against him. 16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides and examined the record. P.W. 1 Ramji Lal who lodged the FIR at Police Station, Ramganj has stated that when the accused appellant Sultan Singh hit a beggar sitting on the foot path and overturned the thela of hawker, the SHO Hulasa Ram reprimanded him and told him behave. He stated that he told Sultan Singh that Ramganj was a sensitive area and he should not have behaved with the people like this. Sultan Singh thereupon got infuriated and went behind the room of head Moharrir which was close to the mess. Apprehending any untoward incident, SHO Hulasa Ram also followed him. The accused Sultan Singh turned around and while pointing gun towards him, told him as who was he to ask me to deposit SLR. He immediately fired at Hulasa Ram which hit his fore-arm of the right hand. Head Constable Sita Ram who was present there immediately pulled Hulasa Ram from there and when Hulasa Ram started coming towards room of Head Moharrir, Sultan Singh while abusing again fired at him from behind at his back which passed through is body and it came out from right side of chest. Hulasa Ram was profusely bleeding and in that stage he fell down in the room of Head Moharrir. Sultan Singh continued to fire from behind a tin-shed and threatened if any one dared to catch-hold him, he would finish him. He also fired towards adjoining house of one sindhi family. Hulasa Ram was profusely bleeding and in that stage he fell down in the room of Head Moharrir. Sultan Singh continued to fire from behind a tin-shed and threatened if any one dared to catch-hold him, he would finish him. He also fired towards adjoining house of one sindhi family. P.W.1 Ramji Lal has further stated that he along with Jagraj Singh, Bachu singh and Ramswaroop immediately took the injured SHO to SMS Hospital and also informed his senior officers. The SHO however could not survive and breathed his last in emergency ward itself . P.W.13 Rameshwar Prasad who also accompanied the SHO and accused to the Ramganj area and was with him through out has also supported the version of P.W.1 Ramji Lal in every minute detail. Similarly P.W.3 Jhabar Mal Head Constable has also given the similar version of the incident. It may be stated that Jhabar Mal, Head Constable was also with accused appellant when they went to visit area of Amar Restaurant in Ramganj Bazar and continued with him and thereafter came to the police station and were asked to deposit arm. He has given similar version of the incident as given by P.W.1 and P.W.13. In the similar manner P.W.6 Ishwar Singh constable in the same police station has also given similar version of incident. P.W.5 Sita Ram who was Head Constable in the Police Station, Ramganj has stated that on 111.1999 while he was taking his meal around 1 P.M. in the mess, he heard somebody speaking loudly. When he came out from mess he saw the accused appellant Sultan Singh standing with an SLR in his hand which he had pointed towards SHO Hulasa Ram. He has also proved the presence of the other eye-witnesses by stating that Ramji Lal, Jhabar Mal, Ishwar Singh and Chhitarmal were present there. He has stated that Sultan Singh fired at Hulasa Ram twice and thereafter fired in air. P.W.15 Mohd. Akil who was then posted as Sub Inspector, Ramhanj has proved Panch Nama Exhibit P.4 and seizure of the clothes of deceased vide Exhibit 5. P.W. 16 Mohan Lal has proved 26 photographs of deceased and site of incident which he himself had taken as Exhibit P.17 to Exhibit P.42. 17. P.W.11 Dr. P.W.15 Mohd. Akil who was then posted as Sub Inspector, Ramhanj has proved Panch Nama Exhibit P.4 and seizure of the clothes of deceased vide Exhibit 5. P.W. 16 Mohan Lal has proved 26 photographs of deceased and site of incident which he himself had taken as Exhibit P.17 to Exhibit P.42. 17. P.W.11 Dr. M.R. Goyal the then Professor and Head of the Department of Medical Jurist, SMS Hospital, Jaipur has stated that the injured Hulasa Ram was brought to the hospital and he conducted his post-mortem and prepared report Exhibit P.16 According to the post-mortem report (Exhibit P.16) which has been proved by Dr. M.R. Goyal, following injuries were found on the person of deceased Hulasa Ram:- Injuries are No. 1- One punctured wound with inverted margines- 3 x 1 cms x thorasic cavity deep. Stellate in shape. Vertically blood on back Rt. Side at 6th interecostal space and 8 cms. Lateral to mid-line. No blacking and tattoing present. Collar of abrasion not present. Injury No. 2- One extensive laceration with muscles exposed and falling envands as rib support not present the external diameter of wound of size 10 x 8 cms x thoracic cavity deep obliquely placed on front of chest upper 2/3. It is 5 cms above from (Rt) nipple and - 8 cms from mid line and 4 cms below from (Rt) clavicle no blacking and tattooing present. Colloray abrasion could not be appreciated. On dissection through the injury No. 1:- There is apparture through subcutaneous and deep tissues with fracture of 6th rib underline part the sent continue the middle lobe of (Rt.) lung with an approximate 2 cms in dia-meter oval. The deep on lung tissues when followed from posterior aspect, showed (disruption) extensive tear of lung tissues with blood is in a cavity. Anteriorly there is extensive tear of the soft tissues. Patoralis major and minor muscles with fracture communitted in pleures of ribs from 2nd to 6th rib was missing of most of 2nd rib. The track direction from Injury No. 1 to Injury No.2 is forwa