JUDGMENT MEHTAB S. GILL, J. 1. We will be deciding Criminal Appeal No. 42-DB of 2005, Criminal Appeal No. 95-DBA of 2006 and Criminal Revision No. 578 of 2005 by a common order as they arise out of the same judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. Appeal by Shyam Sunder, appeal by the State against the acquittal of the remaining accused and Revision by the complainant have been filed against the judgment order dated 20.11.2004/22.11.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind whereby he convicted Shyam Sunder son of Jalpat Mahajan and acquitted Jalpat Rai son of Rameshwar Dass Mahajan Satish Kumar son of Jalpat Mahajan, Purshottam son of Jalpat Mahajan, Harinder alias Kala son of Joginder Saini and Pawan son of Suraj Bhan. Shyam Sunder was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. . and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fire of Rs.25000/-, under Section 27 of the Arms Act he was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine or a part thereof, appellant Shyam Sunder was ordered to further undergo RI for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Sewa Singh EX.PA made to SI Hari Charan of P.S. City, Jind on 3.10.2002 at 12.30 a.m. Sewa Singh stated that he is a resident of Jind and is in the business of transport. On 3.10.2002 at about 10 p.m., he along with Sultan Gaba son of Tulsi Dass were sitting in their office in Nav Bharat Transport Company situated near Phuara Chowk, Jind. Shyam Sunder, Purshottam, Satish sons of Jalpat Rai passed in front of their office. There was a dispute between them going on regarding the luck Union. On becoming suspicious, Sewa Singh came out of his office and saw that Shyam Sunder, Purshottam, Satish, Manager of Chamber Dharamshala and his younger brother Vijay Dalal resident of Jind along two other boys whose names he did not remember, were standing in front of the gate of Chamber Dharamshala. Shyam Sunder was talking on his mobile with someone. After about 10/15 minutes, Jalpat along with another boy came on a scooter and stopped near Shyam Sunder in front of the Chamber Dharamshala. On seeing all these persons together, Sewa Singh rang up his brother Rohtash that Shyam Sunder etc. Shyam Sunder was talking on his mobile with someone. After about 10/15 minutes, Jalpat along with another boy came on a scooter and stopped near Shyam Sunder in front of the Chamber Dharamshala. On seeing all these persons together, Sewa Singh rang up his brother Rohtash that Shyam Sunder etc. were standing in front of the gate of Chamber Dharamshala and were armed with weapons. They can attack him any time. After 10/15 minutes, Sewa Singh’s brother Rohtash and his nephews Chand and Sunil sons of Daya Nand, Pawan son of Ishwar Singh and Arun son of Rajbir came to his office. Rohtash asked him as to what the matter was, whereupon he told him that all the above mentioned persons have gathered together and they could attack him. In the meantime, the Munshi of Tata Union came in a Tata Sumo and asked him as to why they were standing, Sewa Singh told him that they were standing to go to their houses. On this he went away. Sewa Singh after closing his office- along with his brother Rohtash and nephews Subhash, Chand and Sunil started for their houses. Shyam Sunder on seeing the complainant party, fired from his revolver. Sewa Singh along with the other tried to catch hold of Shyam Sunder, but he fired another shot from his revolver which hit on the left flank of Chand. Purshottam fired from his revolver which hit the left side of his chest. Thereafter Satish and Jalpat fired shots from their respective guns. Shyam Sunder and Purshottam fired many shots from their respective revolvers which hit Sewa Singh’s brother Rohtash and his nephew Pawan. On receiving injuries, all of them fell down. Sewa Singh tried to catch hold of Jalpat, but he ran away from the spot. The assailants then ran away taking their respective weapons with them. During the fight, Harinder alias Kala who was armed with a sword, also ran away from the spot leaving his sword behind a nephews of Sewa Singh succumbed to their fire arm injuries at the hospital. Rohtash and Pawan were referred to P.G.I., Rohtak. On the basis of this statement, F.I.R. Ex.PV was recorded on 3.10.2002 at 12.50 p.m. Special report reached the C.J.M., Jind on the same day at 2.30 a.m. 3. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Sewa Singh PW-1, Dr. Rohtash and Pawan were referred to P.G.I., Rohtak. On the basis of this statement, F.I.R. Ex.PV was recorded on 3.10.2002 at 12.50 p.m. Special report reached the C.J.M., Jind on the same day at 2.30 a.m. 3. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Sewa Singh PW-1, Dr. Ashwani Kumar PW-2, Kuldeep Gupta PW-3, Rohtash PW-4, Dr.Kuldeep Singh Rana PW-5, Dr. Rajesh Gandhi PW -6, Dharampal PW-7, Rakesh PW-8, Dr. R.K.Nandal PW-9, Sukhbir Singh PW-10, Sunder Singh Saini PW-ll, Jagminder Singh PW-12, Constable Mohinder Singh PW-13, Inspector Randhir Singh PW-14, Constable Ranbir Singh PW-15, HC Randhir Singh PW-16, HC Krishan Dutt PW-17, ASI Om Parkash PW-18, Dr.Paryesh Gupta PW-19, SI Hari Charan PW-20, EHC Deva Nand PW-21, Constable Iqbal Singh PW-22 and Inspector Wazir Singh PW-23. 4. The learned trial Court in its wisdom convicted and sentenced appellant Shyam Sunder as referred above and acquitted his co-accused i.e. Jalpat Rai, Satish Kumar, Purshottam, Harinder alias Kala and Pawan Kumar. 5. Learned counsel for appellant Shyam Sunder, Shri K.T.S.Tulsi, Senior Advocate has argued that the learned trial Court while acquitting the co accused of the appellant, has given various reasons in paras 24 and 25 of the judgment. As per the findings of the learned trial Court, genesis of the occurrence has been withheld, presence of complainant Sewa Singh PW -1 is doubtful, eye witnesses i.e. Rohtash PW-4 and Rakesh PW-8 are unreliable, and statements of the eye-witnesses are not corroborated by the medical evidence. The occurrence as per F.I.R. Ex.PV had taken place at about 10 p.m. Sewa Singh PW-1 has stated in his statement before the Court that the occurrence took place at about 9.30 p.m. This timing has been changed so that the ocular account could get corroboration from the medical evidences. The F.S.L. Report EX.PG has not been proved as per law, as the defence did not get an opportunity to cross-examine the expert from the F.S.L. As per the F.S.L. report, the pistols used in the commission of the offence, were received in a dismantled condition. There was hostility between the parties and the acquitted accused were falsely implicated because of enmity. There was hostility between the parties and the acquitted accused were falsely implicated because of enmity. From the judgment of the learned trial Court, it is clear that the eye-witnesses, Sewa Singh PW -1, Rohtash PW -4 and Rakesh PW -8 have not been believed qua the acquitted accused and thus there was no reason for the learned trial Court to believe them qua appellant Shyam Sunder. Similarly, the reasons taken into consideration by the learned trial Court in paras 24 and 25 of the judgment for acquitting the co accused of the appellant would also be relevant for appellant Shyam Sunder and he would fall within the same parameters. This itself is a traversity of justice. The only reason given by the learned trial Court to convict the appellant is that the fatal bullets found on the person of deceased, were fired by appellant Shyam Sunder from his pistol. This observation of the learned trial Court would not have any meaning once the three eye-witnesses Sewa Singh PW-1, Rohtash PW-4 and 1 Rakesh PW -8 have been disbelieved. 6. There are glaring discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Sewa Singh PW -1 has stated in his testimony before the Court that the statement Ex.P A was recorded on the spot on the next day of the occurrence. While the Investigating Officer SI Hari Charan PW -20 has stated that the statement Ex.P All of Sewa Singh was recorded in the General Hospital, Jind. In the F.I.R. Ex.P A, it has been stated that appellant used a revolver, while in his statement Sewa Singh PW- 1 (before the Court) he has stated that appellant had a pistol with him. Sewa Singh PW -1 is a licence holder, he knew the difference between a pistol and a revolver. It is strange that Sewa Singh PW -1 after noticing that five persons, out of them four being armed with fire arms, made a telephone call to his brother to come and help him, but all of them i.e. Rohtash PW -4, Rakesh PW -8, Sunil, Chand and Pawan Kumar came to the help of Sewa Singh PW -1 empty-handed, though they were owners of licenced weapons. Pistols and gun-shots were fired towards Sewa Singh PW-1, but he did not receive any injury. This clearly shows that Sewa Singh PW-1 was not present at the place of occurrence. Pistols and gun-shots were fired towards Sewa Singh PW-1, but he did not receive any injury. This clearly shows that Sewa Singh PW-1 was not present at the place of occurrence. In fact, he has suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence. The learned trial Court has rightly held that injury on the person of Rohtash PW-4 is not a fire arm injury. The F.S.L. report Ex.PG and the recovery memos Exs.PE and PF would not have any meaning as the defence did not get an opportunity to cross-examine the expert qua the weapons, empties and the bullets. 7. As per the medical evidence, there is singeing and blackening of the wounds on the person of Pawan Kumar and Rohtash PW -4. This shows that the injury buffered by deceased Pawan Kumar and Rohtash PW -4 was caused by a fire arm from a very close range. The medical evidence is contradictory to the ocular account. The site plan EX. shows that the distance between points A to E is 16 feet. It is the distance between points B and F. The distance between points G from C and D is about 13 feet. This has been stated by Kuldeep Gupta Draftsman PW -3. It is clear from this that assailants and the appellants were standing at a distance of more than 13 feet. 8. Learned counsel has further argued that there are two versions before the Court. The one as spelt out by the learned trial Court in paras 24 and 25 from which appellant Shyam Sunder also cannot be excluded, and the other as spelt out by the prosecution. The one favorable to the accused is to be taken into consideration. 9. Shri Vinod Ghai, learned counsel for the acquitted accused namely Jalpat Rai, Satish Kumar, Purshottam, Harinder alias Kala and Pawan Kumar has argued that judgment of the learned trial Court is just and fair. The learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the eye-witnesses Sewa Singh PW-1, Rohtash PW-4 and Rakesh PW -8 and rightly acquitted the co- accused of appellant Shyam Sunder. He has adopted the arguments of the learned senior counsel Shri K.T.S.Tulsi, Senior Advocate. 10. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the learned trial Court has completely ignored the most important factor of the case, regarding the prompt lodging of the F.I.R. Ex. PA/1. He has adopted the arguments of the learned senior counsel Shri K.T.S.Tulsi, Senior Advocate. 10. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the learned trial Court has completely ignored the most important factor of the case, regarding the prompt lodging of the F.I.R. Ex. PA/1. The occurrence had taken place on 2.10.2002 at 10 p.m. near the office of Sewa Singh PW-1 situated near Phuara Chowk. F.I.R. Ex.PV was recorded on 3.10.2002 at 12.50 a.m. and ‘the special report reached the C.J.M., Jind in the night on 3.10.2002 at 2.30 a.m. There was no time for the complainant party to consult and confabulate with each other as to whom to falsely implicate. Three persons on that side of the complainant party i.e. Chand, Pawan Kumar and Sunil received fire arm injuries and had died due to them. Rohtash PW-4 had received gun shot injury. Rakesh PW-8 received a sword injury. The first and the foremost concern of complainant Sewa Singh PW -1 was to save the lives of Rohtash PW-4, Rakesh PW-8 and the lives of Sunil, Chand and Pawan Kumar. The learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted Jalpat Rai, Satish, Purshottam, Harinder alias Kala and Pawan Kumar basing its findings on mere conjectures and surmises. Hostility is a double-edged weapon which can be used for false implication and also to attack the opposite party. The recovery of a pistol and not a revolver, though as stated by Sewa Singh PW-1 in the F.I.R. that revolver was used, does not have much of a significant meaning, as it is only a minor discrepancy. Sewa Singh PW-1 appeared in Court after a considerable lapse of time. Sewa Singh PW-1 after seeing the appellant and his co-accused, who were five in number all armed, it was natural for him to telephone his near and dear ones to come and help him. He rang up Rohtash PW -4 who along with his nephews came to the spot. They did not carry any weapons as they did not realize the gravity of the situation. In fact, after they arrived, Sewa Singh PW-1 closed his office and all of them started walking on the road to go to their houses. Sewa Singh PW-1 not receiving any injury, is only a coincidence, though the co accused of appellant Shyam Sunder had intentions to else him also. It was . his good luck that saved him. In fact, after they arrived, Sewa Singh PW-1 closed his office and all of them started walking on the road to go to their houses. Sewa Singh PW-1 not receiving any injury, is only a coincidence, though the co accused of appellant Shyam Sunder had intentions to else him also. It was . his good luck that saved him. Sunil, Chand and Pawan Kumar were fired upon and all of them succumbed to their injuries. There was no need for the appellants to suppress the origin or the genesis of the occurrence. The Investigating Officer SI Hari Charan PW-20, Sewa Singh PW-1, Rohtash PW-4 and Rakesh PW-8 are emphatic that the occurrence had taken place at Phuara Chowk. SI Hari Charan PW - 20 recovered three empty cartridges from the place of occurrence. The learned trial Court in para-25 of the judgment has misread the evidence that Rohtash PW-4 did not receive a fire arm injury. As per Dr.Rajesh Gandhi PW-6, the injury on the person of Rohtash PW -4 was a deep and penetrating wound, margins were inverted, and blackening was present. The nature of injury clearly shows that it was a fire arm injury. This type of injury cannot be given by a blunt or sharp-edged weapon. Findings of the learned trial Court are perverse and need to be set aside qua the acquitted accused. Findings qua appellant Shyam Sunder are cogent and convincing. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 12. The learned trial Court in paras 24 and 25 of its judgment has spelt out the reasons for the acquittal of Jalpat Rai, Satish, Purshottam, Harinder alias Kala and Pawan Kumar. 13. Taking the evidence of Sewa Singh PW-l, Rohtash PW-4 and Rakesh PW -8 in totality, we have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the I testimonies of these witnesses are cogent, convincing and truthful. 14. Rohtash PW -4, the injured eye-witness, in his testimony before the Court has stated that on 2.10.2002 at about 9 to 9.30 p.m., he received a telephone message from his brother Sewa Singh PW-l that Jalpat and others have gathered in front of Chamber Dharamshala and it seems that they are going to commit some mischief. 14. Rohtash PW -4, the injured eye-witness, in his testimony before the Court has stated that on 2.10.2002 at about 9 to 9.30 p.m., he received a telephone message from his brother Sewa Singh PW-l that Jalpat and others have gathered in front of Chamber Dharamshala and it seems that they are going to commit some mischief. He along with his nephews Chand, Sunil, Pawan Kumar and Rakesh went to the office of Nav Bharat Transport where Sewa Singh PW-l was present. Rohtash PW -4 advised his brother to close the office and they should return to their houses. When all of them started walking towards their houses, appellant Shyam Sunder fired a shot from his pistol which did not hit anyone. Chand and Sunil tried to catch hold of Shyam Sunder. Appellant Shyam Sunder fired another shot which hit Chand. Thereafter Purshottam fired from his revolver which hit Sunil on his chest. Thereafter Jalpat and Satish started firing with their respective guns. Shyam Sunder and Purshottam again fired shots at them. These hit Pawan Kumar and Rohtash PW -4 in his abdomen. Accused Sushil and Vinod who were armed with hockeys, gave blows on the head, waist and leg of Subhash Gaba. Harinder gave a sword blow on the head of Rakesh PW -8. Statement of Rakesh PW-8 was recorded on 8.10.2002. A lot of emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for appellant Shyam Sunder that injury on the person of Rohtash PW -4 is not a fire arm injury as observed by the learned trial Court and thus, his testimony should be discarded. This argument of the learned counsel does not cut much ice. Dr.Rajesh Gandhi PW-6 examined Rohtash PW-4 on 2.10.2002 at 10.15 p.m. He found the following injury on his person : 1. Deep penetrating (wound) was present on the abdomen in the centre 3 cm above the symphysis pubis. Margins were inverted. Blackening was present. Size was 1 x .5 cm. Injury and weapon were kept under observation and was within 6 hours. 15. The medical report EX.PBB prepared by Dr. Deep penetrating (wound) was present on the abdomen in the centre 3 cm above the symphysis pubis. Margins were inverted. Blackening was present. Size was 1 x .5 cm. Injury and weapon were kept under observation and was within 6 hours. 15. The medical report EX.PBB prepared by Dr. Paryesh Gupta PW -19 has also stated that Rohtash PW -4 was operated upon for a gun shot injury in the abdomen on 3.10.2002 in the Emergency O.T. It is clear from the nature of the injury, the margins being inverted and blackening being present, that the injury on the person of Rohtash PW -4 is a fire arm injury and also, that the fire arm was used from a very close range. Rohtash PW-4 was shifted to P.G.I., Rohtak. Dr. Paryesh Gupta PW -19 has stated that Rohtash was operated upon for a gun shot injury in the abdomen on 3.10.2002 in Emergency O.T. Rohtash was in a serious condition and could not give his statement, though the Investigating Officer Inspector Wazir Singh PW-23 moved an application on 6.10.2002 EX.PHH for recording his statement. The doctor on duty gave his opinion EX.PHH/1 that Rohtash PW-4 was not fit to give a statement. Similarly, application EX.PJJ was made on 7.10.2002 and the doctor of P.G.I., Rohtak opined vide Ex.PJJ/1 that Rohtash PW-4 was unfit to make a statement. It was on 8.10.2002 at 9.30 a.m. that another application EX.PKK was made by Inspector Wazir Singh PW-23, that the doctor opined vide report Ex.PKK/1, that Rohtash PW-4 was fit to make a statement. It is after this that his statement was recorded under Section 161 CLP.C. 16. Learned senior counsel Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi for appellant Shyam Sunder has vehemently argued that if the Investigating Officer had not come to record the statement of Rohtash PW -4 then he (Rohtash) himself should have gone to the police station to have his statement recorded. This argument of the learned counsel cannot be taken into consideration due to the fact that Rohtash PW -4 had received a serious gun shot injury. He would have bled to death if he had gone to the police station first and then to the hospital. As per the opinion of the doctor, Rohtash PW-4 was not fit to make a statement till 8.10.2002. He would have bled to death if he had gone to the police station first and then to the hospital. As per the opinion of the doctor, Rohtash PW-4 was not fit to make a statement till 8.10.2002. Once F.I.R. Ex.PV was recorded on 2.10.2002, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer Inspector Wazir Singh PW-23 or SI Hari Charan PW-20 to go and record the statement of the injured eye-witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which was done on 8.10.2002 after Rohtash PW-4 was declared fit to make a statement. 17. Much emphasis has been laid on the argument that no bullet was recovered from the body of Rohtash PW -4. While going through the evidence of Dr. Rajesh Gandhi PW-6 and Dr.Paryesh Gupta PW-19, it is clear they did not make any effort to extract the bullet from the body of Rohtash PW -4. One thing is clear that Rohtash PW -4 suffered a pistol shot injury and that also from a close range. The testimony of this witness is cogent and convincing. 18. Similarly, Rakesh PW-8, the other injured eye-witness, received a lacerated wound on the head. He was examined by Dr. Rajesh Gandhi PW-6 on 3.10.2002 at 3.40 p.m. The following injuries were found on his person : (1) Lacerated wound on the right side of skull 6 cm above ear margin, placed vertically, size was 2 x 1 cm x muscle deep. (2) The patient was complaining of pain on the left cheek. 19. Injury No.1 was given to Rakesh PW-8 by Harinder with his sword. Both these eye-witnesses Rohtash PW-4 and Rakesh PW-8 are stamped witnesses. They received injuries at the time of occurrence. Luck was on the side of complainant Sewa Singh PW-l that he did not receive any injury. The intention of appellant Shyam Sunder and his co-accused was very clear. They had come armed with four fire arms with the intention to inflict injuries to anyone of the complainant party who came in their way. Appellant Shyam Sunder fired a pistol (Ex.P22) shot which hit the left flank of Chand. Thereafter he fired at Rohtash PW-4, with his pistol. Purshottam fired with his pistol (Ex.P24) on the chest of Sunil and Pawan Kumar. Satish fired with his .12 bore gun (Ex.P25), randomly and tried to hit anyone who came in his way. Appellant Shyam Sunder fired a pistol (Ex.P22) shot which hit the left flank of Chand. Thereafter he fired at Rohtash PW-4, with his pistol. Purshottam fired with his pistol (Ex.P24) on the chest of Sunil and Pawan Kumar. Satish fired with his .12 bore gun (Ex.P25), randomly and tried to hit anyone who came in his way. Similarly, Jalpat Rai fired from his .12 bore rifle (Ex.P23) also randomly. Harinder, as already stated, gave a sword blow on the head of Rakesh PW -8. 20. The medical evidence corroborates the ocular account. Pawan Kumar was medico-legally examined by Dr.Rajesh Gandhi PW-6 on 2.10.2002 at 10 p.m. and following injury was found on his person: 1. Deep penetrating wound on anterior surface of chest 2 cm medial to left nipple and 1 cm below nipple. Margins were inverted. Seighing was present. Injury corresponded to the mark on the clothes. For this injury X-Ray and Surgeon’s opinion was advised. Injury and weapon were kept under observation and was within six hours. 21. Dr.R.K.Nandal PW-9 conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of Pawan Kumar on 6.10.2002. He opined that the cause of death of Pawan Kumar was due to a fire arm injury which had caused haemo peritoneum and haemo thorax thereby leading to shock. 22. Dr. Kuldeep Singh Rana PW -5 conducted the examination on the body of Sunil deceased on 3.10.2002 at 9 a.m. following injury on his person : (1) There was a penetrating entry wound 0.75 cm in diameter over left side c chest, 2.5 cm below and slightly Lateran to the left nipple. Margins were inverted, tattooing around the wound in about 3 to 4 mm. area Correspondent part of the shirt was torn. On dissection bullet had followed the path starting from anterior chest wall, traversing the left anterior pleura, middle lob of left lung which was lacerated and then passing through the left ventricle part and coming out through right ventricle posterior and bullet was found stucked in the muscles just lateral to sixth thoracis vertebra of left side. 1.5 litre of clotted blood was found in mediastinal and plural cavity. 23. Dr. Kuldeep Singh Rana PW-5 opined that in his opinion the cause of death of Sunil was due to shock and hemorrhage to vital organs caused by fire arm. 24. 1.5 litre of clotted blood was found in mediastinal and plural cavity. 23. Dr. Kuldeep Singh Rana PW-5 opined that in his opinion the cause of death of Sunil was due to shock and hemorrhage to vital organs caused by fire arm. 24. It is clear from the evidence of the doctors as discussed above, and from the injuries on the person of the deceased and Rohtash PW-4 that all of them received fire arm injuries. These were the same very fire arms which appellant Shyam Sunder along with his-accused/respondents were carrying. 25. Learned senior counsel for the appellant Shri K.T.S.Tulsi argued that the report Ex.PG of the F.S.L., Madhuban cannot be read into evidence, as the defence did not get an opportunity to cross-examine the Expert from the F.S.L. This argument of the learned counsel cannot be taken into consideration at this late stage when no objection was taken at the time of tendering in evidence and exhibiting the document. As per Section 293 of the Cr.P.C., a document submitted by F.S.L. is admissible in evidence per-se. If the defence counsel did not have any objection at that stage when the document was being put on record, this objection cannot be taken up now. At the trial stage if objection had been taken, then the trial Court would have summoned the Expert, so that he could be cross examined. Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. is reproduced below : “293. Reports of certain Government scientific experts .(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter of thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding, under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code. xxx xxx (4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts namely : (a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government; (b) the Chief Controller of Explosives; (c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau; (d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay; (e) the Director (Deputy Director or Assistant Director) of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory ; (f) the Serologist to the government; (g) the Serologist to the Government; any other Government Scientific Expert specified, by notification, by the Central Government for this purpose.” 25. Much emphasis has been laid on the site plan Ex.PK. Though Kuldeep Gupta Draftsman PW -3 has stated that the distance between the witnesses and the deceased was 13 to 16 feet, but we cannot be oblivious of the fact that injuries on the person of the deceased and Rohtash PW -4 are from a close range, by fire arms, not more than 1 to 3 feet, as the injuries had singeing and blackening. The testimony of this witnesses i.e. Kuldeep Gupta PW -3 is of no relevance when we go through the medical evidence, as discussed above. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narain v. State of M.P. (2004) 2 S.C.C. 455, )wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “But where the position is such that the evidence is totally unreliable, and it will be impossible to separate the truth from falsehood to an extent that they are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and background against which they are made, conviction cannot be made.” 27. This authority does not apply to the facts of the case in hand, as there is no falsehood in the evidence of the prosecution case as already discussed above. 28. Genesis of the occurrence has not been suppressed by complainant Sewa Singh PW-l, nor by the injured eye-witness Rohtash PW-4 and Rakesh PW -8. In fact, they have come forward with a truthful and convincing version which has been overlooked by the learned trial Court. The Investigating Officer SI Hari Charan PW -20 who has partly investigated the case, stated that after receiving a V.T. Message at 11.30 p.m. on 3.10.2002, he reached the General Hospital. lind. There he recorded the statement EX.PA of Sewa Singh PW-1. He carp.e to know that some of the injured had been shifted to P.G.I., Rohtak. He visited the place of occurrence after 11.30 a.m. on 3.10.2002. The office of Nav Bharat Transport is situated 40 paces from the place of occurrence. The dispute between both the parties i.e. the complainant party and the appellant was going on for the last 15 to 20 years, and there were cases of criminal nature pending between both the parties. The office of Nav Bharat Transport is situated 40 paces from the place of occurrence. The dispute between both the parties i.e. the complainant party and the appellant was going on for the last 15 to 20 years, and there were cases of criminal nature pending between both the parties. Similarly, the other Investigating Officer Inspector Wazir Singh PW-23 stated that investigation of the case was handed over to him on 5.10.2002. Thereafter he went to P.G.I., Rohtak and made an application to the doctors to record the statement of Rohtash PW-4. He arrested Jalpat on 14.10.1002. Jalpat made a disclosure statement EX.PD. Shyam Sunder was arrested on 26.10.2002. He made a disclosure statement EX.PLL and got recovered one licenced pistol of .32 bore and one licenced rifle of .22 bore which were taken into possession vide memo EX.PE. On the same day, he arrested Satish and recovered a licenced pistol .32 bore and one .12 bore gun. They were taken into possession vide memo EX.PF. SI Hari Charan PW-20 recovered three pistol shells from the place of occurrence. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that the occurrence had taken place at 10 p.m. on 2.10.2002 and the Investigating Officer SI Hari Charan PW -20 who partly investigated the case, visited the place of occurrence at 11.30 p.m. on 3.10.2002. The occurrence took place in a Chowk, by that time, a lot of traffic must have passed that way, especially during the day time. Apart from three bullets, the Investigating Officer was not able to recover anything else for this reason. In his statement, Sewa Singh PW -1 has stated that at 9 p.m. on 2.10.2002 he along with Subhash Gaba was sitting in the office when the appellant along with his co-accused came, while in the F .I.R. Ex.P A, he has stated that occurrence’ had taken place at about 10 p.m. This difference in time is not of much value to the defence, as the time given by Sewa Singh PW-1 in the F.I.R. is not exactly 10 p.m., but “about 10 p.m.” He has further stated in his statement that it is thereafter that he rang up his brother who reached the office about 20/25 minutes later and it is thereafter when they talked to each other, that Sewa Singh’s brother Rohtash PW -4 said that they should go home. This must have taken about 20/25 minutes. This will take us to about 10 p.m. when the occurrence had taken place. 29. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab (1990) 4 S.c.c. 692) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court disbelieving the other aspects of the case, had also observed that the pistol and fired cartridge were seized on January 15, 1975, but were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory only on January 27,1975. It was held that the delay in sending the articles to the Laboratory creates a doubt about the connection of the cartridge with the crime. 30. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Santokh Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1988 Criminal Law Journal 1583, wherein the gun, before being sent to the ballistic expert, was kept in police custody for a long period i.e. for two months, it was held that the report of the ballistic expert is unreliable. 31. Both the judgments cited Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Santokh Singh and others v. State of Madhva Pradesh (supra) do not apply to the case in hand. As per the F.S.L. report Ex.PG, the forwarding memos were despatched to the F.S.L. on 11.11.2002 and 14.11.2002. They were received vide EX.PG on the same day, i.e. 11.11.2002 and 14.11.2002 respectively. The pistol and the cartridge could not have been sent to the F.S.L. earlier as it was on 29.10.2002 that appellant Shyam Sunder made a disclosure statement and got recovered a licenced pistol of .32 bore and one licenced rifle of .22 bore which was taken into possession vide memo EX.PE. The pistol and the rifle being Exs.P22 and P23 respectively. Appellant Satish Kumar got recovered one licenced pistol of .32 bore and one rifle of .12 bore. These were taken into possession vide memo EX.PF. The pistol and the rifle are Exs.P24 and P25 respectively. Since the weapons were taken into possession on 29.10.2002 after the arrest of the appellants on 26.10.2002, no delay has been caused on the part of the Investigating Officer in sending of the pistol and the cartridge to the F.S.L. on 11.11.2002 and 14.11.2002. The pistol and the rifle are Exs.P24 and P25 respectively. Since the weapons were taken into possession on 29.10.2002 after the arrest of the appellants on 26.10.2002, no delay has been caused on the part of the Investigating Officer in sending of the pistol and the cartridge to the F.S.L. on 11.11.2002 and 14.11.2002. The F.S.L. has opined that the seals were intact, showing that no tampering had taken place. Recoveries of the three empty cartridges had been made on the next day of the occurrence which were also sealed by the Investigating Officer. 32. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Puniab v. Bhura Singh 1985(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 119, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “Reluctant as this Court ordinarily is to disturb an acquittal recorded by the High Court, it becomes its duty to do so, inter alia when incriminating evidence of a satisfactory character is ignored or overlooked, resulting in an unwarranted acquittal, in order to redeem the course of justice. The present is one of such cases.” 33. This judgment applies on all fours to the case in hand. The learned trial Court has misread and misinterpreted the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the doctors as already discussed above. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 2.10.2002 at 10 p.m. Statement of Sewa Singh PW -1 was recorded on 3.10.2002 at 12.30 a.m. and F.I.R. Ex.PV was recorded on 3.10.2002 at 12.50 a.m. The special report reached the safe hands of C.J.M., Jind on 3.10.2002 at 2.30 a.m. The name of the accused, the weapon of offence, the injuries inflicted, the name of the witnesses are given in detail in the F.I.R. This in fact, goes a long way in proving the case of the prosecution. The complainant party did not get any a time to consult and confabulate with each other as to who to falsely implicate. The F.I.R. is prompt and gets corroboration from the other evidence on record. 34. The complainant party did not get any a time to consult and confabulate with each other as to who to falsely implicate. The F.I.R. is prompt and gets corroboration from the other evidence on record. 34. With the above discussion and observations, we are of the opinion that appellant Shyam Sunder along with his co-accused i.e. Jalpat Rai son of Rameshwar Dass, Satish Kumar son of Jalpat, Purshotam son of Jalpat Mahajan, Harinder alias Kala son of Joginder Saini, Pawan son of Suraj Bhan have committed the murder of Sunil, Chand and Pawan Kumar. All are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. for committing culpable homicide amounting to murder of Sunil, for committing culpable homicide amounting to murder of Chand and for committing culpable homicide amounting to murder of Pawan Kumar. Harinder alias Kala is convicted Section 323 I.P.C. also for the injury he has inflicted on the person of Rakesh PW -8. All are also convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. 35. The conviction/sentence of appellant Shyam Sunder shall remain intact with a modification that his conviction now shall stand under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C., for committing culpable homicide amounting to murder of Sunil, Chand and Pawan Kumar. 36. We have heard the learned counsel Shri Vinod Ghai, Advocate qua the quantum of sentence. 37. Jalpat Rai son of Rameshwar Dass, Satish Kumar son of Jalpat, Purshottam son of Jalpat, Harinder alias Kala son of Joginder Saini, Pawan son of Suraj Bhan are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the murder of and further, to undergo imprisonment for life for the murder of Pawan Kumar Chand and to pay a fine of Rs.lO,OOO/- each and in default, to further undergo RI for three months each. All are sentenced to undergo 6 months RI under Section 148 I.P.c. Sentences shall run concurrently. 38. Criminal Appeal No.42-DB of 2005 is dismissed. 39. Criminal Revision No.578 of 2005 also dismissed. 40. Criminal Appeal No.95-DBA of 2006 filed by the State is allowed. Jalpat Rai, Satish Kumar, Purshottam, Harinder alias Kala and Pawan Kumar are directed to surrender before the C.J.M., Jind to undergo their sentences.