Judgment K. S. GAREWAL, J. 1. Chand Singhs house in Rauni, Police Station Sadar, Patiala was the scene of the murder of Shamsher singh (45), a taxi driver of Khalsa Mohalla, dhobi Ghat, Patiala. Shamsher Singh received a gun shot wound on the right side of his head and died after five days in Dayanand medical College, Ludhiana. 2. The shooting occurred on March 29, 1997 at about 8.00 p. m. Earlier Shamsher singh and his brother-in-law Akhtiar Singh of Passi road, Patiala were present at the sheranwala Gate taxi stand in Patiala where shamsher Singhs Maruti van PB-11e-0777 was parked. The van was occasionally hired by Chand Singh appellant. Chand Singh came to taxi stand at 6.00 p. m. with one harbans Singh, Range Forest Officer, Nabha and another person. Chand Singh hired shamsher Singhs van and they set out for rauni. Akhtiar Singh also accompanied them. On the way Chand Singh bought a bottle of whisky from a shop near Railway level Crossing 22. The group reached Chand singhs house at 7.00 p. m. and gathered in chand Singhs baithak. Chand Singh, harbans Singh and their third companion began to drink but neither Akhtiar Singh nor shamsher Singh joined them. 3. At 8.00 p. m. Shamsher Singh asked chand Singh that he should return the money which Chand Singh owed him. On hearing this Chand Singh became furious and felt insulted as money had been demanded from him in the presence of his friends. He went to the next room and brought out his licensed dbbl gun. He fired shot at Shamsher Singh who was sitting on the sofa in the baithak. The shot hit Shamsher Singh on the head in the temporal region. Blood began to ooze from the injury. Akhtiar Singh, felt scared and escaped from Chand Singhs house, through the fields towards Patiala. On the way near Century Enclave on Nabha-Patiala road, Akhtiar Singh met ASI Balbir Singh of P. S. Sadar, Patiala and gave the information. Akhtiar Singhs statement was concluded at 11.45 p. m. Thereafter FIR was registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala at 00.15 a. m. on March 30,1997 under Section 307, I. P. C. 4. Chand Singh was found guilty of shamsher Singhs murder by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala on December 17, 1999. Akhtiar Singhs statement was concluded at 11.45 p. m. Thereafter FIR was registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala at 00.15 a. m. on March 30,1997 under Section 307, I. P. C. 4. Chand Singh was found guilty of shamsher Singhs murder by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala on December 17, 1999. He was also held guilty under Sec.27 of the Arms Act: Chand Singh was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/- under the first offence. He was also awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.200/- under the Arms Act offence. There were also sentences in default of payment of fine. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. 5. In appeal learned counsel for the appellant has forcefully argued that Akhtiar singh did not witness the occurrence and that the other circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial was insufficient to hold Chand Singh guilty of Shamsher singhs murder. Before we, start the appraisal of Akhtiar Singhs evidence we feel it appropriate to describe the medical evidence because that would give a definite and unbiased picture of how Shamsher Singh was injured and what led to his death. 6. Surprisingly, after Akhtiar Singh retreated from Shamsher Singhs house, knowing that his brother-in-law had been seriously injured he did not return to the house with the police or make any attempt to evacuate shamsher Singh to the hospital. This was done by HC Darshan Singh (PW-5) who testified at the trial that he was a member of the police patrol when he received a wireless message regarding the shooting in Rauni. He was directed to reach Century Enclave on the nabha road where Inspector Jaswinder Singh met him and the entire police party went to rauni. They reached Chand Singhs house and found Shamsher Singh lying injured on a sofa but he was still alive. Shamsher Singh was taken to Rajendra Hospital in a Government vehicle and admitted there. Even Dr. Rajinder Singh, Medical Officer (PW-1) who was Medical Officer at Rajendra Hospital, patiala on March 30, 1997 testified that an injured person, 60 years old, male, Jat Singh was brought to the hospital by HC Darshan singh. The injured was later identified as shamsher Singh. The patient was unconscious, B. P. was 90/60, pulse feeble, pupils partially reacting to light. There was an injury on the right side of the scalp. The injured was later identified as shamsher Singh. The patient was unconscious, B. P. was 90/60, pulse feeble, pupils partially reacting to light. There was an injury on the right side of the scalp. Brain matter was coming out of the wound which was blood stained and there was blackening. Since the patient was, serious, the injury was not described in detail and the medico legal examination was also deferred. 7. At some stage, Shamsher Singh was, taken to Dayanand Medical Hospital, ludhiana for further treatment but he died on April 3, 1997, at 3.25 a. m. Post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Manjit Singh Bajwa (PW-2) and following injuries were found at his person :- There was a lacerated wound 5" x 2" over the right tempo, parietal region with inverted margins, with fracture of the underneath temporal bone and muscles and fascia extruded through the wound. The upper and outer aspect of right ear was blown apart. On exploration of the skull, there was communated fracture of the right temporal and parietal bone with extension to the base of skull and to the occipital bone posteriorly. A portion of the right temporal bone was missing. Brain matter was lacerated and cranial cavity was full of blood. All the organs of thorax were healthy. All the organs of abdomen were healthy and normal. 8 The Medical Officer was of the opinion that death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries to the brain as a result of fire arm. The injury was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death. The time that elapsed between injuries and death was five days and between death and post-mortem was 12 hours. 9. Therefore, there is a serious question mark on Akhtiar Singhs conduct, why had he disappeared after his brother-in-law had been shot in the head in his presence. This was the basis of the arguments presented by the counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel continued to argue that Akhtiar Singh had no real reason to be with his taxi driver brother-in-law. Normally he would not have gone with the driver and his customers. At chand Singhs house three persons had taken drinks but there was no corroboration that there had been a drinking session, no glasses or whisky bottle were recovered from the spot to provide corroboration to the prosecution story. Normally he would not have gone with the driver and his customers. At chand Singhs house three persons had taken drinks but there was no corroboration that there had been a drinking session, no glasses or whisky bottle were recovered from the spot to provide corroboration to the prosecution story. After Shamsher Singh was shot, akhtiar Singh slipped away without raising any alarm or collecting the neighbours or informing of any of the village elders to come and see what had happened. He made no attempt to help Shamsher Singh, Furthermore, it took him 31/2 hours from 8 p. m. to 11.45 p. m. to cover a distance of only 21/2 kms. from rauni to the place where he met the police. 10. After Akhtiar Singhs statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer, the police reached Rauni but Akhtiar. Singh did not accompany the police to Rauni. He did not seem curious to know the, fate of his relative. He was not even interested to help them to evacuate the injured. It is obvious that akhtiar Singhs version of the occurrence had not been revealed to the police because if his statement had been recorded Police Officers would at least have known that the injured person was Shamsher Singh son of Jarnail singh of Khalsa Mohalla, Patiala resident of rauni. No information about the identity of the injured was conveyed by HC Darshan singh to the Medical Officer at Rajendra hospital, Patiala. 11. Furthermore, it was argued that the prosecution case that Chand Singh had shot shamsher Singh with his.12 bore DBBL gun received no corroboration from ballistic evidence. The deceased had only a wound of entry but no exit wound. The dimension of the entry wound was not recorded by the Dr. Rajinder Singh at Patiala. It was revealed later in post-mortem as a lacerated wound 5" x 2". It is possible that the wound described in the post-mortem report was a surgical wound. Shamsher Singh had been treated at Rajendra Hospital, Patiala and also at Dayanand Medical Hospital, Ludhiana. The wound may have been explored by the surgeon and opened. Unfortunately, we have no evidence of any Doctor of Dayanand medical College, Ludhiana to testify regarding the treatment received by Shamsher singh before he died. 12. Shamsher Singh had been treated at Rajendra Hospital, Patiala and also at Dayanand Medical Hospital, Ludhiana. The wound may have been explored by the surgeon and opened. Unfortunately, we have no evidence of any Doctor of Dayanand medical College, Ludhiana to testify regarding the treatment received by Shamsher singh before he died. 12. If Shamsher Singh had received a gun shot from a close range, the pellets would have entered en masse and got lodged in the brain. If the firearm was a rifle the bullet would have lodged in the brain. Since there was no exit wound the pellets or bullet must have been removed from the brain. But neither pellets nor bullet were recovered from the dead body. We can merely conjecture that the Surgeon at Ludhiana must have removed the bullet or pellets from the brain during the surgical procedure but the Investigating Officer did not collect this evidence. 13. On behalf of the State it was feebly argued that the eye witness account was corroborated by the medical evidence. The injured Shamsher Singh had been found with a bullet injury in the head in Chand Singhs house. Chand Singhs gun had been used. Therefore, Chand Singh must offer a reliable explanation about all these facts. The learned state counsel also urged us to ignore the various anomalies in the prosecution evidence or in Akhtiar Singhs statement and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 14. We have gone through the record of the case and have heard the learned counsel at length. 15. We feel that the investigation in this case was rather shoddy. The Investigator may have been naturally concerned to take shamsher Singh to hospital for treatment but why was not the same concern shown by akhtiar Singh (PW-11 ). It seems to us that the conduct of Akhtiar Singh was not consistent with his presence at the spot. Had akhtiar Singh been present in Shamsher singhs house when Shamstier Singh was shot, he would have raised an alarm, come to Chand Singhs assistance, contacted the neighbours and the village elders in Rauni and accompanied Shamsher Singh to the hospital. Saving Shamsher Singhs life would have been paramount in Akhtiar Singhs mind. It was certainly more important than reporting the matter to the police which could wait till the morning. 16. Saving Shamsher Singhs life would have been paramount in Akhtiar Singhs mind. It was certainly more important than reporting the matter to the police which could wait till the morning. 16. Whenever a medico legal case reaches a hospital, it is the duty of the Medical Officer to immediately send a report to the police. Therefore, even if no report had been lodged with police, the arrival of the injured, would have in any case made the police swing into action. In this case the police had swung into action with good intention but akhtiar Singh was nowhere in sight when the deceased was shot. For this very reason we are unable to accept Akhtiar Singhs version of the case. 17. Added to the above there are other circumstances which had also considerably weaken the prosecution case, like absence of an eye witness from the taxi stand, lack of evidence of purchase or consumption of whisky, absence of an eye witness from rauni, failure of the Investigator to find out what happened to the bullet/pellets and the failure of the prosecution to present medico legal evidence of doctors from Dayanand medical College, Ludhiana. 18. It makes a criminal Court very unhappy when it finds that the Investigator and the Prosecutor had failed in their duty to properly investigate and prosecute the case which resultantly ends in acquittal. Courts pronounce their verdict of guilt or innocence on the basis of the evidence present before them. Courts cannot depend upon conjectures, cannot bend rules Of evidence and stretch the prosecution case to the point that it appears to be the gospel truth. We would like to record our extreme unhappiness on the manner in which this case was conducted and Shamsher Singhs murderer walking free but all the same we would accept this appeal and acquit the appellant. 19. This appeal is allowed. Chand Singh appellant is hereby acquitted. 20. Criminal Revision No.506 of 2000 is without any force and is dismissed. Appeal allowed.