YATINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE main question involved in this criminal appeal is, whether the prosecution case is consistent with the injuries and the medical evidence. THE FACTS ( 2 ) AN incident happened on 27. 9. 1981 at 7:00am, in which one Ram Bharose (the Deceased) was killed. His uterine brother Govind (the Informant) lodged the fir on the same day at about 9. 30am (Case crime No. 278 of 1981 at police station Bisalpur, district Pilibhit ). He accused Jwala Prasad and his son Mohan lal (both of them are referred to as the Accused) for the crime. ( 3 ) THE allegations in the FIR are: there is a dispute between the Deceased and the Accused over a Parnate; on 27. 9. 1981, at about 7:00am abuses were exchanged between the wives of the Deceased and the accused Mohan Lal. The others also joined in; jwala Prasad asked his son Mohan Lal to bring the firearm and kill the deceased. Mohan Lal went to his house to bring the firearm; in the meantime, the Deceased ran. Jwala Prasad followed him with lathi. The Informant and Munshi Lal also followed them trying to stop Jwala prasad; when the Deceased reached the passage (Gali) between the house of bahadur and Chokhe, he saw Mohan Lai standing with Eknali Bandook (***) (single barrel breach loading shotgun) (the SBBL shotgun) on the Khapta (roof) of Bhogi Ram; mohan Lal fired the shot on the exhortation of Jwala Prasad; the Deceased turned back, went some paces, but fell and died in front of the house of Chhote Lal; the incident was also seen by Bhogi Ram, Dalchand, and Babu Ram who were smoking Chilam in front of Bhogi Rams Khapta; the accused are present on their roof top and are surrounded by the villagers. Immediate action be taken on the spot. ( 4 ) THE relevant pedigree of the Informant side is as follows: medai = Wife = Baldeo i I ram Bharose Govind Ram (Deceased) (Informant)I ram Pal ( 5 ) THE Accused were arrested on the same date from their house. Subsequently, the police submitted a charge sheet against them. The case was committed to the Court of session and was registered as ST No. 8 of 1982. The sessions Judge, Pilibhit framed charges against them on 23. 2. Subsequently, the police submitted a charge sheet against them. The case was committed to the Court of session and was registered as ST No. 8 of 1982. The sessions Judge, Pilibhit framed charges against them on 23. 2. 1982: jwala Prasad was charged under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC; mohan Lal was charged under Section 302, IPC. ( 6 ) AMONG the others, the prosecution filed the following documents: recovery memo of ticklee and a pellet (Goli) (Ex Ka-1-); recovery memo of the gun and an empty cartridge (Ex Ka-3); recovery memo of a blood stained baniyani (Ex Ka-7); recovery memo of the blood stained and plain earth (Ex Ka-8); supurdginama memo of the chilam (Ex Ka-11); post mortem report dated 29. 9. 1981 (Ex Ka-13); affidavit of Itwari Lal dated 15. 4. 1982 (Ex Ka-15 ). ( 7 ) ITWARI Lal is a constable. He is a formal witness. He had carried the dead body for the post mortem and has filed affidavit to this effect. ( 8 ) THE prosecution examined the following witnesses: govind Ram (PW-1): Eye witness, lodged the Flr; babu Ram (PW-2): Eye witness; munshi Lal (PW-3): Eye witness; moti Singh (PW-4): Investigating Officer (IO); dr. VC Khanna (PW-5): Doctor, conducted the post mortem; prem Shankar (PW-6); Constable, wrote the general diary (GD ). ( 9 ) THE statements of the accused were recorded on 19. 4. 1982. They neither filed any documents nor examined any witnesses. ( 10 ) THE Sessions Judge convicted the Accused and awarded life imprisonment to both of them on 26. 4. 1982. Jwala Prasad was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109, IPC; mohan Lal was convicted under Section ,302 IPC. Hence the present appeals. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION ( 11 ) WE have heard Sri Manish Tiwari, counsel for the appellants, Sri Arunendra kumar Singh AGA and Sri Anand Tiwari brief holder for the State. 1 The following points arise for determination; (i) Whether the oral evidence is reliable. (ii) Whether oral evidence is consistent with the injuries and the medical evidence. 1st POINT: ORAL EVIDENCE-RELIABLE ( 12 ) THE prosecution case talks about three places: (i) The place where the quarrel started; (ii) The place where the Deceased was shot; (iii) The place where the Deceased fell and died. (ii) Whether oral evidence is consistent with the injuries and the medical evidence. 1st POINT: ORAL EVIDENCE-RELIABLE ( 12 ) THE prosecution case talks about three places: (i) The place where the quarrel started; (ii) The place where the Deceased was shot; (iii) The place where the Deceased fell and died. ( 13 ) GOVIND Ram (PW-1) and Munshi Lal (PW-3) have deposed that: they were present at all the places; at the time of firing of the shot, Mohan Lai was on the Khapta of Bhogi ram and shot the Deceased on the exhortation of Jwala Prasad; the Deceased ran back. He fell in front of the house of Chhote Lal and died. ( 14 ) BABU Ram (PW-2) was not present at the first place where the quarrel started but is said to be present at the remaining two places. He has deposed to the same effect as PW-1 and PW-2 regarding how the Deceased was shot dead. ( 15 ) THE counsel for the appellants submitted that there are shortcomings and consistencies in the oral evidence: no reliance should be placed on the same. According to him, we are thankful to the counsel appearing in the case for correcting a part of the judgement under the heading (THE FACTS and POINTS FOR DETERMINATION) and the post-mortem report quoted in the judgement. Yet, if there are any mistakes, they are ours. (i) The witnesses have improved the FIR case by deposing that at the time of the firing, the Deceased turned side ways. This was not the case in the FIR; (ii) The prosecution case is that the Accused were surrounded at the place of the incident whereas they,were arrested from the roof of their house; (iii) Neither any blood was found at the place of the shooting nor its trail on the passage covered by the Deceased after being injured; (iv) The incident happened much before the time mentioned in the FIR. The Deceased was killed by some unknown persons at the place where his dead body was found; (v) The FIR has been ante-timed to set up a false case against the Accused. (i) Turned Sideways-Testimony Not Doubtful ( 16 ) THE injuries are on the left side of the body and on the outer side of the left hand. The Deceased was killed by some unknown persons at the place where his dead body was found; (v) The FIR has been ante-timed to set up a false case against the Accused. (i) Turned Sideways-Testimony Not Doubtful ( 16 ) THE injuries are on the left side of the body and on the outer side of the left hand. These injuries indicate that either the Deceased was shot from left side or in case someone was shooting from the front then the Deceased had turned partially clockwise at the time of the shooting. The Doctor (PW-5), who had conducted the post-mortem has also opined the same. ( 17 ) IN the FIR, it has been mentioned that the Deceased turned and ran back, after the fire was shot. However, in the oral testimony, it has been deposed that the Deceased had turned sideways at the time, when the fire was shot. Even, if this is an improvement then it does not make the ocular evidence doubtful. ( 18 ) THE Deceased was in front of the eye witnesses and thereafter was the accused Mohan Lal who shot him. If a person sees another person in front of him with a gun ready to kill him then it is natural to escape: he could turn and run too. This was what happened in the case. ( 19 ) IN the FIR as well as the eye witness have deposed that the Deceased turned around and ran. It was at such a time that the pellets hit the Deceased. In such a situation, it is not feasible for anyone to know, at what time the pellets hit the Deceased. They could have hit the Deceased at the time when he was partially turned. Everything must have happened in quick succession. In these circumstances, if the Informant could not notice whether the Deceased had turned or not, then the oral testimony cannot be disbelieved. (ii) Accused were Surrounded at Their House ( 20 ) THE accused were arrested from the roof of their house. This is the prosecution case too. In the FIR, it has been mentioned that: the accused are at the roof of their house alongwith the gun; they are surrounded by the villagers; and immediate action should be taken on the spot. This is the prosecution case too. In the FIR, it has been mentioned that: the accused are at the roof of their house alongwith the gun; they are surrounded by the villagers; and immediate action should be taken on the spot. ( 21 ) THE ocular evidence is as follows: (i) Baburam (PW-2) has deposed (paragraph 3) that accused had reached the roof of their house and they were surrounded by the villagers. (ii) Munshi Lal (PW-3) has deposed that : the accused climbed their roof top and were surrounded (paragraph-2); the villagers had surrounded the Accused from a distance so that they may not be shot. We did not go near the house of the accused (paragraph 12); we had collected in all directions so that the Accused may not escape. Jwala was surrounded where the bullet was shot and when he reached his home (paragraph 14 ). ( 22 ) THE depositions of the aforesaid two witnesses indicate that the villagers tried to surround them at the spot but they remained at a distance: the result was that the Accused could move to their house. Thereafter the Accused were again surrounded when they reached the roof top of their house. ( 23 ) THIS is in substance what has been stated by the Informant too. Though in this regard there is some confusion in his deposition. This could be because of the fact that: his mind was diverted due to shooting, looking for the Deceased and preparing the FIR; and he had gone to the police station to lodge the FIR. He may not be knowing what exactly happened between the time that he left for lodging the FIR and came back. ( 24 ) MOTI Singh (PW-4) is the Investigating Officer. He has deposed that one can very easily go to the rooftop of the Accused house from the roof of the house of Bhogi Ram. It is possible that the Accused might have reached this way or went back to their house then climbed the roof of their house with the gun so that no one may hurt them. ( 25 ) IT is possible that no one noticed, how the Accused got to their roof top it is not material too. It is possible that the Accused might have reached this way or went back to their house then climbed the roof of their house with the gun so that no one may hurt them. ( 25 ) IT is possible that no one noticed, how the Accused got to their roof top it is not material too. The reason for not noticing how the Accused reached their roof top could be that attention of the villagers was possibly diverted to the place where the Deceased fell and died. It was at third place, different from where shooting was done. The material aspect is as to: who had fired the shot; why did he do so; and at whose exhortation was it done. (iii) Blood Mingled with Earth ( 26 ) IT is correct that neither any blood was found at the place where the deceased was shot nor any trail of blood was found on the path traversed by the deceased after he was injured. However, it is neither unusual nor it creates any doubt in the prosecution case for the following reasons : it is possible that not much blood was oozed out; the Deceased was wearing short sleeve (half Asteen) under shirt (recovery memo Ex Ka-7) and Tehmad (post-mortem report Ex Ka-13 ). It might have, been absorbed by the cloths that he was wearing; the place where he was shot and the path traversed was kachcha. The villagers had gathered around. The blood might have been mingled with earth due to their movement. (iv) Presences of Faecal Matter No Prior Time ( 27 ) THE counsel for the appellants submitted that: in the villages, people normally go for the natures call early in the morning; the internal examination of abdomen in the post-mortem report indicates presence of faecal matter; this shows that incident had happened much earlier than mentioned in the FIR. ( 28 ) GOING for natures call depends on ones habit and also what happened on that day. It is not known whether the Deceased had gone out for the natures call on that day or not. Seven in the morning, is not such a time when faecal matter cannot be present in the abdomen. ( 29 ) THERE was a quarrel amongst the wives and the Deceased might not have gone out. It is not known whether the Deceased had gone out for the natures call on that day or not. Seven in the morning, is not such a time when faecal matter cannot be present in the abdomen. ( 29 ) THERE was a quarrel amongst the wives and the Deceased might not have gone out. In any case, neither any question in this regard was asked in the cross-examination nor any suggestion was given. The oral testimony cannot be doubted on this ground. (v) FIR Not Ante-timed ( 30 ) THE FIR was lodged at 9:10am. There is some confusion as to when the io left the police station: the Ravangi of IO is shown at 9:15am. In the GD it is recorded as 9:40am. There is some overwriting also; moti Singh (PW-4), the investigating officer, has deposed in the cross-examination (paragraph 25) that he started from the police station at 9:25am; govind Ram (PW-1) had deposed (cross-examination paragraph 31) that they started at 10:45am from the police station. But this should be seen in the circumstances of the case. ( 31 ) IN cases of serious crimes, Ravangi of the IO is normally shown as soon as the FIR is lodged. But it takes some time before IO actually leaves the police station. ( 32 ) THE villagers had surrounded the accused. The Informant was asking the police to take immediate action (see the FIR ). It was a case of urgency. The police took immediate action and the Accused were arrested within a short time. In these circumstances, if there is some over-writing in the GD or there is some confusion in the deposition regarding the exact time when the IO left the police station then neither it can be said that the FIR was ante-timed nor it creates any doubt in the prosecution story. Oral Evidence-Intact ( 33 ) THERE was a dispute between the Deceased and the Accused regarding the Parnala. In this dispute, proceedings under Section 107/116, Cr. P. C. were initiated against them. In this proceeding, Govind Ram (PW-1) had stood surety for the Deceased and his son Ram Pal had stood surety for the accused Jwala prasad. Oral Evidence-Intact ( 33 ) THERE was a dispute between the Deceased and the Accused regarding the Parnala. In this dispute, proceedings under Section 107/116, Cr. P. C. were initiated against them. In this proceeding, Govind Ram (PW-1) had stood surety for the Deceased and his son Ram Pal had stood surety for the accused Jwala prasad. This gesture of standing surety for the Deceased as well as for one of the accused by the father-son team of Govind Ram, shows that he was the one who was trying to make peace between the parties. It is not understood why would he falsely implicate the Accused. ( 34 ) IT is correct that Munshi Lal (PW-3) is related to the Informant. In paragraph 19 of the cross-examination, he has admitted that his cousin is married to Ram pal son of the Informant. However, merely for this reason, his testimony cannot be ignored. On the contrary, it shows that he is a natural witness to be on the spot. A quarrel had started among the women; he is related to one of them: he could be there just to see that it ends. ( 35 ) BABU Ram (PW-2) is an independent witness. He is not related to any of the parties. He was smoking chilam alongwith Dal Chand and Bhogi Ram at bahadurs place. There is no reason for him to tell a lie. ( 36 ) THE Investigating Officer found a pellet and pieces of tiklee at the place of the incident (Recovery memo Ex Ka-10 ). In one of them LG was written. At the time of the Accused arrest, the police took over a SBBL shotgun and an empty cartridge (recovery memo Ex Ka-3) from them. It is mentioned in the recovery memo that smell of gun powder was coming from the firearm and the empty cartridge. ( 37 ) IN our opinion, the ocular evidence is intact and is reliable. Lets consider whether the medical evidence and the injuries are consistent with it or not. 2nd POINT: MEDICAL EVIDENCE IS CONSISTENT ( 38 ) THE counsel for the appellant submitted that: (i) With the injuries as mentioned in the post mortem report, the Deceased should have died on the spot. He could not have gone the distance where his dead body was found; (ii) The injuries do not indicate single shot injuries. 2nd POINT: MEDICAL EVIDENCE IS CONSISTENT ( 38 ) THE counsel for the appellant submitted that: (i) With the injuries as mentioned in the post mortem report, the Deceased should have died on the spot. He could not have gone the distance where his dead body was found; (ii) The injuries do not indicate single shot injuries. They could be caused only by the multiple shots; (iii) The injuries cannot be caused by distance shot but they are close contact shots; (iv) The entry wounds are circular and hot oval. This shows that shot was from the level and not from the roof. ( 39 ) THE medical evidence is only an opinion and is not conclusive. There may be inconsistency between the two. In such a situation, there is no hard and fast rule as to which one, should prevail over the other. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. However, (i) The ocular evidence, if otherwise acceptable, has to be given importance over the medical opinion; (ii) The medical evidence cannot said to be inconsistent, if the injuries can be explained by any means with the prosecution case; (iii) It is only, when the injuries cannot be explained by any means; and the medical evidence is inconsistent to such an extent, that the ocular version becomes improbable-it may be considered as a circumstance creating doubt in the prosecution case, (see below for citations on this point ). 2 lets consider if the injuries can be explained with the prosecution case and in case they cannot be explained then do they make the prosecution case doubtful. (i) Deceased Could Have Walked ( 40 ) THE prosecution case is that after being hit, the Deceased covered 38 paces before he fell and died. The counsel for the Appellant drew our attention to internal Examination in the post mortem report where it is mentioned that: left Lung: Lacerated; heart: Both chambers lacerated, empty; additional Remarks: Diaphragm lacerated in the middle. According to him, a person having such injuries should drop dead on the spot and cannot run/walk 38 paces. ( 41 ) DR. VC Khanna (PW-5) is the Medical Officer, District Hospital, Pilibhit. He has, conducted the post mortem. He was also examined (PW-5 ). According to him, a person having such injuries should drop dead on the spot and cannot run/walk 38 paces. ( 41 ) DR. VC Khanna (PW-5) is the Medical Officer, District Hospital, Pilibhit. He has, conducted the post mortem. He was also examined (PW-5 ). He was asked this question and has answered (paragraph 5) that: looking into injuries, the Deceased could have died; he could have fell and could walk as well. I cannot say, how much he could have walked. I cannot even guess. ( 42 ) THE doctor is the best person in this regard: he has opined that the deceased could have walked. There is no merit in this submission. (II) Injuries Can be Caused by One Gun Shot ( 43 ) THE counsel for the Appellants submitted that: injury No. (ii) and (iv) in the post-mortem are entry wounds; there is lacerated wound on the lip; they can only be caused by multiple shots. In order to decide this submission, it will be proper to decide the sequence of the injuries. Sequence of the Injuries ( 44 ) IN the post mortem, the following ante-mortem injuries on the body: (i) A lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm on the left outer side of lower lip. (ii) Four gun shot wounds 1 cm x 1 cm each in area of 12 cms x 9 cms on the outer side of left upper arm, on the deltoid region and middle half. Margins show blackish ring with collar of abrasion. No blackening or tattooing seen. Margins of each wound are inverted (wound of entry ). (iii) Three exit gun shot wounds 1 cm x 1 cm each in an area of 10 cm x 7 cm over the inner aspect of left upper arm. Margins everted. (iv) Three entry gun shot wounds 1 cm x 1 cm each on the left side of chest, one just on the ant, axillary fold 2nd 1 cm below axillary and 3rd 7 cm below second wound and 3 cm ahterior to it. These three wounds are corresponding to exit wound of injury No. 3. (v) An exit wound of gun shot 2 cm x 2. 5 cm, 1. 5 cm outer to left nipple at 2 O clock position. (vi) An exit oval wound 1. These three wounds are corresponding to exit wound of injury No. 3. (v) An exit wound of gun shot 2 cm x 2. 5 cm, 1. 5 cm outer to left nipple at 2 O clock position. (vi) An exit oval wound 1. 2 cm x 1 cm, 2 cm from the left nipple at 11 0 clock position. (vii) An exit oval wound 1. 2 cm x 1 cm on upper abdomen 2. 5 cm below and 4 cm right to xiphisternum. On opening: (i) Left humerus bone is fractured into pieces; (ii) Left 6th and 8th ribs fractured on its convexity; (iii) Fracture of 8th costal cartilage just outer to costal joint. ( 45 ) ONE pellet was recovered from underneath the skin. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. ( 46 ) THE prqsecution case is that a shot was fired from the SBBL shotgun. A shotgun was used is established by the fact that a pellet was found in the postmortem of the dead body as well as on the spot. ( 47 ) INJURY No. (ii) is on the outer side of left arm and is entry gun shot injury. Injury No. (iii) is on the inner aspect of left arm and is an exit gun shot injury. Injury no. (iv) is entry gun shot injury on the left side of the chest. Injury No. (v) to (vii)are exit gun shot injuries. ( 48 ) THE post-mortem report indicates that wounds of injury No. (iv) correspond to the exit wounds of injury No. (iii ). Does it mean that the pellets entered from the wounds of injury No. (iv) and came out from the wounds of injury No. (iii)? ( 49 ) INJURY No. (iv) is on the left chest and injury No. (iii) is on the inner aspect of left hand. Irrespective of the position from where the firearm was shot or the position of the Deceased pellets entering from the wounds of injury No. (iv) cannot come out from wounds of injury No. (iii ). The counsel of the Appellant also could neither point out any such situation nor show any authority or opinion that it is possible. Irrespective of the position from where the firearm was shot or the position of the Deceased pellets entering from the wounds of injury No. (iv) cannot come out from wounds of injury No. (iii ). The counsel of the Appellant also could neither point out any such situation nor show any authority or opinion that it is possible. ( 50 ) ON the contrary, it is clear from looking into injuries (ii) to (vii) that initially the pellets entered from the wounds of injury No. (ii) came out by wounds of injury no. (iii) then again entered the body from the wounds of injury No. (iv) and went out from the wounds of injury No. (v) to (vii ). This can happen as hands are in proximity with the chest. . ( 51 ) THE aforesaid sequence is supported by the internal condition of the bones too as indicated in the post-mortem report (see paragraph 44 of the judgement ). This must have happened when pellets entered the body from injury no. (iv ). The abrasion on the lips can be caused by a pellet. ( 52 ) ONE tiklee was found on the spot with LG written. It shows that cartridge had LG shots. 3 In our opinion these injuries can be caused by one shot from a sbbl shotgun. Merely because there are two entry gunshot injuries, it does not mean that multiple shots were fired. Nevertheless, this can happen only if the gun shot had such penetrating power. Has the SBBL gun shot such penetrating power. SBBL Gun Shot Has Penetrating Power ( 53 ) THE counsel for the appellants submitted that the SBBL gun shot is not so forceful so as to penetrate the body twice and then to come out. ( 54 ) MODIs Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twenty-second Edition) at page 344 it says that: an LG shot fire from a shotgun with a muzzle velocity of 800 ft per second, for example, will have considerable wounding power even at 200 yards (182 m ). ( 55 ) THE firearm was a licensed standard gun {see recovery memo Ex Ka-3 and paragraph 2 of the statement of IO (PW-4)}. The site plan (Ex Ka-9) indicates that the shot was fired from 13 paces. ( 55 ) THE firearm was a licensed standard gun {see recovery memo Ex Ka-3 and paragraph 2 of the statement of IO (PW-4)}. The site plan (Ex Ka-9) indicates that the shot was fired from 13 paces. The Investigation Officer (PW-4) has explained that one pace is about one and half feet (paragraph 15 of his deposition) and the distance would be 7-8 yards. From this distance, an LG pellets can enter the body twice and come out again. (iii) Submission: Can Cause by Distance Gun shot ( 56 ) THE counsel for the appellants submitted that in Injury No. (ii) there is a blackish ring, it cannot be caused from a distance by an SBBL shotgun; it is not a shot from a distance; it is a close contact shot; ( 57 ) IN the injury No. (ii), it is mentioned that no blackening and tattooing was seen. This shows that it cannot be a close range shot. But can a blackish ring be caused from a distance SBBL gun shot? blackish Ring-Can be Caused by Distance Shot ( 58 ) THERE is a blackish ring with a collar of abrasion in injury No. (ii ). Modis medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (twenty-second edition page 349) says that: the wound of entrance in distant shots is usually smaller than the projectile due to the elasticity of the skin, and round when the projectile strikes the body at a right angle and oval when it strikes the body obliquely. The edges of the wound are inverted and the striking bullet covered with grease and smoke causes also a collar of abrasion contusion, which looks like a dark ring, showing two zones, the inner of grease and the out of abrasion. This is characteristic of an entrance wound of firearm and is found at all ranges. (Italics ours)So blackish ring can be caused. But is there any grease in the cartridge of an-SBBL shotgun. ( 59 ) the Identification of Firearms and Forensic Ballistics by Major Sir Gerald burrard explains (page 39) the list of components that are loaded into a shotgun cartridge. They are as follows: (i) Powder charge; (ii) Under-felt card wad. Usually 1/12 inch in thickness. (iii) Felt wad. Usually 7/17 or 1/2 inch thick. (iv) Oyer-felt card wad. Usually 1/16 or 1/12 inch thick. (v) Shot charge. (vi) Over-shot card wad. They are as follows: (i) Powder charge; (ii) Under-felt card wad. Usually 1/12 inch in thickness. (iii) Felt wad. Usually 7/17 or 1/2 inch thick. (iv) Oyer-felt card wad. Usually 1/16 or 1/12 inch thick. (v) Shot charge. (vi) Over-shot card wad. Usually 1/16 inch, although 1/20 and 1/12card wads are also used. Or crimp turnover. In the great majority of British cartridges the felt wad has been superseded by what is known as the "air Cushion" wad, which is really a short cardboard cylinder, turned in at both ends, which is compressed on discharge between the over-powder card wad and the usual card wad between the shot charge and the main wad. ( 60 ) THE same book on the same page also explains that : in order to lubricate the bore from round to round the thick felt wad is impregnated with grease, and since grease might affect the combustion of the powder, the latter is protected from the felt wad by a thin grease-proof card wad. (Italics ours)Similarly the shot pellets must be protected from the felt wad or some of them might be forced into the felt, and so another card wad is placed between the felt wad and the shot charge. ( 61 ) THIS shows that there is grease in the shotgun cartridge; it depends on that particular cartridge: blackish ring can be caused by an SBBL gun shot. Lets consider if this can be a contact shot. Not a Contact Shot ( 62 ) SOME time, in a contact shot also, there is no blackening and tattooing. Lets consider if this injury can only be caused by a contact shot and not from a distance shot. Characteristics of Contact Wounds-Authorities ( 63 ) DIFFERENT books explain the characteristics of contact wounds as follows: parikhs Text book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (at 286): when a shotgun is fired with the muzzle in contact with or near the body, the shot enters as a mass and the gases produced by the explosion cause considerable laceration of the surface skin, destruction of the deeper tissues, and often fragmentation of bone. Scorching of the skin, singeing of hair and blackening are seen around the near- contact wound. The powder residues are driven into the wound often very deeply, and tattooing may be seen around and also in the depth of the wound. Scorching of the skin, singeing of hair and blackening are seen around the near- contact wound. The powder residues are driven into the wound often very deeply, and tattooing may be seen around and also in the depth of the wound. The wad is often found in the wound and this may prove an important clue to the type of cartridge used. modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (twenty-second edition page 349): in contact wounds of the skull, the tissues may crepitate because of impounded gases (muscle fibres discolored cherry red beneath, due to CO)but there will be no evidence of burning, tattooing or soot; occasionally there may be a circular impression of the muzzle on the skin round the entry hole. The edges (of the entry wound contact which is large and cruciate) may be ragged and everted and the exit wound is smaller. dr. KS Narayan Reddys Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (edition 2006 reprint page 200: contact Wounds: They are single, usually round or oval, of a size equal to the bore of the weapon, often ragged because of individual shot and tearing due to gases. The margins of the skin perforation are charred by flame, and the abraded border is usually soiled with powder residue. Such wounds are usually much larger than exit wounds produced by the same bullets. ( 64 ) THERE is no scorching or burning. The exit wounds of injury No. (ii) are wounds of injury No. (iii ). Wounds of injury No. (ii) are not bigger than wound of injury No. (iii ). There is no circular impression of the muscle. It cannot be contact shot. Apart from it, in the contact shot the size of the wound would be atleast as big as the bore of the gun. Is it the case here? ( 65 ) MODIs Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (twenty-second edition page 343) also gives bore of different gun as follows: ga Bore bore Diameter in mm 10 19. 69 12 18. 52 16 16. 81 20 15. 62 28 13. 97 10. 41 the size of injury No. (ii) is 1 cm x 1 cm. All bore diameters are bigger than 1 cm. No shotgun was suggested that has bore of 1 cm and could have been used. ( 66 ) IT also appears improbable that the assailant would shoot a contact shot at hand. 62 28 13. 97 10. 41 the size of injury No. (ii) is 1 cm x 1 cm. All bore diameters are bigger than 1 cm. No shotgun was suggested that has bore of 1 cm and could have been used. ( 66 ) IT also appears improbable that the assailant would shoot a contact shot at hand. In contact shot, assailant is likely to shoot in the vital part of the body namely head or heart but not in hand. ( 67 ) IN our opinion, injury No. (ii) is not a contact shot and can be caused by an SBBL gun shot from a distance. (iv) There Could be Circular Shape Injuries ( 68 ) THE counsel for the appellants submitted that: the gunshot is said to be fired from the roof top; in such an event, the pellets entered the body obliquely and the shape of the wounds should be oval and not circular; the shape of the wounds of injury No. (ii) are circular and not oval; and this belies the prosecution case. ( 69 ) THE first entry is injury No. (ii ). There are four wounds of 1 cm x 1 cm. It is not mentioned that they are circular. There is no suggestion or cross-examination that they are circular. Even if it is taken that they are circular, it does not cast any doubt on the prosecution story. ( 70 ) IT is correct that if the angle of the fire shot is not right angle but is oblique then shape of the wound may be oval. But this depends on how oblique was the shot? In the present case, it is neither clear how oblique was the fireshot nor can it be determined. ( 71 ) THE shot was from the Khapta of Bhogi Ram and the shot was fired from the height but it is not clear how high was the Khapta. Unless the height is known it cannot be determined how oblique was the shot so as to cause oval wound. ( 72 ) THE wounds of injury No. (ii) are on the hand. The hands move, not only forward-backward but also up-down sideways. Unless the height is known it cannot be determined how oblique was the shot so as to cause oval wound. ( 72 ) THE wounds of injury No. (ii) are on the hand. The hands move, not only forward-backward but also up-down sideways. In case the hands are in forward or backward position then the angle of the shot from a height will always be same and may be oblique (depending where it hits the hand) as flight of the shot is oblique to the plane of hands movement. However, this will not be the case if the hands are moving out sideways. In this situation, the angle of the flight of the shot from the height changes and depends upon the position of the hands. Depending upon the position of the hand, it could be at right angle too. ( 73 ) THE Deceased was running, then stopped, and turned back. The shot hit him when he was turning back. One does not know the position of the hand at that time. If it was slightly lifted sideways then the line of fireshot could be at right angle and shape will be circular. ( 74 ) IN our opinion: the injuries can be explained with the prosecution case; the medical evidence is not inconsistent with the ocular evidence; and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. CONCLUSIONS ( 75 ) OUR conclusions are as follows: (i) The ocular evidence is reliable; (ii) The injuries can be explained by the ocular evidence; (iii) The medical evidence is neither inconsistent with the ocular evidence nor creates any doubt in the prosecution case; and (iv) The case against the Accused (the Appellants) is proved beyond reasonable doubt. ( 76 ) IN view of our conclusions, the conviction and sentence dated 26. 4. 2982 in ST No. 8 of 1982 is upheld. The appeals have no merit and are dismissed. The appellants bail is cancelled. They will be taken into custody. .