JUDGMENT R.C. Mishra, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment-dated 21.10.2005 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in S.T.192/2001 whereby the Appellant, though charged with the offences punishable under Sections 148, 294, 302 read with 149 and 506 Part II of the IPC, was convicted under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer additional R.I. for four months. By that judgment only, all the 8 co-accused were acquitted of the offences. Admittedly, the State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal. 2. Prosecution story, in short, may be narrated thus- (i) At the relevant point of time, the Appellant was residing in village Veerpura wherein Asharam (since deceased) was also living with his father Dhaniram (PW1) and other members of the family. (ii) Nearly 10 days prior to the incident in question, Dhaniram installed a diesel water pump at the Balayde rivulet to draw water therefrom for the purpose of irrigation. Communicating objection through one Phool Singh, the Appellant sought to restrain Asharam from operating the pump while threatening that if he continued to do, the corresponding pipe would be cut. In the wake of the dispute Asharam lodged a report at Out Post Bhamorikala and also obtained orders from Sub-Divisional Officer to run the pump. (iii) On 26.10.2000, that happened to be the festive day of Deepawali, Asharam and Dhaniram operated the pump and irrigated the groundnut crops standing in Sagonawala Khet. Thereafter, at about 4 p.m., when they were returning home alongwith Mahendra Singh (PW4), their way was obstructed by the Appellant and the co-accused namely Deshpath, Ghansu, Bhanupratap, Prakash, Pappu, Bhumanideen, Soubat @ Suman and Rakesh Bunkar. The Appellant was armed with katta whereas his companions were carrying lathis and axes. While hurling abuses for violating the command given by the Appellant, all of them started belabouring Asharam with kicks and fists. Despite repeated requests made by his father to leave him, they caused Asharam to fall down and at this juncture, the Appellant fired a shot through his katta resulting into injury on Asharam's right calf. (iv) The incident was witnessed not only by Mahendra Singh (PW4) but also by Brajlal (PW3). Despite repeated requests made by his father to leave him, they caused Asharam to fall down and at this juncture, the Appellant fired a shot through his katta resulting into injury on Asharam's right calf. (iv) The incident was witnessed not only by Mahendra Singh (PW4) but also by Brajlal (PW3). However, being frightened by the threats given by the Appellant and the co-accused, that in case the matter was reported to Police, they would eliminate the entire family by fire, neither Dhaniram nor Asharam preferred to lodge a report. On 27.10.2000, Asharam was subjected to medical examination as an accused in a case registered as Crime No. 204/2000 at P.S. Jatara. (v) Dr. Bhartendu Kathal (PW2) noticed a lacerated wound on Ashram's right calf region and also found that the carbon particles were present therein. Still, observing that the carbon particles were the remnants of the burnt clothe put into the wound, he characterized the injury as one caused by hard and blunt object. (vi) Ultimately, on 1.11.2000, his father submitted a written report (Ex.P-1) before S. Panveliwala, the SHO of P.S. Jatara. Accordingly, a case under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294, 307 read with 149 and 506-B of the IPC was registered against the Appellant and his companions. In answer to the query made by the SHO, Dr. Bhartendu Kathal further opined that possibility of gunshot injury could not be denied. (vii) Condition of Asharam started deteriorating and ultimately, on 2.11.2000, the case was referred for further examination and treatment to G.R. Medical College Hospital, Gwalior where on 3.11.2000 at about 7 a.m., Asharam breathed his last. After inquest proceedings, dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. A panel of doctors comprising of Dr. P.L. Gupta (PW5) conducted the autopsy. In their opinion, Asharam's death was caused due to cardio-respiratory failure as a result of limb injury that was caused by a firearm from a close range and its complications. The panel was further of the view that death was homicidal in nature. Consequently, the case was converted into one under Section 302 of the IPC. (viii) During investigation, the Appellant and the co-accused were apprehended and upon completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted before JMFC, Jatara who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 3. The Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. Consequently, the case was converted into one under Section 302 of the IPC. (viii) During investigation, the Appellant and the co-accused were apprehended and upon completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted before JMFC, Jatara who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 3. The Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. According to him, Asharam was a member of gang of dacoits and had sustained injury in exchange of fire at the time when he along with other dacoits was fleeing away on being surrounded by the police party. Thus, the defence, in substance, was that the gunshot injury that was found fatal to Asharam was caused by SHO himself or any other member of the police force and not by the Appellant. For this, reference was made to the following facts- (i) On 26.10.2000, a case under Sections 212, 216 and 307 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 25, 27 and 30 of the Arms Act was registered as Crime No. 204/2000 by S. Panveliwala, the then SHO of P.S. Jatara against Bhagwan Singh and nine others including Asharam upon the allegations that after being surrounded while making preparations to commit dacoity in the nearby area, they had fired at the police party and, in defence, Inspector S. Panveliwala fired two shots through pistol whereas Constables Suhag Chandra and Rankendra Singh also fired one shot each from their .303 bore rifles. (ii) After being apprehended, Asharam was sent to hospital for medical examination on 27.10.2000 in respect of the case registered against him as one of the companions of Bhagwan Singh. (iii) For a considerable period of 5 days, neither Asharam nor his father Dhaniram (PW1) had apprised the police of the circumstances leading to the gunshot injury. (iv) In the light of the defence, an application was also moved for a simultaneous trial of the case alongwith the connected case relating to Crime No. 204/2000. This application was allowed vide order-dated 19.12.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 83/2001. (iv) In the light of the defence, an application was also moved for a simultaneous trial of the case alongwith the connected case relating to Crime No. 204/2000. This application was allowed vide order-dated 19.12.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 83/2001. However, as informed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, for the reasons recorded in the judgment-dated 13.10.2005 passed in the counter case registered as S.T. No. 112/2001, Bhagwan Singh and his companions namely Vijay Singh, Siyaram, Bhagwandas, Shankarlal and Guddu @ Gajraj Singh were acquitted on the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 148 & 307 in the alternative 307 read with 149 of the IPC whereas Vijay Singh was also acquitted of the offence under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act. 4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses including Dhariram but could not produce the Investigating Officer S. Panveliwala in evidence. No oral evidence was led in defence. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, learned trial Judge proceeded to conclude that the Appellant was the author of gunshot injury that was found fatal to Asharam. Nevertheless, he was further of the view that the act of Appellant did not amount to murder but fell under the definition of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 5. Legality and propriety of the impugned conviction have been challenged on the following grounds- (i) The same set of evidence, that was found deficient for holding the co-accused guilty of being involved in causing death of Asharam, could not have formed basis of the conviction in question. (ii) The delay in lodging the first information report could not be satisfactorily explained. (iii) Existence of animosity between the Appellant and the complainant party stood admitted. (iv) Probability of the defence was established from the evidence on record particularly due to non-examination of the investigating officer. To substantiate the contention, learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions- (i) State of Punjab v. Rajinder Singh 2010 (1) CCC 426 (SC). (ii) Chatra v. State of M.P. ILR [2008] M.P. 2674. (iii) Chhota @ Chhotelal v. State of M.P. ILR [2008] M.P. 3019. In response, learned Panel Lawyer, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, has submitted that the conviction in question is well merited. 6. (ii) Chatra v. State of M.P. ILR [2008] M.P. 2674. (iii) Chhota @ Chhotelal v. State of M.P. ILR [2008] M.P. 3019. In response, learned Panel Lawyer, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, has submitted that the conviction in question is well merited. 6. At the outset, it may be observed that the judgment in the connected case would be relevant for a limited purpose i.e. to know what was held in that case on the evidence appearing in that case only. In other words, each case has to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced in that case only. 7. Before entering into the merits of rival contentions in a proper perspective, it would be necessary to first advert to the medical evidence. 8. Dr. Bhartendu Kathal (PW2), who had the occasion to examine Asharam on 27.07.2000, described the injury as under- Lacerated wound, 2 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm in size. Hair near the injury in area of 4 x 4 cm are turned black. Carbon particles present in the wound. According to the medical expert, he had characterized the injury as one caused by a hard and blunt object in view of the fact that in the corresponding X-ray examination, no radio opaque shadow was noticed. As per his statement, on 01.11.2000, Asharam was again brought to the hospital for treatment of infection developed in wound and in the cleaning process, card board pieces were extracted from the wound. He further admitted that in an answer (Ex.P-5) to the query made by the Investigating Officer, he had clearly stated that the injury could be a gunshot injury. However, in the cross-examination, he took a complete somersault and admitted that it was not a firearm injury. In the light of these inner inconsistencies, the evidence of Dr. Bhartendu Kathal could be accepted to the extent it related to existence of a calf injury wherein an infection had developed. 9. Findings of the post-mortem examination, as recorded in the report (Ex.P-7), were duly proved by Dr. P.L. Gupta (examined as the sixth prosecution evidence but wrongly number as PW5). Bhartendu Kathal could be accepted to the extent it related to existence of a calf injury wherein an infection had developed. 9. Findings of the post-mortem examination, as recorded in the report (Ex.P-7), were duly proved by Dr. P.L. Gupta (examined as the sixth prosecution evidence but wrongly number as PW5). He depicted the injury found on the body of Asharam in the following words- Infected wound present over postero-medial aspect of right leg over calf 03 x 2.5 cm, swelling in sloughing of epidermis present below the wound in 5 x 4 cm area. Wound extends in the muscles slight downwards & laterally for 5 cm one wad of synthetic material with circumference of 06 cm recovered from the wound. The Autopsy Surgeon reiterated the unanimous opinion of the panel that Asharam's death was caused due to cardio-respiratory failure as a result of limb injury that was caused by a firearm from a close range and its complications and was homicidal in nature. In the cross-examination, the surgeon further asserted that the shot was fired from a distance of approximately 3 feet. No suggestion was made as to whether the injury was a blast effect of a shot fired through a service revolver or .303 bore rifle commonly used by police officials. As such, the medical evidence was in conformity with the prosecution version that the cardboard pieces found inside the wound were part of the wad of the cartridge projected through a firearm. As pointed out already, the connected case also did not result into conviction. In this view of the matter, the plea that any member of the force was the author of the injury, to which Asharam succumbed, was rightly rejected by learned trial Judge. 10. Adverting to the other evidence on record, it may be seen that Dhaniram (PW1) substantially reiterated the contents of application (Ex.P-1). According to him, the prevailing animosity due to dispute regarding drawing of water from the rivulet had culminated into the death of his son Asharam but out of fear, he had informed the police by way of application only 5 days after the incident. In his chief examination, he was emphatic in saying that submission of the application preceded death of Asharam at Gwalior but, in the cross-examination, he came forward to admit that the report was lodged only after the demise of Asharam. In his chief examination, he was emphatic in saying that submission of the application preceded death of Asharam at Gwalior but, in the cross-examination, he came forward to admit that the report was lodged only after the demise of Asharam. However, this admission was apparently based on a misconception as the corresponding morgue intimation (Ex.P-7) proved by Sub-Inspector Himanshu Choubey (PW7) duly reflected that Asharam was referred to Medical College at Gwalior for further treatment as the injured in the case registered as Crime No. 206/2000 and not as the accused in Crime No. 204/2000. 11. It also came in the statement of Dhaniram that the application was scribed by Vikram Singh, father of eyewitness namely Mahendra Singh (PW4). Evidence of Dhaniram drew ample support from the statement of Mahendra, who categorically testified that the shot was fired from a short distance of 3 feet. The defence was not able to elicit any material contradiction in the cross-examinations of above-named eyewitnesses. Further, as indicated already, the medical evidence was also consistent with their ocular testimony. Even if it is assumed that the infection would not have developed had proper treatment been provided, the liability of the Appellant would remain unaffected simply because the knowledge that the consequences are likely to cause death can safely be attributed to him. 12. In Chhota's case (supra), the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted, was restated whereas in the light of overwhelming evidence on record, no other view except the one taken by learned trial Judge was possible. 13. Chatra (above) was an accused in the case relating to the offences under Sections 366, 392 and 376 of the IPC but he was not arrested despite the fact that the FIR leading to registration of the case was lodged in his presence only. In these circumstances, it was held that non-examination of the investigating officer had caused prejudice to the Appellant whereas, in Rajinder Singh's case (ibid), while highlighting the limited scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Apex Court had upheld the order of acquittal that was based inter alia on a tainted investigation. In these circumstances, it was held that non-examination of the investigating officer had caused prejudice to the Appellant whereas, in Rajinder Singh's case (ibid), while highlighting the limited scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Apex Court had upheld the order of acquittal that was based inter alia on a tainted investigation. 14. However, a defective investigation cannot always afford a ground to doubt the veracity of prosecution version State of U.P. v. Jagdeo (2003)1 SCC 456 referred to. Therefore, even if it is assumed that there were certain lacunae in the investigation, it was not possible to reject the case of the prosecution outright. Moreover, it is well established that non-examination of the Investigating Officer does not, in every case, cause prejudice or affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. For this, reference may be made to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Ramdev v. State of U.P. 1995 Supp (1) SCC 547 and re-affirmed in all subsequent decisions on the point including the one in Rajkishore Jha v. State of Bihar AIR 2003 SC 4664 . 15. For these reasons, none of the contentions raised against legality and propriety of the conviction has any merit or substance. Accordingly, the conviction deserves to be affirmed as well merited. 16. This brings me to the question of sentence. While pointing out that the Appellant has already suffered imprisonment for a term of more than 5 years, learned Counsel has submitted that interests of justice would be met if the term of custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the Appellant. However, taking into consideration the social impact of the crime and other relevant circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentence of seven years' R.I. would be appropriate See. Sital Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)3 SCC 266 . 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned conviction and the consequent fine sentence are hereby affirmed. However, the term of corresponding sentence of imprisonment is reduced from 10 years to 7 years.