JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - Present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 9.10.2006, convicting the present appellants Ram Phal son of Gopi Ram, Ram Chander and Parveen sons of Ram Phal residents of Village, Sisana, District Sonepat for an offence under Section 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the ‘Code’). The accused Ram Chander and Ramphal were also convicted for the offence under Sections 25(IB) (a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short the ‘Act’) respectively. All the accused have been sentenced for the terms as mentioned in the order of sentence dated 14.10.2006. 2. This order shall also dispose of Criminal Revision No. 115 of 2007 filed by the brother of the deceased Kuldeep Singh for enhancement of sentence and compensation. 3. Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the statement (Ex. PA) made by Kuldeep (PW-1), brother of the deceased-Rajesh to ASI Anil Kumar, Incharge Police Station Sisana on 7.10.2003. On the basis of the said statement, ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of the FIR at 12.15 a.m. The FIR (Ex. PA/2) was registered at 8.15 p.m., and the special report delivered to the Magistrate at 4.00 a.m., on 7.10.2003. Kuldeep Singh in his statement has stated that in the year 1996, he was blamed for molestation of Mukesh daughter of Ramphal. In the year 1998, a quarrel was picked up between their family members and the family members of Ramphal. The family members of Ramphal had grudge against their family members. On 6.10.2003, he and his brother Rajesh were going to their house for taking meal. At about 8.30 p.m., when Rajesh reached near the house of Sahab Singh son of Dharam Singh in the street, then Ramphal son of Gopi armed with double barrel gun, Parveen son of Ramphal armed with country made pistol, Ram Chander son of Ramphal armed with Farsa and Bala wife of Ramphal armed with lathi were standing in front of the street. On seeing his brother Rajesh, Ramphal alarmed ‘Le Lo’ that today is the opportunity. On saying so, Ramphal made a fire shot aimed to his brother with the intention to kill him. Such shot struck at his right abdomen. On receiving the bullet shot, Rajesh fell down on the ground. On seeing his brother Rajesh, Ramphal alarmed ‘Le Lo’ that today is the opportunity. On saying so, Ramphal made a fire shot aimed to his brother with the intention to kill him. Such shot struck at his right abdomen. On receiving the bullet shot, Rajesh fell down on the ground. Ram Chander gave a farsa blow on the face of Rajesh while he was lying. Bala gave a lathi blow on the right hand of Rajesh. Parveen gave a fire shot aimed at him with the intention to kill but he escaped narrowly. On alarm being raised, his uncle Raj Kumar son of Mehar Singh and many other people of the street rushed at the spot. On seeing them, the assailants decamped from the spot with their respective weapons. He and his uncle Raj Kumar took care of Rajesh but he succumbed to injuries. After the said statement was recorded, ASI Anil Kumar went to the place of occurrence along with Kuldeep Singh and prepared the rough site plan (Ex. PJ). He also held the inquest proceedings (Ex. PM) on the dead body of the deceased-Rajesh. He took into possession the blood stained earth, one empty cartridge and one missed cartridge which was separately sealed vide the recovery memo (Ex. PF). The same is also signed by Om Parkash and EHC Satwan. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination through Constable Satwan and recorded the statement of witnesses. Further investigations were handed over to SI, Yad Ram (PW-14), Police Line, Karnal on 7.10.2003. Dr. V.K. Gupta (PW-7) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Rajesh along with Dr. Arun Garg on 7.10.2003 at 11.30 a.m and the following injuries were found: - “1. An incised wound 7x4 cm in the right iliac fossa with intestine coming out of the wound with bleeding in and around the wound. The intestine loops were distended. The wound was obliquely placed pointing towards the perineum. 2. An oval lacerated wound with blackening of margin, which were inverted, was present in the left iliac region measuring 1.5 cm in size with tail of 1.5 x 1.5 cm. Clotted blood was present around the wound. 3. An oval lacerated wound measuring 1 x 1 cm present over the front of chest on the right side 8 cm from the mid-line in the second inter-coastal space. Clotted blood was present around the wound. 3. An oval lacerated wound measuring 1 x 1 cm present over the front of chest on the right side 8 cm from the mid-line in the second inter-coastal space. Clotted blood was present around the wound. 4. A heavily cut incised wound across the face just below the eye, cutting the cheeks and nose measuring 16 x 22 cms. 5. An incised wound 4 x .5 cm on the right upper lip with clotted blood present. 6. An incised wound 3x .5 cm on the right eye-brow clotted blood was present. 7. An incised wound 1x.5 cm on the lateral side of the right arm in the middle. 8. An incised wound 1x.5cm on the chin. Clotted blood was present. On dissection of the face, there was fracture of nasal bone and both maxilla. On dissection of the chest, injury No. 3 was directed downwards laterally towards the left side going through right lung. A bullet marked ‘B’ was found lodged in the lower part of the left lung. The bullet was removed and handed over to the police in a sealed cover. Both the pleural cavities and cardial cavity contained blood. On dissection of the abdomen, injury No. 2 was directed upward and towards the right side going through the intestinal loops and then entering the right lob of the liver where the bullet was found lodged. The bullet ‘A’ was removed and handed over to the police in a sealed cover. The liver was badly lacerated and the peritoneal cavity contained blood.” The accused Ramphal was arrested on 17.10.2003 whereas the accused Ram Chander was arrested on 14.11.2003. A double barrel gun (Ex. PB/1), two live cartridges (Exs. P2 and P3) and the license (Ex. P4) were taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex. PB/2 on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex. PB) suffered by Ramphal on 22.10.2003. Ram Chander also suffered a disclosure statement (Ex. PD) on 15.11.2003 and on the basis of such statement .32 bore country made pistol and one farsa (Exs. P5 and P6) were taken in possession, vide the recovery memo (Ex. PD/1). 4. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Haryana submitted its Report on 24.3.2004 (Ex. PB) suffered by Ramphal on 22.10.2003. Ram Chander also suffered a disclosure statement (Ex. PD) on 15.11.2003 and on the basis of such statement .32 bore country made pistol and one farsa (Exs. P5 and P6) were taken in possession, vide the recovery memo (Ex. PD/1). 4. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Haryana submitted its Report on 24.3.2004 (Ex. PY), wherein it was reported that .12 bore fired cartridge case and one misfired cartridge lifted from the place of occurrence, have been fired from the left and right barrels respectively of .12 bore double barrel gun i.e double barrel gun recovered from Ramphal. It is also reported that two fired bullets, recovered from the body of the deceased, have been fired from .32 country made pistol i.e pistol recovered in pursuance of the statement of Ram Chander. On completion of the other investigations, accused Ramphal and Ram Chander were made to stand trial. On the basis of statement of Kuldeep Singh (PW-1) recorded on 1.6.2004, Parveen another son of Ramphal was also summoned to face trial though the wife of Ramphal i.e. Bala was not summoned. Thereafter, on the basis of the prosecution evidence, particularly of PW-1 Kuldeep Singh brother of the deceased-Rajesh; PW-6 Ram Kumar uncle of the deceased and the medical evidence corroborated by the report of FSL, all the appellants were convicted. It is against their conviction and sentence, the appellants are in appeal before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that from the beginning, the prosecution has tried to falsely implicate all the members of the family such as Parveen and wife of Ramphal i.e. Bala. Though, Parveen was also made to stand trial along with his father-Ramphal and brother-Ram Chander but Bala-wife of Ramphal was not made to stand trial. Such false implication creates doubt on the entire prosecution story. It is also argued that the police post is situated in the same village but still there is delay of about four hours in lodging the FIR and that no independent witness has joined the investigation or in the process of recording of the disclosure statement and the recoveries. Therefore, prosecution story cannot be believed. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the ocular evidence, as deposed by (PW-1) Kuldeep Singh and (PW-6) Ram Kumar, is materially contradictory to the medical evidence. Therefore, prosecution story cannot be believed. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the ocular evidence, as deposed by (PW-1) Kuldeep Singh and (PW-6) Ram Kumar, is materially contradictory to the medical evidence. Such contradictions are irreconcilable and consequentially, the prosecution case has to fall to the ground in its entirety. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that the cartridges from double barrel gun cannot be ejected unless an attempt is made to reload the live cartridges. There is no evidence of attempt by Ramphal to load the live cartridges after firing the shots. Therefore, the cartridges cannot fall at the place of occurrence, it is said to have been recovered by the Investigating Officer on 7.10.2003. It is argued that in the FIR (Ex. PA/2), Kuldeep Singh has alleged single fire shot by Ramphal hitting the deceasd-Rajesh; farsa blow on the face of the deceased by Ram Chander and two fire shots by Parveen. No fire arm is recovered from Parveen. The prosecution has not been able to prove its version as .32 double barrel pistol, is recovered from Ram Chander but not fired by him as per ocular evidence. It is argued that in court, the prosecution witnesses have changed the version as given in FIR. It is pointed out the PW 1 Kuldip Singh has not stated about the seat of fire injury attributed to Ramphal; farsa blow attributed to Ram Chander on the chin of the deceased and that Parveen has fired tow shots which hit the deceased on chest and he fell down. Such part of the statement is contradictory to the version given in FIR. 7. It is also argued that though two cartridges are said to have been recovered on 7.10.2003 but such cartridges do not find mention in the inquest proceedings (Ex. PM) finalized on 7.10.2003 by ASI, Anil Kumar. Still further, such cartridges have been sent to FSL on 14.11.2003 i.e. after the delay of about one month and seven days and when one of the accused Ram Chander was arrested. It is also argued that the allegation against Ram Chander was a single farsa blow but the deceased-Rajesh has as many as six injuries on the frontal region. Such large number of injuries is not supported by the ocular evidence. Similar is the statement of Ram Kumar (PW- 6). It is also argued that the allegation against Ram Chander was a single farsa blow but the deceased-Rajesh has as many as six injuries on the frontal region. Such large number of injuries is not supported by the ocular evidence. Similar is the statement of Ram Kumar (PW- 6). Therefore, the ocular evidence given by (PW-1) Kuldeep Singh and (PW-6) Ram Kumar is not corroborated by the medical evidence and the scientific evidence i.e. the report of FSL. Therefore, the entire prosecution case falls on the ground and the appeal is liable to be accepted. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel has argued that (PW-1) Kuldeep Singh has suffered a supplementary statement (EX DA) dated 7.10.2003 giving the version as stated by him on oath, in Court. It is also argued that the family members have actively participated and some times, the witnesses may not be clearly able to see the active role played by each one of the assailants more so when the time of occurrence is 8.30 pm when it is dark, therefore, the discrepancies in the matter of firing of the fire arms by each of the assailants is not material contradiction. The medical evidence and the report of the FSL corroborates the circumstances and the involvement of Ramphal and Ram Chander. It is argued that there is no delay in as much as the ruqa itself, has been sent in less than 4 hours to the police station. Some time is taken by the near relations to provide the medical care, therefore, time of less than 4 hours in sending the ruqa cannot be said to be lodging of FIR with delay. It is also argued that on account of general apathy, the independent witnesses do not come forward to help the prosecution agencies, therefore, mere non-joining of the independent witnesses cannot be taken to be in adverse circumstance against the prosecution. It is also pointed out that two empty cartridges recovered from the place of occurrence on 7.10.2003 were received by the FSL on 14.11.2003 i.e. on the date of arrest of Ram Chander and prior to the arrest of Ramphal who is said to have fired such shots. It is also pointed out that two empty cartridges recovered from the place of occurrence on 7.10.2003 were received by the FSL on 14.11.2003 i.e. on the date of arrest of Ram Chander and prior to the arrest of Ramphal who is said to have fired such shots. Still, as per the report of FSL, the samples were in sealed intact condition, therefore, it cannot be argued that the there is any prejudice suffered by the appellants on account of sending of samples on 14.11.2003. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. Though, Bala-wife of Ramphal was said to be armed with lathi but her presence has not been accepted during investigation and even on the basis of statement made by (PW-1) Kuldeep Singh on oath, in Court. But the said fact does not absolve the culpability of commission of crime by other members of the family. Therefore, implication of Bala wife of Ramphal was also present at the time of occurrence does not show the entire prosecution case to be false. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not the principle adopted by Court in India. Therefore, even if a witness is found to be not truthful in respect of some part of the statement, his entire statement cannot be rejected. 10. Similarly, the ruqa in respect of the occurrence has been sent at 12.15 a.m. i.e. less than four hours of the occurrence at 8.30 p.m. The attempt of the near relations is to provide the medical assistance and not rush to the police for lodging the FIR. The time taken in lodging of the FIR is not such which would raise any eye brow. Similarly, absence of independent witnesses is never a ground to reject the prosecution case in its entirety. In a case, where witnesses are the relations, the duty cast upon the courts is to appreciate evidence with greater care and caution. 11. The column 23 of the inquest proceedings is to reflect the articles found near the dead body. The failure to notice cartridges at the place of occurrence in the inquest proceedings is inconsequential. The purpose of the inquest proceedings is to ascertain as to whether the death was by unnatural causes. Such inquest proceedings are not a substitute of eye witness account. The failure to notice cartridges at the place of occurrence in the inquest proceedings is inconsequential. The purpose of the inquest proceedings is to ascertain as to whether the death was by unnatural causes. Such inquest proceedings are not a substitute of eye witness account. In Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P., [2011(1) Law Herald (SC) 431] : (2011) 6 SCC 288, the court observed: 9. The whole purpose of preparing an inquest report under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) is to investigate into and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds as may be found on the body of the deceased and stating as in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument such wounds appear to have been inflicted. For the purpose of holding the inquest it is neither necessary nor obligatory on the part of the investigating officer to investigate into or ascertain who were the persons responsible for the death. The object of the proceedings under Section 174 CrPC is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or met with an unnatural death and, if so, what was its apparent cause. The question regarding the details of how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of such proceedings i.e. the inquest report is not the statement of any person wherein all the names of the persons accused must be mentioned. 10. Omissions in the inquest report are not sufficient to put the prosecution out of court. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery, etc. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report. Evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be discarded if their names do not figure in the inquest report prepared at the earliest point of time. The inquest report cannot be treated as substantive evidence but may be utilised for contradicting the witnesses of inquest. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report. Evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be discarded if their names do not figure in the inquest report prepared at the earliest point of time. The inquest report cannot be treated as substantive evidence but may be utilised for contradicting the witnesses of inquest. We also do not find any merit in the argument that as (PW-1) Kuldeep Singh and (PW-6) Ram Kumar have not deposed that Ramphal has reloaded his double barrel bore gun at the spot, therefore the recovery of cartridges from the place of occurrence is doubtful. Though, the empty cartridges will stand ejected only if an attempt is made to reload the double barrel gun but the failure to notice the reloading of the gun is inconsequential so as to return a finding that the cartridges could not be recovered at the place of occurrence. The time of occurrence is about 8.30 p.m. on 6.10.2003. The suddenness in which the assailants have attacked Rajesh and Kuldeep Singh (PW-1), the minute details of the manner of occurrence as well as whether the gun was reloaded or not, could escape the attention of the witnesses. Therefore, mere fact that there is no mention in the evidence of (PW-1) Kuldeep Singh and (PW-5) Ram Kumar that the double barrel gun was reloaded, it cannot be said that the empties recovered and sealed on 7.10.2003, were not the cartridges recovered from the place of occurrence. Such cartridges recovered from the place of occurrence have been matched and proved to be fired from the licensed gun of the appellant- Ramphal. The FSL in its report (Ex. PY) has found the samples in seal intact condition. Consequently, there is no circumstance that the contents of the parcels were not one which were fired form the double barrel gun of the appellant-Ramphal at the time of occurrence on 6.10.2003. 12. The report of FSL (Ex. PY) shows that four samples were forwarded vide memo dated 13.11.2003 and 29.12.2003. The same were dispatched and received on 14.11.2003 and 1.1.2004 respectively. The two cartridges were forwarded vide the memo dated 13.11.2003 which were dispatched and received to FSL on 14.11.2003. Such cartridges were from the double barrel gun recovered from Ramphal who was arrested on 17.10.2003. PY) shows that four samples were forwarded vide memo dated 13.11.2003 and 29.12.2003. The same were dispatched and received on 14.11.2003 and 1.1.2004 respectively. The two cartridges were forwarded vide the memo dated 13.11.2003 which were dispatched and received to FSL on 14.11.2003. Such cartridges were from the double barrel gun recovered from Ramphal who was arrested on 17.10.2003. Therefore, even prior to the arrest of Ramphal, the empty cartridges have been delivered to FSL. Appellant- Ram Chander was arrested on 14.11.2003 and his disclosure statement was recorded on 15.11.2003. A .32 country made pistol was recovered from Ram Chander. Two bullets recovered from the dead body have been fired from the said country made pistol recovered from Ram Chander, in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Still further, different parcels were received by FSL in sealed intact condition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cartridges recovered from the place of occurrence and proved to be fired from the licensed double barrel gun of the appellant-Ramphal is anyway incorrect. 13. In a judgment rendered in (2003) 6 SCC 380, Thaman Kumar vs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has considered the situations where there is a conflict between the oral testimony and medical evidence. First is the category of cases where there is total absence of injuries which are normally caused by a particular weapon. Another category is where the injuries found on the victim are of the type which are possibly by the weapon of assault, but the size and dimension of the injuries do not exactly tally with the size and dimension of the weapon and the third category can be where the injuries are found to be on the victim are such which are normally caused by the weapon of assault but they are not found on the portion of the body where they are deposed to be caused by the eye witnesses. The Court found that it can legitimately be inferred that the oral evidence regarding the assault having been made from a particular weapon is not truthful in respect of cases falling under first category. However, in respect of the second and third category no such inference can straight away be drawn. It was held to the following effect: - “(16.)……..However, in the second and third categories no such inference can straight away be drawn. However, in respect of the second and third category no such inference can straight away be drawn. It was held to the following effect: - “(16.)……..However, in the second and third categories no such inference can straight away be drawn. The manner and method of assault, the position of the victim, the resistance offered by him, the opportunity available to the witnesses to see the occurrence like their distance, presence of light and many other similar factors will have to be taken into consideration in judging the reliability of ocular testimony.” In the present case, no doubt as per the evidence of (PW-1) Kuldeep Singh and (PS-6) Ram Kumar, it is the fire from double barrel gun of Ramphal which hit the deceased but as a matter of fact, the bullets recovered from the dead body have been found to be fired from .32 country made pistol recovered, in pursuance of the disclosure statement of Ram Chander. Since, the occurrence has taken place at 8.30 p.m. in the month of October and the fact that the attack was sudden, there can be error by the witnesses in minutely noticing the role played by each of the accused. The defence has confronted PW 1 with his statement leading to recording of FIR in respect of firing of shots by Parveen. No other part of the previous statement leading to lodging of FIR has been confronted to the eye witness. But the presence of the appellant-Ramphal and Ram Chander at the place of occurrence from the testimonies of (PW-1) Kuldeep Singh and (PW-6) Ram Kumar corroborated by the recovery of two cartridges from the licensed weapon of Ramphal from the place of occurrence next morning i.e. 7.10.2003 stands proved. (PW- 1) Kuldeep Singh and (PW-6) Ram Kumar both have attributed the farsa blow by the deceased. Whether the farsa blow has led to multiple injuries on the face is again dependent upon the angle by which the farsa blow was given and the position of the victim?. All the injuries are on the face and/or on the upper part of the deceased. Whether the farsa blow has led to multiple injuries on the face is again dependent upon the angle by which the farsa blow was given and the position of the victim?. All the injuries are on the face and/or on the upper part of the deceased. Therefore, though the eye-witness account is discrepant but keeping in view the recovery of .32 double barrel pistol in pursuance of the disclosure statement and having proved that the bullets recovered from the dead body were fired from such pistol, we do not find that any exception can be taken in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding the accused Ram Chander guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Code. The injuries by bullets are corroborated from the statement of (PW-7) Dr. V.K. Gupta who has deposed that such injuries are inverted and entry wounds of the bullets. 14. Similarly, Ramphal accused is proved to have fired two shots. Therefore, he is guilty for taking the life of Rajesh with the aid of 34 and has been rightly convicted for an offence under Section 307 of the Code. 15. However, we find the prosecution case against Parveen is shrouded by doubt. Though both the witnesses have deposed that Parveen fired two shots but no country made pistol nor any bullet have been recovered from him or proved to have been fired from any other fire arm. The dead body of Rajesh has only two inverted entry wounds and therefore, no injury is said to have been caused by the shots fired by Parveen. 16. In view of the said fact, we accept the appeal of Parveen by granting him benefit of doubt and acquit him all the charges. 17. With the said modifications, appeal as well as the revision stands disposed of. ---------0SL0----------