Judgment T. P. SHARMA, J. (1) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12-11-1994 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, in Sessions Trial No. 190/93, whereby and where under learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting co-accused Madan Gopal, after holding the appellants guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Rameshwar Soni in sharing common intention by using firearm without license, convicted appellant Baldev under Sections 302 of the IPC, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to undergo RI for three years, respectively. The trial Court has also convicted co-accused Gopal, who has been released after serving sentence, under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for three years. (2) Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants, and thereby committed illegality. As per case of the prosecution, on the fategul day of 29-4-1993 at about 7 p.m. Jatta (P.W. 1) went to the house of co-appellant Gopal and demanded liquor from Gopal which Gopal denied on which Jatta threatened Gopal that he will lodged report whereupon Gopal went inside his house and came with axe and assaulted Jatta by axe over back of his head. Jatta snatched axe from Gopal and called his brother Rameshwar (since deceased), at that time appellant Baldev came by cycle along with one Madan, Baldev was having country made pistol and he shot fire by country made pistol upon Rameshwar as of result Rameshwar fell down and died as a result of pistol shot injury. Gopal assaulted Bhula (P.W. 3) and caused injury. Jatta (P.W. 1) went to the police station and lodged FIR vide Ex. P-1. Merg intimation was recorded vide Ex. P-22. The investigating officer left for the scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex. P-2 prepared inquest over the dead body of deceased Rameshwar vide Ex. P-3. Blood stained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex. P-4. One blood stained wooden piece was seized from Bhula vide Ex. P-5. Blood stained axe was seized from Jatta (P.W. 1) vide Ex. P-6. Blood stained cloth of Jatta was seized from Jatta vide Ex. P-7. One cycle lying in the field of Maniram was seized vide Ex. P-8. P-4. One blood stained wooden piece was seized from Bhula vide Ex. P-5. Blood stained axe was seized from Jatta (P.W. 1) vide Ex. P-6. Blood stained cloth of Jatta was seized from Jatta vide Ex. P-7. One cycle lying in the field of Maniram was seized vide Ex. P-8. Blood stained baniyan was seized from accused Gopal vide Ex. P-9. Blood stained shirt was seized from appellant Baldev vide Ex. P-10. Acquitted co-accused Madan made discloser statement of stick vide Ex. P-11and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-12. Sealed clothes of the deceased, metal piece, plastic and synthetic material found in the body of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P-13. Dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy to Assistant Surgeon, Community Helath Centre, Rajpur. Dr. P. L. Verma (P.W. 8) conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-14 and found following injuries:- (1) Dry blood over both cheeks, neck, ear and nose. (2) Lacerated wound of 2 1/2 c.m. x 2 1/2 cm. over right scapular region. (3) Fracture of scapular bone of 2 1/2 c.m. x 2 1/2 c.m. whole was also noticed in the bone. (4) Fracture of 4th 5th ribs and fracture of 4th and 5th vertebra. (5) Lacerated injury over right lungs. (6) Lacerated wound over Sterne clavicular region of 3 cm. x 3 cm. (7) One broken plastic cover, three synthetic materials found inside the body. (8) One heavy metal piece like bullet in disturbed shape found in internal part of the body. Cause of death was gut shot injury, mode of death was syncope and death was homicidal in nature. Dr. P. L. Verma (P.W. 8) has also examined injured Jatta (P.W. 1) vide Ex. P-15 and found one lacerated wound over scalp of 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. He has also examined Bhula (P.W. 3) vide Ex. P-16 and found one lacerated wound near left eye of 2 cm. x 1 cm. and one lacerated wound over scalp of 1 cm. x 1/2 c.m. District Magistrate, Sarguja accorded sanction to prosecute appellant Baldev for of offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act vide Ex. P-20C. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-23. During the course of investigation, appellant Baldev was taken into custody, he made discloser statement of country made pistol on 30-4-1993 vide Ex. P-26 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-27. P-20C. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-23. During the course of investigation, appellant Baldev was taken into custody, he made discloser statement of country made pistol on 30-4-1993 vide Ex. P-26 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-27. Empty cartridges with smell of gun powder were seized from appellant Baldev vide Ex. P-28. Seized country made pistol was sent for examination to armourer vide Ex. P-21A and after examination he opined on 30-4-93 vide Ex. P-21 that the country made pistol is in working condition and has been recently used i.e. he noticed the symptom of recent firing from the said country made pistol. (3) Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur who committed the case to the Court of Session, Ambikapur, from where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial (4) In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, while acquitting co-accused Madan Gopal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the aforesaid manner. Appellant Gopal Soni was released after completion of sentence imposed upon him. (5) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. (6) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No. 2 Gopal Soni has completed his sentence and has been released after serving the sentence of RI for three years imposed upon him under Section 324 of the IPC, he has not been released on bail by this Court. Therefore, only conviction and sentences imposed upon appellant No. 1 Baldev Soni are under challenge in the present appeal. LEARNED counsel further submits that the prosecution has examined Jatta (P.W. 1) as injured eye-witnesses, Chander Prasad (P,W. 2) as eye-witness. Bhula (P.W. 3) as injured eye-witness and Anil Kumar (P.W. 4)-child witness as eye-witness. Therefore, only conviction and sentences imposed upon appellant No. 1 Baldev Soni are under challenge in the present appeal. LEARNED counsel further submits that the prosecution has examined Jatta (P.W. 1) as injured eye-witnesses, Chander Prasad (P,W. 2) as eye-witness. Bhula (P.W. 3) as injured eye-witness and Anil Kumar (P.W. 4)-child witness as eye-witness. Jatta (P.W. 1), Bhula (P.W. 3) and Anil Kumar (P.W 4) have deposed in their evidence, initially, that they have seen the incident, appellant Baldev has fired by country made pistol upon deceased Rameshwar and caused his death, and they have seen blood over his head. However, in their cross-examination, they have not supported their version and have deposed that virtually, they have not seen the incident, especially the country made pistol shot fire by appellant Baldev upon Rameshwar. Chander Prasad (P.W. 2) has produced himself as eye-witness and has deposed that he has seen the incident and appellant Baldev has shot fire upon Rameshwar. LEARNED counsel also submits that case of the prosecution is required to be considered in totality of evidence and not on the basis of pieces of evidence, if evidence of Jatta (P.W. 1). Chander Prasad (P.W. 2), Bhula (P.W. 3) and Anil Kumar (P.W. 4) is considered in its evidentiary value, especially considering the facts that they all were present on the spot and after sustaining injury by Jatta other witnesses came to the spot together, it reveals that evidence of Chander Prasad (P.W. 2) does not inspire confidence, it is not trustworthy and is not safe to rely for conviction of appellant Baldev that too under Section 302 of the IPC. Evidence of Chander Prasad (P.W. 2) could not be considered as gospel truth especially in the light of evidence of other witnesses who also came to the spot along with Chander Prasad (P.W. 2), if other witnesses who are also relatives of the deceased had not seen the incident, then it was not possible for Chander Prasad (P.W. 2) also to see the incident. LEARNED counsel contends that as per evidence of the prosecution, country made pistol has been recovered at the instance of appellant Baldev but the alleged discloser statement Ex. P-26 does not find signature or thumb impression of the appellant, though the prosecution has proved signature of appellant Baldev on Ex. P.27-seizure of pistol. LEARNED counsel contends that as per evidence of the prosecution, country made pistol has been recovered at the instance of appellant Baldev but the alleged discloser statement Ex. P-26 does not find signature or thumb impression of the appellant, though the prosecution has proved signature of appellant Baldev on Ex. P.27-seizure of pistol. LEARNED counsel placed reliance in the matter of Jaskaran Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 SCC (Cri) 651 : (AIR 1995 SC 2345): (1995 Cri LJ 3992) in which the Supreme Court has disbelieved the version of the prosecution relating to recovery at the instance of the appellant, in absence of signature or thumb impression of the appellant on discloser statement and seizure memo and on the ground of other circumstances LEARNED counsel further contends that even otherwise, as per evidence of Chander Prasad (P.W. 2), appellant Baldev fired by country' made pistol during the course of scuffle and, therefore, the act of appellant Baldev does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304, Part-II of the IPC. LEARNED counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Sukhdev Singh v. Delhi State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2003 Cri LJ 4315 : (AIR 2003 SC 3716) in which the Supreme Court has held that causing death by gun shot injury during the course of scuffle the case squarely falls within the ambit of Section 304, Part II of the IPC. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the criminal appeal and supports the judgment impugned. He submits that evidence of Jatta (P.W. 1), Chander Prasad (P.W. 2), Bhula (P.W. 3) and Anil Kumar (P.W. 4) is required to be scrutinized minutely, their evidence clearly reveals that appellant Baldev came and fired by country made pistol, but as per their statements in their cross examination they have not actually seen when the appellant fired, however, only on the ground of such discrepancy, their evidence cannot be discarded. Whole incident was seen by Chander Prasad (P.W. 2), who came after hearing the sound of Jatta (P.W. 1) to the spot where he saw that after some dispute, the appellant went to his house then again came with country made pistol and fired upon his brother Rameshwar, he has seen such incident and has also heard the sound of fire. Defence has cross-examined Chander Prasad (P.W. 2) in detail, but for the reasons best known to the defence, it has not suggested or asked single question to this effect relating to the fact that he is not present on the spot or that he has not seen such incident. In absence of any cross-examination to this witness, evidence of this witness alone is sufficient for conviction of the appellant. Learned State counsel further submits that this is not the case in which the appellant substantially shot fire on sudden quarrel, but after quarrel he went to his house and came with country made pistol and shot fire upon Rameshwar which shows his grave intention of causing murder of Rameshwar. Learned State counsel also submits that absence of signature or thumb impression over Ex. P- 26 discloser statement is not fatal to the prosecution. In Jaskaran's case (supra), the Supreme Court has not disbelieved the factum of discloser and recovery on the ground of absence of signature on discloser statement, but has disblieved the prosecution story on so many grounds including the ground of absence of signature. In that case, discloser statement and recovery memo do not find signature of the appellant, even as per defence version there was serious discrepancy and inconsistency relating to arrest of the appellant at the time of recovery, considering all circumstances, the Supreme Court has disblieved the evidence of witnesses in which absence of signature over discloser statement is also one of the grounds. (7) In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. (8) In the present case, homicidal death of deceased Rameshwar as a result of gun shot injury has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellants, even otherwise, it is established by evidence of Dr. P. L. Verma (P.W. 8) and autopsy report Ex. P- 14 that Rameshwar died as a result of gun shot injury and his death was homicidal in nature. Likewise J. N. Soni (P.W. 9) has proved the sanction Ex. P-20C required under Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959, accorded by District Magistrate, Sarguja Mr. P. L. Verma (P.W. 8) and autopsy report Ex. P- 14 that Rameshwar died as a result of gun shot injury and his death was homicidal in nature. Likewise J. N. Soni (P.W. 9) has proved the sanction Ex. P-20C required under Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959, accorded by District Magistrate, Sarguja Mr. R. K. Goyal for prosecution of appellant Baldev for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act which has not been disputed and nothing has been asked to this witness in his cross-examination. As regards complicity of appellants in the crime in question, conviction of the appellants is substantially based on evidence of Jatta (P.W. 1), Chander Prasad (P.W. 2), Bhula (P.W. 3) and Anil Kumar (P.W. 4). (9) JATTA (P.W. 1) and Chander Prasad (P.W. 2) are sons of Bhula (P.W. 3) and Anil Kumar (P.W 4) is son of Chander Prasad (P.W. 2), they are all close relatives and are relative witnesses. Rameshwar (since deceased) was also son of Bhula (P.W. 3). (10) As per evidence of Jatta (P.W. 1), initially the incident took place with him and Gopal caused injury by axe to him, thereafter he shouted for help on which his brothers Rameshwar (since deceased) and Chander Prasad (P.W. 2) came to the spot and during the course of discussion, appellant Baldev came with country made pistol and fired upon Rameshwar. There are contradictions and omissions in the statement of Jatta (P.W. 1) recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. and his evidence. In para 12 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that he heard the sound of fire and has seen the body of Rameshwar lying on the floor, but he has not seen as to who shot fire. He has also admitted that after report the police came and after making arrangement of light they have conducted investigation. Bhula (P.W. 3)-second injured witness, has admitted in para 4 of his cross-examination that when he reached to the spot he saw the body of Rameshwar lying on the floor and he has not seen as to who has caused gun shot injury, on account of darkness. Bhula (P.W. 3)-second injured witness, has admitted in para 4 of his cross-examination that when he reached to the spot he saw the body of Rameshwar lying on the floor and he has not seen as to who has caused gun shot injury, on account of darkness. As per his evidence, firstly, after hearing the sound of Jatta (P.W. 1), Rameshwar (since deceased) reached to the spot, then after 10- 15 minutes he reached to the spot along with Chander Prasad (P.W. 2) and Anil Kumar (P.W. 4). Anil Kumar (P.W. 4) has admitted in para 3 of his cross-examination that when he reached to the spot, Rameshwar already sustained gun short injury and he was dead, they were informed by Jatta that Rameshwar died as a result of gun shot injury. (11) Initially, all these witnesses have specifically deposed that appellant Baldev has shot gun shot injury upon Rameshwar, but in their cross-examination they have not supported their version what they have stated in their examination-in-chief. Considering the discrepancies in evidence of Jatta (P.W. 1), Bhula (P.W. 3) and Anil Kumar (P.W. 4), their evidence is not sufficient for drawing inference that appellant Baldev has shot fire by country made pistol upon Rameshwar. In these circumstances, evidence of Chander Prasad (P.W. 2) substantially remains for consideration. (12) Chander Prasad (P.W. 2) has specifically deposed that after hearing the sound of Jatta (P.W. 1), he came to the spot and after causing injury to Jatta, appellant Gopal went inside his house, thereafter, appellant Baldev came to the spot from his house, he was holding country made pistol and shot fire upon Rameshwar by country made pistol. CHANDER Prasad (P.W. 2) has specifically deposed that he has seen the incident and has also heard the sound of fire. Defence has cross-examined this witness at length but has not asked single question to this witness relating to the fact that he has not seen the incident and he has not seen the gun shot fire by appellant Baldev upon Rameshwar. He has specifically deposed in para 1 of his evidence that after hearing the sound of his brother Jatta (P.W. 1), he himself, Anil Kumar (P.W. 4), Lalsai, Natu and his father Bhula came to the spot, however, he has not deposed that they came together. He has specifically deposed in para 1 of his evidence that after hearing the sound of his brother Jatta (P.W. 1), he himself, Anil Kumar (P.W. 4), Lalsai, Natu and his father Bhula came to the spot, however, he has not deposed that they came together. Defence has also not asked anything to this witness as to whether he came to the spot together with the aforesaid witnesses/ persons or not. It is not the case of the prosecution or the defence that these witnesses were sitting or standing together at one place and after hearing the sound they came together, the incident took place at about 7 p.m. in the month of April, 1993, even it was not otherwise, possible that these persons were present together. It was quite natural for the witnesses that they may reside near the place of incident and after hearing the sound of Jatta (P.W. 1) they came from their places. As regards the question of recovery of weapons at the instance of the appellants, as per evidence of K.M.S. Khan (P.W. 11) - Investigating Officer, on 30-4-1993 i.e. second day of the incident, he interrogated appellant Baldev in custody, appellant Baldev made discloser statement of country made pistol, some plastic bag under the cot and presence of cartridges near Jhingo dam, discloser statement of the same was recorded vide Ex. P-26, then he took the appellant along with witnesses to his house from where he took out the country made 12 bore pistol from his room under his cot which was kept in a plastic back and same was seized vide Ex. P-27. Thereafter, they took the appellant to the dam from where the appellant again produced cartridges vide Ex. P.28. Factum of discloser statement and recovery has not been well supported by seizure witness Manjar (P.W. 12), but he has admitted his signature. The prosecution has declared him hostile. Another witness Jatta (P.W. 1) injured has well supported the evidence of discloser statement and seizure. Defence has cross- examined Jatta (P.W. 1) in detail relating to discloser and seizure. In para 12 of his cross- examination, he has specifically deposed that country made pistol has been seized from the house of appellant Baldev where he was residing alone. He has denied the suggestion that country made pistol has been seized from near some tree. Defence has cross- examined Jatta (P.W. 1) in detail relating to discloser and seizure. In para 12 of his cross- examination, he has specifically deposed that country made pistol has been seized from the house of appellant Baldev where he was residing alone. He has denied the suggestion that country made pistol has been seized from near some tree. This witness has specifically supported the discloser statement and seizure of country made pistol. (13) DEFENE has also cross-examined K.M.S. Khan (P.W. 11) - Investigating Officer in detail, he has admitted in para 20 of his cross-examination that he had not though proper to obtain the signature of the appellant in the memorandum and, therefore, he has not obtained the signature. He has also admitted in para 21 of his cross-examination that he has seized country made pistol vide Ex. P-27 from the house of the appellant and same is true. He has denied the suggestion that he has prepared memorandum in the police station. Although Manjar (P.W. 12) has not supported the factum of discloser statement and seizure, but he has admitted signature over aforesaid documents, he has not explained why he has signed over such documents, he has only deposed that the police has obtained signature over aforesaid documents. He has not stated anything that he was under fear and pressure. (14) While dealing with the question of evidentiary value of police witnesses, the Supreme Court in the matter of Anil alias Andya Sadashiv Nandoskar v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 AIR SCW 2943 : (AIR 1996 SC 2943) has held that witnesses being police officers does not by itself create a doubt about their creditworthiness if non-examination of Panch witnesses is explained satisfactorily. Relevant portion reads as under : "Indeed all the five prosecution witnesses who have been examined in support of search and seizure were members of the raiding party. They are all police officials. There is, however, no rule of law that the evidence of police officials has to be discarded or that it suffers from some inherent infirmity. Prudence, however, requires that the evidence of the police officials, who are interested in the outcome of the result of the case, needs to be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated. They are all police officials. There is, however, no rule of law that the evidence of police officials has to be discarded or that it suffers from some inherent infirmity. Prudence, however, requires that the evidence of the police officials, who are interested in the outcome of the result of the case, needs to be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated. The police officials do not suffer from any disability to give evidence and the mere fact that they are police officials does not by itself give rise to any doubt about their creditworthiness. We have carefully and critically analysed the evidence of all the 5 police officials. There is nothing on the record to show that any one of them was hostile to the appellant and despite lengthy cross-examination their evidence has remained unshaken throughout. These witnesses have deposed in clear terms the details of the trap that was laid to apprehend the appellant and the manner in which he was apprehended. Their evidence regarding search and seizure of the weapons from the appellant is straightforward, consistent and specific. It inspires confidence and learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any serious, let alone fatal, infirmity in their evidence. In our opinion, the factum of search and seizure of the country made revolver from the conscious possession of the appellant has been established by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. The explanation given by the prosecution, for the non-examination of the two Panch witnesses, which is supported by the report Ex. 24 filed by P.W. 4 P.I. Gaikwad is satisfactory. The evidence on the record shows that the raiding party made sincere efforts to join with them two independent Panchas at the time of search and seizure and they were so joined. They are also cited as prosecution witnesses and summoned to give evidence. However, despite diligent efforts made by the prosecuting agency to serve them, they could not be located or traced and therefore, they could not be examined at the trial. In the face of the facts stated in report Ex. 24, the correctness of which has remained virtually unchallenged during the cross-examination of P.W. 4, the non-examination of the two Panchas cannot be said to be on account of any oblique reason. Their non-production at the trial thus has not created any dent in the prosecution case. In the face of the facts stated in report Ex. 24, the correctness of which has remained virtually unchallenged during the cross-examination of P.W. 4, the non-examination of the two Panchas cannot be said to be on account of any oblique reason. Their non-production at the trial thus has not created any dent in the prosecution case. The prosecution cannot be accused of withholding these witnesses since it made every effort to trace and produce them at the trial but failed on account of the fact that they had left the address furnished by them at the time of search and their whereabouts could not be traced despite diligent effort made in that behalf. We, therefore, do not find any reason to doubt the correctness of the prosecution version relating to the apprehension of the appellant, the search and seizure by the raiding party and the recovery from the appellant of the country made revolver and cartridges for which he could produce no license or authority because of the non-examination of the Panch witnesses we find that the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 is reliable, cogent and trustworthy." In absence of any adverse circumstances of signing over discloser statement and seizure, it is difficult to hold that Manjar (P.W. 12) is stating the truth. In other words, it appears that he is concealing the truth. In these circumstances, evidence of Jatta (P.W. 1) and K.M.S. Khan (P.W. 11) Investigating Officer remain for consideration. (15) As regards the question of necessity of signature and effect of not obtaining signature or absence of signature/thumb impression of the accused/appellant on discloser statement, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jaskaran (AIR 1995 SC 2345) (supra) has observed in para 7 of its order as follows :- "So far as the conscious possession of the weapon Ex. M/0/4 is concerned, the disclosure statement, Ex. P-9 inspires no confidence. Firstly, because none of the two panch witnesses, Yashpal and Sukhdev Singh, ASI, have been examined at the trial and secondly, because the disclosure statement does not bear the signature or the thumb impression of the appellant. Even the recovery memo of the revolver and the cartridges, Ex. P-9/A, which is also attested by Yash Pal and Sukhdev Singh, ASI does not bear either the signature or the thumb impression of the accused. Even the recovery memo of the revolver and the cartridges, Ex. P-9/A, which is also attested by Yash Pal and Sukhdev Singh, ASI does not bear either the signature or the thumb impression of the accused. The absence of the signature or the thumb impression of an accused on the disclosure statement recorded under S. 27 of the Evidence Act detracts materially from the authenticity and the reliability of the disclosure statement. According to the defence version, the appellant had been arrested during the night intervening 15-6-1984/16-6-1984 and not on 23-6-1984, as alleged by the prosecution. The statement of P.W. 4, Surinder Kumar to the effect that he had seen the accused in the police station for the first time after about 13-14 days of the occurrence probabilises the defence version. The prosecution case that the appellant was arrested on 23-6-1984 and led to the recovery of the revolver and the cartridges pursuant to the disclosure statement, therefore, becomes suspect. We are unable to place any reliance upon the alleged disclosure statement and the recovery of the revolver and consequently the opinion of the Ballistic Expert connecting the empties with Ex. M/0/4 becomes irrelevant. The appellant has denied ownership of the crime revolver and the prosecution has led no evidence to show that the crime weapon belonged to the appellant. There is no other circumstance pressed into aid by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime. The prosecution has thus not been able to establish the case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. We, therefore, accept his appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against him. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged." (16) In the matter of Jaskaran (AIR 1995 SC 2345) (supra), the Supreme Court has disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the ground of absence of signature over seizure memo, date of arrest of accused, absence of signature over discloser statement which were the only circumstances against the appellant/accused to connect him with the crime. The Supreme Court has found the aforesaid circumstances insufficient for conviction of the appellant. However, the Supreme Court has not held that signature of the accused over discloser statement is sine qua non. The Supreme Court has found the aforesaid circumstances insufficient for conviction of the appellant. However, the Supreme Court has not held that signature of the accused over discloser statement is sine qua non. While dealing with the same question, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, AIR 1999 SC 1776 : (1999 Cri LJ 2588) has held that the Investigating Officer is not obliged to obtain the signature of an accused in any statement attributed to him while preparing seizure memo for the recovery of any article covered by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. But, if any signature has been obtained by an investigating officer, there is nothing wrong or illegal about it. The Supreme Court has observed in para 30 of its judgment as follows :- "The resultant position is that the Investigating Officer is not obliged to obtain the signature of an accused in any statement attributed to him while preparing seizure memo for the recovery of any article covered by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. But, if any signature has been obtained by an investigating officer, there is nothing wrong or illegal about it. Hence, we cannot find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the signatures of the accused in Exs. P-3 and P-4 seizure memo would vitiate the evidence regarding recovery of the axes." (17) In the present case, K.M.S. Khan (P.W. 11) has deposed in detail what appellant Baldev has stated relating to discloser of country made pistol and cartridges, where they were found and from where they have been recovered, same has been corroborated by Jatta (P.W. 1). Absence of signature over discloser statement Ex. P-26 or non-obtaining signature over Ex. P-26 is not fatal to the prosecution. Recovery of pistol at the instance of appellant Baldev is established by evidence of Jatta (P.W. 1) and K. M. S. Khan (P.W. 11). (18) As per evidence of Chaman Ram (P.W. 10) - Head Constable, he has examined pistol on 30-4-93, second day of the incident, vide Ex. P-21 and found that it has been used recently and same was in working condition. He has specifically recorded his opinion vide Ex. P-21 that smell of gun powder and presence of fresh particles of gun powder were noticed inside the barrel. P-21 and found that it has been used recently and same was in working condition. He has specifically recorded his opinion vide Ex. P-21 that smell of gun powder and presence of fresh particles of gun powder were noticed inside the barrel. He has denied the adverse suggestion in para 3 of his cross-examination. Evidence of Chaman Ram (P.W. 10) supports case of the prosecution that recently the pistol recovered at the instance of the appellant has been used/fired. Defence has also attacked upon the evidentiary value of Jatta (P.W. 1), Chander Prasad (P.W. 2). Bhula (P.W. 3) and Anil Kumar (P.W. 4) on the ground that these witnesses have specifically deposed that they have seen blood on head of the deceased, but no such injury has been noticed by Dr. P. L. Verma (P.W. 8) on the head of the deceased. Definitely, Dr. P. L. Verma (P.W. 8) has not noticed any injury over the head of the deceased. Virtually, all injuries were over back and internal parts of the body of the deceased. However, Dr. P.L. Verma (P.W. 8) has specifically noticed and has deposed in para 2 of his evidence, the presence of dry blood over both the cheeks, neck, ear and nose. Inquest report Ex. P-3 also corroborates the same thing in which bleeding from nose and presence of blood over neck, eye and head were noticed. (19) UNCONROVERTED and unrebutted evidence of Chander Prasad (P.W. 2) substantially corroborated by evidence of Jatta (P.W. 1), Bhula (P.W. 3) and Anil Kumar (P.W. 4), promptly lodged FIR Ex. P-1 and medical evidence are sufficient for drawing inference that appellant Baldev has caused pistol shot injury to deceased Rameshwar resulting in his death. (20) As regards intention, intention can be gathered from the weapons used, nature of injuries, party of the body effected and like other circumstances. As per evidence of Chander Prasad (P.W. 2), appellant Baldev went to his house, came with pistol and shot fire upon Rameshwar which shows grave intention of appellant Baldev that after quarrel he went inside his house and then came with dangerous weapon fire arm and shot fire. As per evidence of Chander Prasad (P.W. 2), appellant Baldev went to his house, came with pistol and shot fire upon Rameshwar which shows grave intention of appellant Baldev that after quarrel he went inside his house and then came with dangerous weapon fire arm and shot fire. (21) As held by the Supreme Court in Sukhdev's case (2003 Cri LJ 4315) (supra), in the present case, appellant Baldev has not shot fire during the course of quarrel, but he went to his house for bringing fire arm pistol and came with pistol and, thereafter, he shot fire. The case of Sukhdev (supra) is distinguishable on facts to that of the present case. (22) Aforesaid evidence is sufficient for drawing inference that appellant Baldev has caused homicidal death of deceased Rameshwar with intent to cause his death by fire arm and that he was in possession of fire arm without any license and has used the said fire arm. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellants are based on credible and clinching evidence sustainable under the law. On close scrutiny of evidence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned. (23) Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merit, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. (24) Appellant Baldev is on bail, he shall immediately surrender before the trial Court i.e. the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur or its successor-in-office for serving remaining sentences imposed upon him in Sessions Trial No. 190/93 vide judgment dated 12-11-1994. Appeal dismissed.