JUDGMENT : Surinder Singh, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court u/s 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo the imprisonment under each of the Sections as follows:-- All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently, by giving benefit u/s 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In short, the prosecution story is that on 22.11.2010, at about 5.00 p.m., Surinder Kumar (deceased) was guarding his crop in his field with a DBBL (.12 bore) loaded gun. Complainant PW-1 Karnail Singh, nephew of the deceased and his father, PW-2 Ram Singh were present quite close in their adjacent sugarcane field about 10/12 meters away. Some altercation over the mortgaged property of PW Sohan Singh ensued between the deceased and the accused which took an ugly turn by exchange of hot words. The accused felt annoyed and fired a gun-shot from his gun Ext. P-9 at the deceased which hit the left leg and hand of the deceased. The accused ran away with the gun from the spot. After hearing the sound of the gun fire, PW-1 Karnail Singh, PW-3 Som Dutt, PW-4 Naresh Kumar, PW-6 Rajinder Singh and PW-7 Surinder Singh arrived at the spot. (ii) PW-3 Som Dutt arranged for the cot, on which the injured was put and taken to his house. On seeing his condition immediately he was being taken to CHC Hajipur, but on the way, he expired. (iii) PW-6 Rajinder Singh informed police telephonically, which information was recorded in the daily diary, copy of which is Ext. PW-15/A. (iv) PW-20 Inspector Karam Singh reached hospital at Hajipur where PW-1 Karnail Singh got recorded his statement Ext. PW-20/A u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which culminated into FIR Ext. PW-20/C. Thereafter, he prepared inquest papers Ext. P-1 and Ext. P-2, took photographs Ext. PW-12/1 to Ext. PW-12/6 of the dead body and moved an application Ext. PW-14/A for the post-mortem of the deceased. (v) PW-14 Dr. Parveen Kumar conducted autopsy of the dead body in Civil Hospital, Nurpur on 23.11.2010 alongwith Dr. Amod Kumar Singh and noticed about 77 pellet wounds on the left thigh and 13 pellet wounds on the left hand. PW-12/1 to Ext. PW-12/6 of the dead body and moved an application Ext. PW-14/A for the post-mortem of the deceased. (v) PW-14 Dr. Parveen Kumar conducted autopsy of the dead body in Civil Hospital, Nurpur on 23.11.2010 alongwith Dr. Amod Kumar Singh and noticed about 77 pellet wounds on the left thigh and 13 pellet wounds on the left hand. Two cap like structure wads and 4 pellets were recovered from the said wound, sealed and sent for ballistic examination. The X-ray of thorax, abdomen, left heap joint and left hand were conducted and sent for radiological opinion. In the opinion of the doctor, the probable cause of death was gun-shot injury leading to severe hemorrhagic shocks and death. The viscera sent to FSL did not show any poison or narcotic contents as per report Ext. PCC. The final opinion remained the same on receipt of the report of the radiologist and examination of the gun and empty cartridge by the ballistic expert. The post mortem report is Ext. PW-14/C and the final opinion is Ext. PW-14/D. (vi) On 23.11.2010, PW-20 Inspector Karam Singh had visited the spot and prepared Site Plan Ext. PW-20/D. He also took photographs of the spot and recovered a blood stained shoe Ext. PW. 3/A vide memo Ext. PW-2/A. (vii) The accused was arrested on 22.11.2010. During interrogation, he made the disclosure statement Ext. PW-9/A and got recovered his gun licence Ext. P-3 and two live cartridges Ext. P-5 and Ext. P-6 vide memo Ext PW-10/A in the presence of PW-10 Sukha Singh and Harbans Singh. He also got his gun Ext. P-9 and one empty cartridge Ext. P-10 from his residence vide memo Ext. PW-10/B in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses, which were sealed and sent for forensic examination. As per the report Ext. PDD, the left barrel of the gun Ext. P-9 was fired through and the empty cartridge Ext. P10 aforesaid was also fired from the left barrel of the said gun Ext. P-9. The pellets and air cushion wad were also opined to be of.12" bore ammunition. 2. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the learned trial Court for trial of the accused for the offences punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. P-9. The pellets and air cushion wad were also opined to be of.12" bore ammunition. 2. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the learned trial Court for trial of the accused for the offences punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The accused was charge-sheeted for the said offences to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses. It is pertinent to note that all the witnesses including the complainant turned hostile, but however, admitted the presence of the deceased and also that of the accused on the spot and exchange of hot words between the accused and the deceased and admitted that it ended with a gun-shot injury to the accused on his thigh. The recovery of the gun Ext. P-9 as well as live cartridges and one empty cartridge Ext. P-10 have been proved by the Investigating Officer. In his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the circumstances which were found attending upon him. According to him, the prosecution witnesses were inimical to him which is quite incorrect as all had tried to support him. However, he alleged a case of accidental fire-arm shot. In the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused tried to take up the stand that deceased was an army personnel and in demonstrating as to how the gun is fired, sustained injury but the defence is neither probable nor the deceased sustained the gunshot injury, as alleged. When called upon to enter upon his defence, he did not lead any evidence in defence. 4. While appreciating the evidence of the prosecution, the learned trial Court did not find the case of murder. It, relying upon the circumstances, convicted and sentenced the accused for the offences aforesaid. 5. Shri Anoop Chitkara, the learned Counsel for the accused duly assisted by Ms. Divya Sood and Mr. Shivender Singh, Advocates vehemently argued that from the proved circumstances on record even it is not a case falling u/s 304-II of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, at the worst, it could be a case u/s 338 or Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Divya Sood and Mr. Shivender Singh, Advocates vehemently argued that from the proved circumstances on record even it is not a case falling u/s 304-II of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, at the worst, it could be a case u/s 338 or Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. He also submitted that even Section 27 of the Arms Act is not attracted and further that no conviction could have been passed also for want of prosecution sanction and alternatively argued for leniency in the sentence. 6. On the other hand, Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General countered the above arguments submitting that though the witnesses of the alleged occurrence have turned hostile but merely by their hostility, the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown out. He pointed out the proved circumstances of a definite nature and the tendency pointing out towards the guilt of the accused excluding other hypothesis which could point towards his innocence. He also submitted that the learned trial Court rightly proved the conviction of the accused for the offences aforesaid and that no prosecution sanction is required for the offence punishable u/s 27 of the Arms Act for which minimum sentence is three years which cannot be reduced. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the record. 8. Undisputedly, the role of the Court is to find out the truth from the direct or indirect evidence on record. Of Course, the Court cannot be at the mercy of the witnesses or remain a silent spectator ignoring the circumstances proved on record to come to a rightful conclusion despite the hostility of the witnesses who at times play with the process of administration of criminal justice for obvious reasons. There is no doubt that the statements of the hostile witnesses can be used by either of the parties to the extent it help them but merely on their hostility, the entire prosecution case cannot be rejected. 9. In the case in hand, PW-1 Karnail Singh is an important witness. He also admits the presence of other witnesses including his father PW-2 Ram Singh quite near to the place of occurrence. 9. In the case in hand, PW-1 Karnail Singh is an important witness. He also admits the presence of other witnesses including his father PW-2 Ram Singh quite near to the place of occurrence. He testified that the accused was having a double barrel gun in his hand and was talking to the deceased in his field which broke into an altercation between them. But while denying from his earlier statement Ext. PW-20/A recorded by the police purported to be u/s 154 Cr.P.C., he deposed that the deceased in order to show to the accused how to fire the gun-shot, in that consequence, it went off and the pellets hit his left thigh. But he denied about the exchange of any hot words between them. He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and confronted with the statement Ext. PW-20/A. He denied its contents with respect to the gun-shot having been fired at by the accused, as alleged. Though, he admitted his signatures on the said statement, which according to the prosecution, is the First Information Report which could be relied on. But from the record it is clear that the First Information Report stood already recorded in the daily diary Ext. PW-15/A on receipt of the telephonic information from PW-6 Rajinder Singh, wherein the name of the assailant and also about the death of accused by a gun-shot stand clearly mentioned; thus this information recorded in the daily diary legally constitute the FIR and Ext. PW-20/A aforesaid subsequent to it cannot be said to be an FIR. Further there cannot be two FIRs in the same case with respect to the same incident. 10. In fact, the object of the FIR is to set the investigating agency in motion. To constitute FIR by attracting the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, two conditions must be fulfilled. Firstly, what is conveyed, must be an information and secondly, that information must relate to the commission of a cognizable offence on the face of it. This Section does not contemplate that any sort of information would fall under it so long as it was the first at any point of time. It is also well settled that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence but certainly, it is a corroborative evidence and it can only be used for corroborating and probating the evidence. 11. It is also well settled that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence but certainly, it is a corroborative evidence and it can only be used for corroborating and probating the evidence. 11. In the instant case, if the report in the daily diary Ext. PW-15/A is taken as first information report, which of course fairly and squarely falls within the purview of FIR, then this document Ext. PW 20/A is hit by explanation (i) of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, more particularly, in view of the statement of PW-20 Inspector Karam Singh who also admitted the recording of the incident qua the cognizable offence in the daily diary oh a telephonic information received from PW-6 Rajinder Singh, pursuant to which, he proceeded to the spot for investigation and met complainant PW-1 Karnail Singh in the hospital and recorded his statement Ext. PW-20/A u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, this subsequent document is inadmissible in evidence being hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Further, PW. 2 Ram Singh, PW-3 Som Dutt, PW-4 Naresh Kumar and PW-6 Rajinder Singh admit the presence of the deceased and the accused in the field at Jat-Belli and it also stands established that the accused was having a DBBL loaded gun Ext. P-9 with him. The recovery of the empty cartridge pursuant to the statement u/s 27 of the Evidence Act also stands proved by the Investigating Officer, as stated above, though the independent witness examined has turned hostile. The reason not to support the prosecution by this witness is that they belong to the same village and are relatives. They must have negotiated, patched up and compromised on some terms. But the circumstantial evidence on record still connects the accused with the crime. These are (i) that the accused was having DBBL gun Ext. P-9, with him at the relevant time: it was fired. (ii) The gun as well as the fire cartridges were recovered at the behest of the accused and sent for forensic examination and it is opined vide Ext. PDD that the left barrel of the aforesaid gun was fired through and the empty cartridge Ext. P-10 was fired from left barrel of the gun aforesaid. The witnesses present on the spot state that they heard the gun-shot fired by the accused. PDD that the left barrel of the aforesaid gun was fired through and the empty cartridge Ext. P-10 was fired from left barrel of the gun aforesaid. The witnesses present on the spot state that they heard the gun-shot fired by the accused. They also reached the spot and removed him to the hospital. (iii) PW-14 Dr. Praveen Kumar categorically stated about the gun-shot injuries on the thigh and the left hand of the deceased. (iv) The presence of the wad recovered from the wound and hand is indicative of the fact that the gun was fired from a close range. (v) The accused escaped with his gun (Ext. P-9) from the spot and later its recovery was effected at his instance alongwith the empty cartridge (Ext. P-10) as stated above. 13. The story which is propounded in defence is not appealing to probablise the defence, and is proved to be absolutely false because of the fact that deceased had received the pellet injuries on the left upper thigh and the direction of the pellets was from left to right inside the body as per the medical evidence and postmortem report and the pellet injuries were also on the dorsal aspect of the left hand wherein the wads were found present. Thus, keeping in view the length of DBBL gun, by holding it in right hand by the deceased himself for demonstration would neither cause the pellet injury at the same time on the left upper thigh and the left hand nor it would have the direction of injuries from left to right. 14. Therefore, the above proved circumstances do establish, despite hostility of the prosecution witnesses, that the gun was in the hand of the accused. The accused was at a close range and the gun-fire had come from a little distance away from the deceased from his left side and it also stands proved that it is none else than the accused who had fired at the deceased and the deceased never acquired the possession of the gun in any manner. Thus, the accused stands connected for the offence aforesaid. Though, his act lacks intention to kill. The accused despite opportunity could have aimed at chest or any other vital part. But from the single shot-injury on the left thigh, no intention to kill the deceased can be attributed to the accused. Thus, the accused stands connected for the offence aforesaid. Though, his act lacks intention to kill. The accused despite opportunity could have aimed at chest or any other vital part. But from the single shot-injury on the left thigh, no intention to kill the deceased can be attributed to the accused. But, however the accused had knowledge that because of the said injury, the deceased could die, therefore, it is a case which squarely falls u/s 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and not u/s 338 or 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, as ventilated by the learned defence Counsel. 15. Further, the gun in question is a licensed gun of the accused, which fact has not been disputed. The gun-licence Ext. P-3 was issued in his name for his self-protection. But in the instant case, he did not use it for self-protection or in self-defence. His defence is of an accidental fire-shot which is proved to be false and is an additional link to prove the case against him. The manner and mode in which the fire arm i.e. DBBL gun Ex. P-9 was used by the accused, which caused the culpable homicide not amounting to death, was rightly considered by the learned trial Court for an offence u/s 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act having been proved, for which no prosecution sanction is required u/s 30 of the said Act. Accordingly, the accused held to be guilty for the said offence and was rightly connected. As far as sentence is concerned, Section 27 of the Arms Act prescribes punishment for using Arms under which minimum imprisonment is not less than three years which can be extended to seven years and also liability to fine. Since on the facts, the case against the accused is proved to be u/s 27(1) of the Arms Act, his sentence of three years and also the fine cannot be further reduced and it is maintained. But in so far as Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the accused and also that he does not have any criminal past, the substantive sentence of imprisonment u/s 304-II of the Indian Penal Code is reduced from five years as imposed by the learned trial Court to three years. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The accused shall be entitled for the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, in addition, the accused shall deposit compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be disbursed to the legal representative of the deceased, failing which, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 16. The appeal stands accordingly dismissed with above modification in the sentence. The accused is undergoing the sentence. The learned trial Court is directed to send the modified warrants in conformity with the judgment of this Court. Send down the records.