JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 17th November, 2001, delivered in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2000, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of having committed the murder of his nephew, Mohan Singh. To appreciate the facts of the case, it would be pertinent to state certain undisputed facts. Accused, Dharminder Singh @ Dhanu, and Brij Lal are real brothers being the sons of Lohar Singh @ Loharu. They have another brother also. It is also not disputed that one Tulsi Ram, real brother of Lohar Singh, had given his entire property to Brij Lal. It appears that due to this fact of unequal distribution of the property, there was some animosity between the two brothers. It is also not disputed that on 30th October, 1999, sometime between 7.30 p.m. and 9.00 p.m., deceased Mohan Singh, s/o Brij Lal, suffered a gun shot wound. He was, in fact, brought to the hospital at Mandi at about 9.00 p.m., where his condition was serious and his statement could not be recorded. He was referred for better treatment to the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla, but unfortunately, he expired on the way at Darlaghat. Thereafter, the members of his family, including his brother, PW-6 and father, Brij Lal (PW-1), brought the body back and informed the Pradhan, Hem Singh (PW-7), about the death of the deceased, who, in turn, informed the police about the death of Mohan Singh. Thereafter, the police investigated the case and during the course of this investigation, PW-5, Dharam Chand, got recorded his statement, Ex. PG, in which he alleged that Mohan Singh had been shot by accused, Dharminder Singh. 2. There is no dispute that Mohan Singh suffered a gun shot injury. The main dispute is how he suffered the gun shot injury. When Mohan Singh was brought to the hospital at Mandi, the doctors informed the police about the fact that a person, who had suffered a gun shot wound, had been brought to the hospital. Report No. 22, Ex. PS, was recorded in the police station on 30th October, 1999 at 9.00 p.m. to the effect that Dr. Virender Thakur (PW-9) had telephonically informed the Police Post that one person, Mohan Singh, had been brought in an injured condition to the Zonal Hospital, Mandi and further action be taken. Report No. 22, Ex. PS, was recorded in the police station on 30th October, 1999 at 9.00 p.m. to the effect that Dr. Virender Thakur (PW-9) had telephonically informed the Police Post that one person, Mohan Singh, had been brought in an injured condition to the Zonal Hospital, Mandi and further action be taken. Thereupon, PW-19, Bhup Singh, went to the Hospital and made inquiries about the cause of the gun shot wound. The Statement of Mohan Singh could not be recorded since the doctor declared him unfit to make any such statement. PW-19, when cross-examined in Court, admitted that he had inquired from PW-6, Diwan Chand, about the incident and had also recorded the statement of Diwan Chand. He further states that whatever was told to him by Diwan Chand was recorded in the statement. However, while appearing in witness box, he stated that Diwan Chand appeared to be perplexed and he also did not exactly remember the statement of Diwan Chand, but admitted that Diwan Chand might have told him that the gun was fired accidently. 3. PW-19 has admitted that after he came back from the hospital, he had made an entry in the daily diary register and this entry is report No. 24, dated 30th October, 1999, which is exhibited as Ex. DC. In this report, it is recorded that Mohan Singh, s/o Brij Lal, r/o Upparli Arthi, had been injured with a gun shot wound and had been brought to the hospital at Mandi. The police official, who had gone to the hospital, had approached the Medical Officer for permission to record the statement of Mohan Singh in writing, but he was certified to be unable to give a statement. Thereupon, the statement of brother of Mohan Singh, i.e. Diwan Chand, was recorded in writing. In his statement, he stated that they had a pet bitch who had been tied in the veranda of the house. That day their grand father had kept his muzzle loading gun in the corner of the veranda in the sun. A few dogs came towards the veranda and were fighting and Mohan Singh tried to separate the dogs and while doing so, the gun accidently went off and Mohan Singh suffered a gun shot. This is the first version recorded by the police. A few dogs came towards the veranda and were fighting and Mohan Singh tried to separate the dogs and while doing so, the gun accidently went off and Mohan Singh suffered a gun shot. This is the first version recorded by the police. When Hem Singh telephonically informed the police about the death of Mohan Singh in the morning of 31st October, 1999, an entry was made in the daily diary register, Ex. DD. In this entry, it is recorded that Hem Singh, Pradhan, has telephonically informed that Mohan Singh, s/o Brij Lal, who had suffered gun shot injury with a gun, which had been kept on the side of the veranda, was being taken to IGMC Shimla, but expired on the way near Darlaghat at about 10.00 p.m. 4. Thus, it is clear that till about 7.30 a.m. on 31st October, 1999, the only version available with the police was that the deceased had suffered a gun shot wound when a gun accidently went off. Thereafter, the police officials including PW-22 went to the spot and it is here that PW-5, Dharam Chand, who is the first cousin of the deceased and PW-6, Diwan Chand, being his massi's son, got his statement, Ex. PG, recorded. In this statement, a different version was given. According to the statement, Ex. PG, Dharam Chand stated that he had been residing in the house of Brij Lal for about one week prior to the incident as a guest. On 30th October, 1999, at about 7.30 p.m., his uncle, Brij Lal, made a telephonic call to his house that Dhani Ram @ Dhanu wants to shoot him and he (Brij Lal) has hidden in the house of Hem Singh, Pradhan. He asked his sons that they should come and escort him from the house of Hem Singh. PW-6, who had heard the telephone, informed his elder brother, Mohan Singh, about what their father had stated. Mohan Singh, who was taking his meals, immediately got up and went towards the house of Hem Singh to bring his father back. Thereafter, PW-5 and PW-6 also left the house of Brij Lal and went towards the house of their sister, Bimla, in village Jawali, since they had to help her in ploughing the fields. They were about 50 yards behind Mohan Singh and they saw Dhanu, s/o Lohar Singh, shooting Mohan Singh with a gun. Thereafter, PW-5 and PW-6 also left the house of Brij Lal and went towards the house of their sister, Bimla, in village Jawali, since they had to help her in ploughing the fields. They were about 50 yards behind Mohan Singh and they saw Dhanu, s/o Lohar Singh, shooting Mohan Singh with a gun. Mohan Singh suffered a gun shot wound and fell down. PW-6, Diwan Singh, ran and caught hold of Dhanu before he could load the second cartridge in the gun. Thereafter, the accused was beaten up and in the meantime, Brij Lal also arrived at the spot. The gun was left in the house of Hem Singh. Mohan Singh was first taken to hospital at Mandi and then was taken to Shimla, but he expired on the way. 5. It is on the basis of this statement that the FIR was recorded. PW-5, while appearing in the witness box, has given a statement to the similar effect. There are, however, some embellishments and improvements even in the statement given in Court. In cross-examination, this witness admits that whereas Mohan Singh immediately left without taking his meals, this witness and PW-6 took the remaining meals and, thereafter, went towards Jawali. He admits that Jawali village, where Bimla is residing, is at a distance of 8 kilometers from the house of Brij Lal. He also admits that there is no bus service to the village at that time. His explanation is that they were to go on foot to the village of Bimla. Surprisingly, this witness has denied making portions of statement, Ex. PG, which has been stated to be a statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. He denies that he had made portion A to A or B to B of the statement. Portion B to B is that portion of the statement where he had stated that he had been residing in the house of Brij Lal for seven days as a guest. While appearing in Court, the witness stated that he has been employed by Brij Lal as a labourer for about one month. Portion A to A of the statement is that Brij Lal had telephoned that Dhani Ram is about to shoot him. He has denied making this portion of the statement. 6. PW-6 has made a statement similar to that of PW-5. He, however, has also made another addition. Portion A to A of the statement is that Brij Lal had telephoned that Dhani Ram is about to shoot him. He has denied making this portion of the statement. 6. PW-6 has made a statement similar to that of PW-5. He, however, has also made another addition. According to him, there was an electric bulb in the veranda of the house of the accused and in the light of this electric bulb, he had seen the accused firing at Mohan Singh. This version has come out for the first time in the Court and is not recorded in any of the statements made to the police. This witness admits that when Mohan Singh was taken to hospital at Mandi, the matter was reported to the police and the police officials came to the hospital, but according to him, he did not make any statement, since he was busy in arranging blood for his brother. There are other contradictions also in his statement, reference to which shall be made later on. 7. Suggestions put to both these witnesses are that, in fact, it was these two witnesses alongwith Brij Lal who had attacked the accused and it was they who had carried the gun from the house of Brij Lal and that in the scuffle, which took place between the accused and the deceased and the witnesses, PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6, this gun went off. In the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., it is recorded that when Mohan Singh reached near the house of the accused, he called out his father, who answered his call and in the meantime, the accused fired at Mohan Singh from the veranda of his house. Thereafter, when Mohan Singh fell down, they picked Mohan Singh and took him to the water tank and behind him, PW-5, Dharam Chand, carried the gun to the water tank. Then he (Diwan Chand) asked Dharam Chand to carry Mohan Singh on his back to the road. Dharam Chand did the needful and, thereafter, he (the witness) and his father caught hold of the accused and took the gun away from him. Then he (Diwan Chand) asked Dharam Chand to carry Mohan Singh on his back to the road. Dharam Chand did the needful and, thereafter, he (the witness) and his father caught hold of the accused and took the gun away from him. This version, which was recorded in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., is totally different from the version given in Court, wherein it is stated that immediately after the first gun shot was fired, Diwan Chand ran towards the accused, caught hold of him before he could load the second cartridge and it is, thereafter, that the injured was taken to the water tank. These are two major contradictions in the statement. 8. Coming to the genesis of the incident, there is dispute regarding the manner in which the entire fight started. However, even according to PW-1, Brij Lal, he alongwith the Pradhan, Hem Singh (PW-7) met the accused at Gumanu at about 7.00 p.m. The accused was under the influence of liquor and started abusing Brij Lal, who gave him two slaps. Thereafter, the accused followed Brij Lal and Hem Singh till the house of Hem Singh and there the accused gave a slap to Brij Lal and threatened that he would do away the family of Brij Lal. It is thereafter that Brij Lal went to the house of Hem Singh and rang up his house and told Diwan Chand that he should come to the house of Hem Singh and escort him carefully back to his house. He, however, without waiting for his son, walked towards his house and when he was near the water tank, he saw his son, Mohan Singh, coming with a torch and then heard the sound of a fire shot. He called out for Mohan Singh and found that he had received an injury. In the cross-examination, he states that he did not know that it was Mohan Singh who was coming towards him, but could recognize him only later from his voice when he heard the cries of Mohan Singh. This witness also admits that when the accused had followed him and Hem Singh to the house of Hem Singh, there were two unknown persons with the accused. This witness also admits that when the accused had followed him and Hem Singh to the house of Hem Singh, there were two unknown persons with the accused. A suggestion was put to Brij Lal that both these persons were known to him and one of them was his colleague and worked in PWD as a mechanic where Brij Lal was employed as a driver. 9. Hem Singh, PW-7, gives a totally different version. According to him, though a verbal altercation took place between the accused and Brij Lal, no slaps were exchanged, but some pushing and shoring took place. According to him, right from Gumanu till the house of Hem Singh, both, the accused and Brij Lal were pushing and abusing each other. He also admits that even Brij Lal had consumed liquor. He further states that Brij Lal made a telephone call from his house and asked that somebody from his family should come to the house of Hem Singh. This witness clearly admits that Suraj Prakash and Nand Lal were the persons accompanying the accused. Admittedly, one of them was an employee in PWD in the same office where Brij Lal was working and Nand Lal, who has appeared as DW-2, states that he is doing the business of muleteer in the village in question. Hem Singh also states that after about ten minutes of Brij Lal leaving his house, these two persons came back to his house and told him that they had heard a gun shot and, therefore, they had got scared and had returned. Within 15 minutes thereafter, Mohan Singh was also brought near his house. According to him, the gun was kept in the veranda of his house and his daughter informed that this gun had been kept in the veranda by PW-6, Diwan Chand. During cross-examination, this witness stated that he did not exactly hear what Brij Lal was saying to his sons on telephone. He further states that neither Brij Lal nor the accused hurled any threat to each other in his presence. This also contradicts the version of Brij Lal, who states that the accused had threatened to shoot him and do away with his family. 10. He further states that neither Brij Lal nor the accused hurled any threat to each other in his presence. This also contradicts the version of Brij Lal, who states that the accused had threatened to shoot him and do away with his family. 10. Surprisingly, according to this witness, after Brij Lal had made a telephonic call to his house, he, alongwith the accused, left the house of this witness and went towards the house of the accused and even, at that time, they were exchanging hot words. This totally contradicts the version of Brij Lal, according to which the accused, after threatening him, had left. In case, Brij Lal had felt threatened by the accused and had called his sons to escort him safely to home, there is no reason why he should have himself walked alongwith the accused towards the house of the accused. Hem Singh also states that when Dharam Chand and Diwan Chand brought Mohan Singh near his house, they did not inform him how the occurrence had happened. This is against the natural course of things. If PWs-5 and 6 had seen or indeed, PW-1 had seen the accused shooting the deceased, the natural course of circumstances would have been that when they came to the house of the Pradhan, who was the first person they met immediately after the incident, they would have told him about the manner in which the incident had taken place. This witness accompanied the deceased and his family members to the hospital. He is the Pradhan of the village and made the telephonic call the next morning to inform the police officials about the death of the deceased. It is difficult to believe the prosecution story that this witness, who was the Pradhan of the village and closely known to both sides, for almost about 12 hours was totally unaware of how the incident had taken place. 11. If there was any substance left in the prosecution story that has been shattered by DW-1, Loharu Ram, grand father of the deceased and father of the accused. He clearly states that he own two guns, one being single barrel gun and one being a muzzle loader. According to him, he used to reside with all his sons and both the guns were being kept in the house of Brij Lal (PW-1), father of the deceased. He clearly states that he own two guns, one being single barrel gun and one being a muzzle loader. According to him, he used to reside with all his sons and both the guns were being kept in the house of Brij Lal (PW-1), father of the deceased. According to him, on the date of occurrence, at about 8.00 p.m., when they ere all taking the meals, a telephonic call came and immediately after the receipt of this telephonic call, the deceased; PW-5, Dharam Chand and PW-6, Diwan Chand, left their house. The deceased was carrying one of his guns and other two witnesses were carrying dandas. Though, this witness has been cross-examined at great length, the prosecution has failed to shatter this portion of his statement that the gun was in the house of Brij Lal and was taken from there. 12. DW-2, Nand Lal, has given a version which substantially supports the defence. According to him, after the accused and Brij Lal had an altercation and gone to the house of Hem Singh, they left the house of Hem Singh together. The accused called them also to go towards his house and they also went with them, but the accused and Brij Lal were walking ahead. Near the water tank, three persons came from the other side, but since it was dark, he could not recognize them. Then a quarrel took place between these persons and Dharminder and within a minute, they heard a noise of gun shot and then he and Suraj went back towards the house of Hem Singh. 13. From the aforesaid narration of the evidence, it is more than apparent that the first version given by Diwan Chand, the real brother of the deceased, Mohan Singh, was that Mohan Singh had suffered injury when the gun went off accidently. It is also more than apparent that this version is not true because while appearing in Court, it has virtually admitted that this gun went off when a scuffle took place. The story of the gun going off when some dogs came was neither put to the defence witnesses nor put forward by the prosecution witnesses. This clearly indicates that PW-6, Diwan Chand wanted to hide something and was not telling the truth when he made the initial statement to the police. 14. The story of the gun going off when some dogs came was neither put to the defence witnesses nor put forward by the prosecution witnesses. This clearly indicates that PW-6, Diwan Chand wanted to hide something and was not telling the truth when he made the initial statement to the police. 14. The manner in which the investigation has been carried out leaves much to be decided. It is the admitted case that the statement of Diwan Chand was recorded by PW-19, Bhup Singh. This is stated both by PW-19 and PW-22. There is no explanation why this statement has not seen light of day and why the prosecution chose to keep this statement hidden from the Court. 15. Admittedly, relations between the brothers were not cordial. The defence version that, in fact, it was the accused and PWs-5 and 6, were the aggressor party, cannot be ruled out and is a plausible version. Admittedly, Brij Lal made a telephonic call to his residence from the house of Pradhan, Hem Singh. If he felt threatened from the accused, why would he accompany the accused and walk alongwith him. Furthermore, if he was so threatened, he would have stayed in the house of Hem Singh till his sons came there and took him back to his house. The possibility cannot be ruled out that it was Brij Lal, who called his sons and nephew to teach a lesson to the accused. In these circumstances, keeping in view the contradictory statements of the witnesses, we find that the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. We find no reason to interfere in this judgment. The appeal is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds discharged.