Hon'ble RANKA, J.—Instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant assailing the judgment and order dt.4.4.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Karauli (for short, "the trial Court") in Sessions Case No.06/2004, titled as State vs. Halke and others by which, the accused-appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment. In addition to the aforesaid, he has been further convicted for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case, emerging on the face of record, are that on the basis of Parcha Bayan of one Lakkhuram, recorded on 24.6.2002 in Government Hospital, Karauli, a report was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Karauli for offence under Sections 147, 149, 323, 342 and 302 IPC, however, since the incident pertained to Police Station, Karanpur, therefore, the same was sent there and on receiving of the said report, an FIR, bearing No.27/2002 for offence under Section 147, 149, 323, 342 and 302 IPC, came to be registered with the Police Station Karanpur and investigation commenced. 3. It was alleged in the said report that on 24.6.2002, Lakkuram (complainant), Kare son of Parya, Badri son of Tullo, Shivraj son of Kamal, Pappu son of Hari, Pappu son of Kamal, residents of Karda, after untying their goats and after grazing in the forest of Choriya, when came at about 3.00 p.m. in the cot of Choriya ki Basti, then Halke son of Hajari Meena, Balli son of Madan, Harchu son of Bundi & Harkesh son of Ramnath of Village Choriya tied their hands and detained them at that place. Thereafter, Shivcharan and Pappu rushed from the forest to give information of the incident in the village and thereupon, along with them, other villagers viz., Sitaram, Silli, Hari, Gulab and Gopalya Meena arrived on the spot at about 3.00 - 3.30 p.m. and untied them and as a result of which stones pelting took place between both the sides and upon hearing hue and cry several persons arrived and at about 4.00 - 4.30 p.m. the present accused-appellant (Halke son of Hajari Meena) fired gun shot from his 'topidar' gun which pierced the chest of Silli son of Ramjit. In the scuffling, the complainant also received injuries on head and nose whereas Sitaram received certain injuries on his ankle on account of pallets being hit at him. It was alleged that on seeing that Silli is falling, villagers of Choriya fled away from the spot and when Silli was being taken to Karauli, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. It was further alleged that Halke, Balli, Harchu and Harkesh contributed to melee and rest of the persons arrived only upon hearing hue and cry. It was further alleged that a dispute was already going on between the parties regarding grazing of cattle. 4. During the course of investigation, the accused-appellant along with other co-accused persons was arrested and after completing investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused persons for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 336, 341, 342, 307 and 302 IPC so also under Section 3/25 of Arms Act. 5. Thereafter charges were framed by the trial Court against accused-appellant for offence under Section 302, 307, 148, 323, 324 and 336 IPC and under Section 3/25 of Arms Act. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. Inquest was made on 24.6.2002. 6. The prosecution in support of is case, examined as many as 22 witnesses i.e. PW-1-Lakkhuram, PW-2-Kare, PW-3-Ramkhiladi, PW-4-Pappu, PW-5-Badri, PW-6-Shivraj, PW-7-Sitaram, PW-8-Gulab, PW-9-Gopaliya, PW-10-Daujya, PW-11-Kamal, PW-12-Parsadi, PW-13-Brijraj Singh, PW-14-Ramniwas, PW-15-Lalpat, PW-16-Roopchand, PW-17-Preetam Chand Gupta, PW-18-Dinesh Singh, PW-19-Hariom, PW-20-Girdharilal, PW-21-Ramveer Singh, PW-22-Nobhar Singh and also got certain documentary evidence exhibited as Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/30. 7. Thereafter the statements of accused-appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the accused-appellant produced one witness viz., DW-1-Dr. Preetam Chand Gupta and got certain documents exhibited from Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/15. 8. 7. Thereafter the statements of accused-appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the accused-appellant produced one witness viz., DW-1-Dr. Preetam Chand Gupta and got certain documents exhibited from Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/15. 8. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 4.4.2006 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 4.4.2006, the accused appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 9. Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the trial Court was unjustified in passing the judgment and order impugned, whereas the accused-appellant had not committed any offence punishable u/Sec. 302 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. He submits that it was a case of confrontation, which was going on for quite long time, which resulted into violence and in order to safeguard himself from the other side and in self-defence, the accused-appellant opened fire and, therefore, the accused-appellant cannot be said to have committed any offence, alleged against him. He also submits that the accused-appellant also received injuries. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that while the other co-accused persons (Balli son of Madan Meena, Munna son of Hazari Meena, Harkesh son of Ramnath Meena, Harchu @ Harcharan son of Bundi Meena and Mangilal son of Sugan Bairwa) have been given the benefit of doubt, the accused-appellant alone has been convicted and sentenced for the offences aforesaid. Counsel submits that when the aforesaid co-accused persons were involved in the alleged incident, then there was no occasion for the learned trial court to grant benefit of doubt to them only and to discriminate the accused-appellant in not granting him the said benefit for offence u/Ss. 302 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. It is also submitted that the accused-appellant has been granted benefit of doubt for offence under Sections 307, 148, 323, 324 and 336 IPC, and accordingly acquitted of the said offences but the trial court was unjustified in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant alone for offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the trial Court has committed gross error in law in coming to its own conclusion, which is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the trial Court has committed gross error in law in coming to its own conclusion, which is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. He further submitted that the trial Court has grossly erred in law in brushing aside the contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. by the police and u/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. in the court. He further submitted that the statement of PW-17 Dr. Preetam Chand Gupta has not been correctly considered while he has specifically deposed that first he prepared the notes and on the basis of said notes he prepared the postmortem report (Exhibit-17) and such notes were never exhibited before the Court. Since the notes were prepared on the spot at the relevant time by the members of the Medical Board, therefore, he submitted that the original notes were primary evidence, which should have been brought on the record and in absence thereof no reliance could be placed on the postmortem report (Exhibit-P17). It is further submitted by the learned counsel that all the details of the postmortem, observed by the medical officer, ought to have been carefully entered on the spot by him either in the post-mortem report or in a note-book, which could be later on used as evidence. He further submitted that the postmortem report was prepared later on while the notes were prepared earlier and only the notes were relevant as they were prepared when facts were still fresh in the mind. Therefore, he submitted that no reliance could be placed on the postmortem report, as it is nothing but an afterthought and an improvement of the case by the prosecution. He further submitted that neither radiologist had been produced nor the original notes and, therefore, the postmortem report could not be relied upon and conviction of the accused-appellant based merely on the postmortem report is not justified and conclusive. He further submitted that the trial Court has come to the conclusion only on the basis of the postmortem report whereas the fact remains that is supporting material was never produced before the learned trial Court. He further submitted that the trial Court has come to the conclusion only on the basis of the postmortem report whereas the fact remains that is supporting material was never produced before the learned trial Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that PW-22-Nohabar Singh in his statement has accepted that in the topidar gun, firstly 'barood' (gun power) is filled and thereafter either cloth, paper or cork is used as fireplug and lastly the pellets are filled. Counsel further submittd that PW-17 Dr. Preetam Chand Gupta stated in his statement that he neither found any metallic pallets or bullets in the body of the deceased nor any pallets were found in the X-ray plate. Counsel, therefore, submitted that a false story has been concocted by the prosecution to implicate the sole accused-appellant. He further submitted that there is a drastic variation in the versions of the prosecution witnesses as some deposed on oath that the gun shot was fired from a distance of 100 steps and according to some witnesses, it was fired from a distance of about 75 steps or 450 feet and according to the counsel, as per medical jurisprudence, if a gun shot is fired from the distance of 75 steps, then a person would receive not only one but several wounds. He further submitted that conviction of the accused-appellant is based on the unreliable evidence of the prosecution witnesses without corroborating from other medical evidence or from the independent evidence. Learned Senior Counsel submits that once the learned trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution story as regards the other co-accused and has acquitted them from all the charges, there was no justifiable reason for convicting the accused-appellant alone for offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the conviction of the accused-appellant in the instant case is bad in law. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the doctor has specifically stated that none of the injured told the name of the accused who fired the gun shot. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the conviction of the accused-appellant in the instant case is bad in law. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the doctor has specifically stated that none of the injured told the name of the accused who fired the gun shot. Learned Senior Counsel lastly submitted that it is a concocted story built up by the prosecution only to falsely implicate the accused-appellant without any evidence and he submitted that since the accused-appellant has not committed any offence, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and in the alternative counsel submitted that once the other co-accused persons have been given benefit of doubt, then the accused-appellant also deserves to be given such benefit of doubt. Learned Senior Counsel also relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pratap Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1991 SCC (Cri.) 699 and of this Court in the case of Prithvi @ Prithvi Pal Singh & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan, reported in 1982(7) RCC 203 and submitted that since there were variations or contradictions in the version of various witnesses, relied upon by the Trial Court, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such evidence. He further submitted that when all other co-accused, in that case, have been acquitted, on the basis of benefit of doubt, therefore, in the present case also, when the other accused persons have been acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt, the present accused-appellant also ought to have been given benefit of doubt. 10. On the other hand Mr. Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. He submits that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have fully supported the case of prosecution. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-12 have stated unshakably in the statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and in their cross-examination, they stated that it was the accused-appellant (Halke) alone who fired gun-shot at deceased-Silli (Shrilal) which pierced his chest, as a result of which, he fell down and died on the way to hospital. 11. We have heard, counsels for both the parties, perused the material available on record and the judgment and order impugned passed by the learned trial Court. 12. 11. We have heard, counsels for both the parties, perused the material available on record and the judgment and order impugned passed by the learned trial Court. 12. In order to test the correctness of the findings given by the learned trial court it is apposite to deal with the statements given by the prosecution witnesses. 13. Complainant-Lakkuram (PW1) has stated that when he, Kare, Badri, Shivraj and Pappu were grazing the goats in jungle, accused Halke, Harkesh, Balli, Harchu, Munna, Mangi and Bajranga came there and restrained them from grazing the cattle. When they asked the accused why they were being restrained when it was a pasture land, the accused started beating Lakkuram, Kare and Badri and tied their hands. It was 3.00 p.m. After some time when, Gulab, Hari, Dauliya, Shrilal, Gopalya and Sitaram came to save them, accused came again armed with firearms to kill them. Despite their asking the accused not to do so, accused Halke fired gun-shot towards them, which hit the chest of Silli @ Shrilal and then another accused Harkesh fired towards them, which hit the left thigh of Sitaram of the complainant-party and accused Balli, Munna, Mangi, Kare, Harchu and Bajranga pelted stones at them, due to which, they sustained injuries on their head and nose. One of them Silli got seriously injured and he was taken to the hospital but he died on the way. This witness has stated that there was previous enmity. In cross-examination, Lakkuram (PW1) has stated that it is accused Halke, who fired. 14. Kare (PW2) also similarly stated that deceased Silli (Shrilal) died due to fire arm. In cross-examination, he stated that Silli did due to receiving gun-shot injury on his chest just below the neck vide injury report Exh.D.2. 15. Ramkhiladi (PW3) has also supported the aforesaid version of complainant-Lakkuram (PW1) and Kare (PW2). He stated that accused Halke put Silli (Shrilal) to death by firing a gun-shot on him, which hit his chest just below the neck. After some time, Silli died. He stated that Silli (Shrilal) died due to the gun-shot fired by accused-Halke from a gun. 16. Pappu (PW4) also stated about beating of the complainant-party by the accused-party. He corroborated the fact that accused-Halke fired gun-shot at Silli (Shrilal), which hit his chest, by which injury he succumbed to his death. After some time, Silli died. He stated that Silli (Shrilal) died due to the gun-shot fired by accused-Halke from a gun. 16. Pappu (PW4) also stated about beating of the complainant-party by the accused-party. He corroborated the fact that accused-Halke fired gun-shot at Silli (Shrilal), which hit his chest, by which injury he succumbed to his death. He stated that Silli died due to gun-shot fired by accused-Halke. 17. Badri (PW5), who is one of the eye-witnesses, has also similarly stated that accused tied the hands of the complainant-party and when villagers came there and were trying to untie their hands, accused-Halke fired gun-shot at Shrilal (Silli), which hit his neck. 18. Shivraj @ Shivcharan (PW6) also supported the version of the afore-said prosecution witnesses saying that it was accused-Halke, who fired at Silli. 19. Sitaram (PW7) also corroborated the version of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses of giving beating by the accused-party to the complainant-party and that accused-Halke fired gun-shot from the 'topidar banduk' and the pellets hit the neck of Shrilal (Silli), due to which, Shrilal (Silli) fell down and became unconscious. 20. Gulab (PW8) stated about pelting stones and firing by the accused party at the complainant party and further that accused Halke fired gun-shot from 'topidar banduk', which hit the neck of Silli @ Shrilal and the blood was oozing profusely from the injuries and ultimately Silli succumbed to his death after some time. 21. Gopalya (PW9) also similarly stated that when they tried to untie the hands of the complainant-party, accused Munna, Halke, Harkesh, Bajranga, Mangi, Balli and Haricharan forcibly restrained them from doing so. He further stated that accused-Halke fired from the 'topidar banduk', from which pellets hit chest just below the neck of Silli, resultantly, Silli fell down and died after some time. He further stated that immediately after firing at Silli, accused fled from the scene of occurrence. 22. Deejya (PW10) stated that Halke fired gun-shot, which hit neck of Silli, Harkesh fired gun-shot, which hit the legs of Sitaram. Shrilal (Silli) was taken to the hospital but he died on the way. 23. Kamal (PW11) also similarly stated that accused-Halke fired at Shrilal, which hit his neck. 24. Parsadi (PW12) stated that the bullet hit Shrilal. 25. 22. Deejya (PW10) stated that Halke fired gun-shot, which hit neck of Silli, Harkesh fired gun-shot, which hit the legs of Sitaram. Shrilal (Silli) was taken to the hospital but he died on the way. 23. Kamal (PW11) also similarly stated that accused-Halke fired at Shrilal, which hit his neck. 24. Parsadi (PW12) stated that the bullet hit Shrilal. 25. Dinesh Singh (PW18) S.H.O. Police Station Karanpur stated that at the relevant time he was posted as Constable at Police Station Karanpur and when he was going to the place of incident, one person was found on the way having 'topidar banduk' in his hands, who was accused in FIR No.27/2002. He recovered that banduk (gun) from that accused vide Exh.P/23 and stated that this was the very same gun from which the bullet was fired. 26. Hariom (PW19) who was a Constable in Karanpur Police Station, depicted about deposition of the gun, Clothes and sand in two sealed packets in the forensic science laboratory vide receipts Exh.P/24 and Exh.P/25. 27. Girdharilal (PW20) stated that when he was posted as head Constable at Police Station Karanpur on the fateful day of 24.6.2002, deposited blood smeared sand, plain sand and topidar banduk in the malkhana, which is entered at Sr.No.32 in the malkhana register. 28. Ramveer Singh (PW21), a Constable at Police Station Karanpur also stated regarding deposition of articles in the malkhana. 29. Most important is the statement of Nohbar Singh (PW22), who was S.H.O. at Police Station, Karanpur, on which the accused has placed strong reliance. This witness has clearly stated in his statement that 'topidar banduk', which he recovered from the possession of accused-Halke was the very same fire-arm, which was used in commission of the crime i.e. putting Silli to death. He further stated that accused-Halke was arrested with the banduk. He further stated that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he stated that deceased-Silli died due to sustaining one gun-shot injury, which he received while he was standing and then he fell down. He further stated the bullet might have pierced-across Silli's chest. 30. He further stated that accused-Halke was arrested with the banduk. He further stated that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he stated that deceased-Silli died due to sustaining one gun-shot injury, which he received while he was standing and then he fell down. He further stated the bullet might have pierced-across Silli's chest. 30. Similar is the statement of Dinesh Singh (PW18) Constable, Police Station Karanpur, who stated that at the relevant he was posted as S.H.O. at Police Station Karanpur and when he was going to the place of incident, one person was found in the way with 'topidar banduk', who was accused in FIR No.27/2002. He recovered that banduk (gun) from that accused vide Exh.P.23. He further stated in clear terms that gun-shot was fired from this fire-arm, which he recovered from the accused. 31. Eye-witness Badri (PW5) has stated hat accused tied the hands of the complainant-party and when villagers came there and were trying to untie their tied hands, accused-Halke fired gun-shot at Shrilal (Silli), which hit his neck. 32. Dr. Preetam Chand Gupta (DW1), Medical Jurist posted at the relevant time in General Hospital Karauli and who also conducted the post-mortem of deceased-Silli vide Exh.P.17, though stated that he did not find any pellet in the chest of the deceased but he ultimately opined vide post-mortem report (Exh.P/17) that Silli sustained incised wound 2.1x5" deep into the respiratory system, which was definitely due to firearm, due to which, the arteries were seriously damaged, which injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. He further opined that deceased died due to excess oozing of the blood interiorly. 33. So far as the plea of the accused, that the accused fired in self-defence, the same is not acceptable because as per version of informant-Lakkuram, when he (Lakkuram), Kare, Badri, Shivraj and Pappu asked the accused not to restrain them from grazing the cattle as it was the jungle (forest/pasture land) and not a private land, the accused-Halke fired gun-shot at them, which hit the chest of deceased-Silli, and such fact is corroborated from the statement of Gulab (PW8), who stated the accused first started pelting stones at the complainant-party and accused-Halke in the meanwhile fired gun-shot at Silli. Though, pelting of stones was from both the sides but it was the accused who first started pelting stones at them. Though, pelting of stones was from both the sides but it was the accused who first started pelting stones at them. The complainant-party was not having any fire-arm and none of the witnesses have said so. Therefore, the accused-party was the aggressor and thus, the plea of the accused that he fired in self-defence is not tenable in the light of the aforesaid overwhelming evidence on record. 34. There is no contradiction in either of the statements from PW1 to PW12 and all have unshakably stated that it was only accused-Halke, who fired the gun-shot at Silli, which hit his chest and the bullet pierced-across, due to which he fell down, and that blood as oozing profusely from the injury and ultimately Silli succumbed to his death while in the way of hospital. The statements of all the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-12 including eye-witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-12 including eye-witness Badri (PW5) were similar and remained intact and uncontroverted throughout and was further corroborated by the medico-legal evidence i.e. post-mortem report Exh.P.17 attributing bullet injury as the cause of death of Silli. 35. So far as direction of the bullet is concerned, the same is immaterial, in view of the fact that all the prosecution witnesses unshakably attributed the pellet injury to the act of the accused-Halke. The minor differences in the statements are inconsequential as such differences are owing to the fact that fight took place all of a sudden and the witnesses, either due to fear or not being familiar with the directions, have given different statements regarding direction of the pellet but these differences were negligible and were bound to occur in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. These minor differences therefore, do not demolish the prosecution case. But there is certainly no contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses in regard to the definite allegation of causing bullet injury by the accused Halke to the deceased Silli (Shrilal). These minor differences therefore, do not demolish the prosecution case. But there is certainly no contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses in regard to the definite allegation of causing bullet injury by the accused Halke to the deceased Silli (Shrilal). There might be some minor differences in the statements of the various witnesses, as observed herein before, but then we cannot loose sight of the fact that all these witnesses are from very small villages, and are illiterate people and earn their bread and butter only by way of grazing goats in jungle and, therefore, minor discrepancies or differences or contradictions have to be discarded when almost all the witnesses were in unison in pointing that it was the accused appellant Halke who fired from his gun which ultimately caused the death of Silli. 36. So far as plea of the accused that statements of the prosecution witnesses suffer from contradictions, when they stated that two gun-shots were fired, whereas only one gun-shot injury was found on the person of deceased Silli as per post-mortem report (Exh.P.17), is concerned, it is explicit from the unshaken statement of Deejya (PW10) that though two gun shots were fired, but one was fired by accused-Halke, which hit chest of deceased-Silli and another by co-accused-Harkesh, which hit injured-Sitaram on his left-thigh. However, firing of one gun-shot injury by accused-Halke is found to be proved, whereas firing of another gun-shot by co-accused-Harkesh was not found proved. Therefore, it is crystal clear that Silli (Shrilal) died due to receiving of gun-shot injury on his chest as a result of gun-shot fired by accused-Halke from an unlicensed gun. 37. So far as question of firing from the distance of 75 steps or 100 steps is concerned, it is immaterial when it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that deceased-Silli died due to gun-shot fired by accused-Halke. 38. So far as non-production of the Radiologist and notes of the Medical Jurist, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased in the Court is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in catena of cases that production of medical officer or radiologist in the Court to prove the medical report is not a sine-qua-non when circumstantial evidence sufficiently proves the guilt of the accused. 39. 39. The plea of the accused that as pellets were not found by the doctor in the chest of deceased-Silli during post-mortem and hence it was proved that the accused did not fire at the deceased, is not acceptable in the light of the medico-legal evidence on record that states that bullet pierced-across the chest. DW1 Dr. Preetam Chand Gupta, who conducted the post-mortem of deceased-Silli vide Exh.P.17 opined that there is an oval shape of wound, therefore, it could safety be said that the bullet pierced-across the chest of deceased. 40. Since the specific allegation of firing gun-shot is against accused-Halke alone, which is corroborated by the medico-legal evidence therefore, in our considered view, learned trial Court rightly acquitted all other co-accused from the offences alleged against them giving them benefit of doubt on failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt and simultaneously convicting and sentencing accused-Halke for the alleged offences having been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 41. In our considered view therefore, the learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the accused-Halke for offence u/Sec. 302 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentencing him for life imprisonment and further simple imprisonment for one year, respectively for the offences in the manner stated above on the basis of chain of circumstances being found fully proved against him beyond all reasonable doubt and there being no missing links. The trial Court based conviction of the accused on the basis of evidence in toto and not merely on the basis of the post-mortem report, there being unambiguous evidence of the prosecution witnesses corroborated by the medico-legal evidence. None of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and all have unambiguously supported the prosecution case unshakably. The trial Court based conviction of the accused on the basis of evidence in toto and not merely on the basis of the post-mortem report, there being unambiguous evidence of the prosecution witnesses corroborated by the medico-legal evidence. None of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and all have unambiguously supported the prosecution case unshakably. The judgment of Pratap Singh (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the accused-appellants, is not applicable on the facts of the instant case and is distinguishable in as much as in that case the facts were that Pratap Singh was convicted for offence for which he was never charge-sheeted and when Pratap Singh was charge-sheeted, the prosecution was not sure about the actual part played by him in commission of the crime whereas, in the present case, right from day one, the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused-appellant (Halke) was involved in the crime and all throughout in the FIR as well as charge-sheet, his name has been shown and almost all witnesses pointed out accusation against the accused-appellant (Halke) that he was the one who fired gun shot. Therefore, in our view, the judgment relied upon by the appellant is clearly distinguishable. In the present case, the accused-appellant (Halke) has been found to be involved in the aforesaid crime of firing gun shot and even the gun used has been found in his possession. Therefore, in our view, the judgment relied upon by the appellant is clearly distinguishable. In the present case, the accused-appellant (Halke) has been found to be involved in the aforesaid crime of firing gun shot and even the gun used has been found in his possession. In the case of Prithi @ Prithvi Pal Singh (supra), the facts were that there were discrepancies in the FIR and statement of the witnesses in trial and it was found that there were major discrepancies in the statement of the eye-witnesses and FIR regarding the manner in which the crime was committed coupled with the fact that both the eye-witnesses were interested persons and, therefore, in view of these facts, the Court came to the conclusion that since an entirely new case was made out by the prosecution, Prithvi @ Prithvi Pal Singh was acquitted, whereas in the present case, the facts are totally different and distinguishable and in our view, there is no case of change of facts or setting up of a new case, as right from day one, the prosecution has been unshakably able to prove the involvement of the accused-appellant (Halke) in the instant case and he alone was responsible for the brutal murder of Silli (Srilal) by opening fire when Silli @ Shrilal and other persons had nothing in their hands to save them. Therefore, Prithvi Pal Singh (supra) is also distinguishable. 42. In the result, the appeal fails and is therefore dismissed. The conviction of accused-appellant-Halke for offence u/Sec. 302 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act is maintained. The judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Karauli in Sessions Case No.06/2004 dated 4.4.2006 is thus affirmed. Record be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.