JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J. The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, passed in Sessions trial No. 12-S/7 of 2005, dated 5.3.2007. Background facts. 2. PW1 Hans Raj is the brother of PW3 Vidya Devi who is one of the seven sisters working in a factory at Baddi. The respondent, hereinafter referred as the “accused” was the God-Brother of Vidya Devi. In the year 2005, he was working as a Patwari in the State Revenue Department. On 28.4.2005, Vidya Devi had performed Court- marriage with Ramesh Kumar (deceased), a cloth merchant of village Panjgain, District Bilaspur and started residing with him. Prosecution case. 3.It is alleged that the accused was having illicit relations with Vidya Devi aforesaid but to avoid any suspicion in the society he represented himself to be her God-Brother. The accused had been playing a dominant role in the family of PW1 Hans Raj in all domestic matters. Since Vidya Devi did not consult him while marrying Ramesh Kumar and he was not happy with this marriage, thus on 30.4.2005 he proclaimed that he would render her widow. This threatening was also allegedly given to the deceased on his telephone on 1.5.2005 and he also visited village Panjgain. (ii) PW3 Vidya Devi had informed her brother (PW1) that she alongwith her husband would visit her parental house village Kothi-Ser Tehsil Suni District Shimla. On 6.5.2005 at about 6.30 p.m. they hired a taxi and reached Kothi-Ser. In the evening they were sitting in the second storey alongwith PW1 Hans Raj, her sister PW12 Kamla, the driver of the taxi. Ramesh Kumar husband of Vidya Devi was sitting on the bed. Suddenly at about 8.00 p.m., they heard a gun-shot fire, simultaneously Ramesh Kumar received pellets injuries on his temple region and blood started oozing out of the injuries and died. PW1 Hans Raj peeped outside, noticed lot of smoke, wrapped up Ramesh Kumar in a blanket and took him to PHC, Suni, in the same taxi. (iii) PW27 (32) Sub Inspector Parkash Chand, was the Incharge of Police Post, Sunni. On 6.5.2005, at about 8.45 p.m. he had received a telephonic message from one Ran Bahadur that there was a gun­shot incident in the house of Hans Raj in village Kothi-Ser causing injury to one person. (iii) PW27 (32) Sub Inspector Parkash Chand, was the Incharge of Police Post, Sunni. On 6.5.2005, at about 8.45 p.m. he had received a telephonic message from one Ran Bahadur that there was a gun­shot incident in the house of Hans Raj in village Kothi-Ser causing injury to one person. This information was noted in daily diary (Ext.PW24/A). Thereafter, he proceeded to the spot with the police officials. He also sent intimation to Police Station, Dhalli. However, on visiting the spot, he came to know that the injured had already been taken to CHC, Sunni. In the meantime, PW29 (35) Inspector/SHO Sunil Negi reached the spot and recorded the statement of PW1 Hans Raj under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ext.PA). Sub Inspector Parkash Chand prepared the inquest report, got the dead-body photographed and sent the same for autopsy to IGMC under the supervision of Constable Balbir Singh. (iv) Inspector/SHO Sunil Negi sent Ruka for the registration of the case and started investigating the matter. He visited the room where the deceased was sitting and noted the residue of gun shot on the “jaali” of the rear window. There was pool of blood on the bed-sheet lying on the double-bed and on the floor. He took into possession the portion of the net (Jaali), which was having bullet marks. In the meanwhile, FSL officials had also reached the spot and carried out inspection. They picked up the mark of bullet from the bar of the rear window. Sunil Negi SHO took into possession the wad and small pieces of bullet vide Memo Ext.PB, which were found scattered on the double-bed. All these articles were sealed. The site was got photographed. He also prepared the spot- map Ext.PW29/A. (v) PW21 Dr. Piyush Kapila, Registrar Forensic Medicines, IGMC, on the written request of the police conducted the postmortem of the dead-body. He got the head part of the dead body X-rayed, the skia-grams are Exts.PW21/D-1 and D-2. He noticed five ante-mortem injuries on the dead-body of Ramesh Kumar. Few pellets, plastic components and the wire mash were preserved. Scalp was normal except some pellet holes near pinna on the right side. There were multiple fracture lines on the frontal bone. He noticed triradiate fracture of skull bone in the frontal bone. Anterior cranial fossa was having multiple communited fractures, but there was no pellet in the brain. Few pellets, plastic components and the wire mash were preserved. Scalp was normal except some pellet holes near pinna on the right side. There were multiple fracture lines on the frontal bone. He noticed triradiate fracture of skull bone in the frontal bone. Anterior cranial fossa was having multiple communited fractures, but there was no pellet in the brain. He also noticed base of anterior cranial fracture on the basal part of frontal lobe and fracture of the base of anterior cranial fossa was radiating anteriorly to facial bones. The trachea was full of blood. Right eye was sunken. A bluish bulge was present on the left side of the nose with crepitant feel. Maxilla of right side was fractured with nasal bones. The doctors were of the opinion that the deceased had died due to gun-shot which led to brain injury and haemmorrhagic shock. In the opinion of doctor, the deceased died instantaneously after the injury. The period between death and postmortem was 16 to 20 hours. Seven photographs of the dead-body were taken at the time of autopsy. The autopsy was also attended by the State Medical Legal Advisor. The doctor issued the postmortem report Ext.PW21/E (four leaves). (vi) The pellets were recovered from injury No.1, as mentioned at page No.2 of the postmortem report. The plastic component and the wire were recovered from injury No.2. The application Ext.PW21/F was also given to the doctor by the SHO, Dhalli for his opinion regarding range, kind of weapon and the relevance of the various particles preserved. He gave his opinion Ext.PW21/G that the fire arm used was smooth bored weapon from the range of 1 to 2 meters, out of flame, smoke and un-burnt particles, but was within the range of wad. Arrest of accused and recoveries. (vii) On 8.5.2005, PW29 Inspector Sunil Negi received the information that accused Suresh Kumar was detained at Police Station, Kumarsain.On this information he visited police Station and interrogated him and took him to his house at Kangal in Suni Tehsil, where he is alleged to have made the disclosure statement Ext.PW29/G in the presence of Vinod Negi and Uma Nand that the gun which was fired at, was kept concealed in his another house at Dharampur Thach to which he could recover. Thereafter he led the police to the said place and produced the same, kept on the bed in the middle room of the ground floor of his house. It was taken into possession, vide memo Ext.PW29/H, in the presence of the witnesses aforesaid after preparing its sketch-map, memo Ext.PW29/J. During the search of the house another licensed gun of the father of the accused having five live-cartridges were also separately taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW29/K. A Khaka Ext.PW29/L was also prepared. The site plan of the recovery Ext.PW29/M was also prepared. (viii) On 14.5.2005, Maruti Car No.HR-37- 0006 which was used by the accused in the commission of alleged offence was also taken into possession from PW1 9 Anchal Chhabra vide memo Ext.PW8/C alongwith its documents. (ix) On 16.5.2005, the accused was taken to Basantpur where he had made disclosure statement Ext.PF in the presence of Hukam Chand and Devi Ram to the effect that the spent cartridge was thrown in bushes near the house of Hans Raj could be got recovered by him. Pursuant to this statement, he led the police to the said place and produced cartridge from the bushes, which was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PG. The site plan of the alleged recovery was also prepared vide memo Ext.PW29/O. (x) When the accused was arrested, mobile-phone Ext.P-28 alongwith its Chip was also taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW26/A. The Inspector/SHO aforesaid also collected the mobile call-details of mobile No.9418127141, which are in Ext.PW1 5/A. (xi) Since the accused was serving in the revenue department, a certificate regarding his absence was also obtained from Assistant Settlement Officer, Shimla. PW26 (31) ASI Satto Kumar had partly investigated the case and recorded the statement of Shri Mast Ram. (xii) PW28 HC Tek Ram was MHC in Police Station, Dhalli. All the recoveries which were effected from the spot were deposited with him in the Malkhana, which were later on sent for forensic examination, whereas PW27 is Constable Lokender, a police Photographer, whose assistance to take photographs was taken during the investigation. (xiii) PW26 HC Yog Raj took Maruti-car aforesaid used by the accused into possession alongwith keys from Kalka vide memo Ext.PW8/C from Shri Pushker and the documents of the vehicle were handed over by Narinder Chhabra to the police. (xiv) PW22 Dr. (xiii) PW26 HC Yog Raj took Maruti-car aforesaid used by the accused into possession alongwith keys from Kalka vide memo Ext.PW8/C from Shri Pushker and the documents of the vehicle were handed over by Narinder Chhabra to the police. (xiv) PW22 Dr. Gian Thakur, Scientific Officer of the State Forensic Laboratory had examined parcel No.5 containing blood for its origin and blood grouping. Vide his opinion Ext.PW22/A human blood of group ‘A’ was found on the pieces of bone, plastic and also blood lifted from the floor. The blood traces were also found on the underwear of deceased Ramesh Kumar which were insufficient for examination. (xv) PW23 Rajesh Kumar, Scientific Officer, Physics and Ballistics, State Forensic Science Laboratory examined the piece of net (Jali) in which there was a hole, which was marked as ‘control sample’. In Parcel No.3, there was a piece of cotton swab and in parcel No.4 another piece of cotton swab, whereas parcel No.5 contained red coloured plastic piece and some bone like pieces. Parcel No.6 was also having cotton swab, but in parcel No.7 there was a wad and three pellets, whereas parcel No.8 contained SBBL gun bearing No.YA7277 and in parcel No.9 there was also a SBBL gun bearing No.4021 6. Parcel No.10 contained five live cartridges and in parcel No.11 there was one fired cartridge. In parcel No.12, there were seven pellets and bone like material and parcel No.13 contained a plastic piece and parcel No.14 thin metal wire. He had examined all these articles and issued report Ext.PW23/A under his signatures. In his opinion, three live cartridges Ext.P-22 to P-24 and the examined cartridges Ext.P-25 and P-26 were the same and gun Ext.P-15 (No.YA7277) contained the traces of firing of gun-shot. There were also traces of firing gun-shot on the second gun and the empty cartridge which was marked by him had been fired through gun Ext.P-15. The traces of lead were also found in the hole in net and cotton. Plastic pieces recovered by the doctor from the head of the deceased could be a part of wad and the pellets Ext.P-1, P-2 and Ext.P-10 examined could also be a part of Ext.P-27 fired cartridge, though no definite opinion was expressed. (xvi) During investigation, police recorded the statement of Harbhajan Singh, who was running a shop of Arms and Ammunition at Kalka since 2001. He brought the sale register. (xvi) During investigation, police recorded the statement of Harbhajan Singh, who was running a shop of Arms and Ammunition at Kalka since 2001. He brought the sale register. In this register, against Sr. No.209, the sale of 25 cartridges against licence No.247-A/Chamba renewed upto 13.12.2007 to Shri Khiali Ram, the father of the accused through Suresh Kumar accused was found entered under the signature of the accused. Its photocopy is Ext.PW14/A, which was taken into possession by the police vide memo Ext. 14/B. Motive. (xvii) The deceased allegedly had illicit relations with Vidya Devi aforesaid and to keep it behind veil; she used to call him God Brother. During investigation, it also revealed that even on holidays the accused used to visit the house of Hans Raj to spend time with Kamla and Vidya, his sisters. He had much influence and interference in the affairs of the family. The accused got annoyed with the act of Vidya Devi in marrying the deceased and proclaimed to render her a widow. On 5.5.2005 he came from Parwanoo in a van with Kamla, dropped her at Basantpur (Tehsil Sunni) and went home. Next day, i.e. on 6.5.2005, he again came to Basantpur in the same van and brought his gun and shot at Ramesh Kumar. Later he is alleged to have enquired telephonically, if his task was accomplished. 4.On these allegations, the Challan under the aforesaid Sections was presented in the Court for the trial of the accused. He was accordingly charge-sheeted for the offences aforesaid, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He alleged false implication in this case and denied all the circumstances which were found attendant upon him. At the end of trial, the accused was acquitted by the learned trial Court, as the accused could not be linked with the alleged offence. Hence the present appeal by the State. 6. Shri P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General duly assisted by Shri J.S. Rana, learned Assistant Advocate General, vehemently argued that the motive in this case stands proved. The empty cartridge found on the spot is alleged to have been recovered by the accused from the vicinity. It was opined to have been fired through the gun of the accused. 6. Shri P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General duly assisted by Shri J.S. Rana, learned Assistant Advocate General, vehemently argued that the motive in this case stands proved. The empty cartridge found on the spot is alleged to have been recovered by the accused from the vicinity. It was opined to have been fired through the gun of the accused. Therefore, the link stands established and the learned trial Court wrongly ignored this important evidence besides having proved that the accused was seen with his gun in the surroundings having come there in the Maruti car. 7.On the other hand, Shri Jagdish Vats, learned Counsel for the accused supported impugned judgment of acquittal and forcefully argued that the report of the forensic expert, who examined the guns and crime cartridge has not supported his opinion with any reason or material worth the name. Therefore, in view of the judgments of the apex Court rendered in State of Gujarat v. Adam Fateh Mohmed Umatiya and others, 1971 (3) SCC 208 , State of M.P. through CBI and others v. Paltan Mallah and others, (2005) 3 SCC 169 , his report is meaningless otherwise also his opinion is not definite. It is further argued that mere physical presence of the accused in the proximity has also no relevance. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully and cautiously re-examined the evidence on record. 9.It stands established on record that the accused had intimacy with PW3 Vidya Devi and exercised good influence in the family of PW1 Hans Raj in all matters whatever might be the reason. But to connect the accused with the crime, either there should be a direct evidence or circumstantial evidence of conclusive nature and tendency which in all probability, point out to the guilt of accused and accused alone. 10. Circumstantial evidence is sometimes of great importance in criminal cases as it furnishes links in the chain of facts which go to establish the guilt of the accused and makes inference possible. It is, therefore, a principle of universal application that in order to justify the inference of guilt in cases dependent upon circumstantial evidence, the incriminating facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. 11. It is, therefore, a principle of universal application that in order to justify the inference of guilt in cases dependent upon circumstantial evidence, the incriminating facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. 11. It is equally settled that the motive is not an essential element to prove the guilt in a criminal case. If proved, it may strengthen the evidence on record. But, in this case the motive as alleged is not proved. However, the adequacy or otherwise of motive is of no consequence, as most of the grievous crimes are committed out of very flimsy and frivolous considerations. It is well established that if there is positive evidence, want of motive or inadequacy thereof can have no bearing on the case. [ Please see Sharard Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 ; Devinder Singh v. State of HP 1990 (1) Sim L.C. 82] and Prakash v. State of Rajasthan [2013 Crl.L.J. 2040 (SC)] 12.The prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances to connect the accused with the crime: (i) On 30.4.2005, the accused had threatened Ramesh Kumar to kill him and also visited his village on 1.5.2005. (ii) The accused was seen near the scene of crime with a gun soon before the occurrence; (iii) On sustaining gun shot injury by the deceased, PW13 looked out and told that it was the accused who fired at deceased. (iv) Purchase of ammunition on 4.3.2005 by the accused from PW14 Harbhajan Singh. (v) Recovery of empty cartridge pursuant to his disclosure statement. (vi) Forensic opinion; and (vii) After the incident the accused had made phone call to the house of the complainant regarding their welfare allegedly only with an intention to know whether his mission was successful. Circumstance No.(i). 13.It is an admitted case that on 28.4.2005, Vidya Devi had married the deceased. According to PW6 Sohan Lal, on 30.4.2005, PW1 Hans Raj and his sister had come to Shimla to attend a marriage and returned back on the same day alongwith the accused. 14. PW7 Lalit Kishore was declared hostile, but he stated that he did not know whose telephonic call was received by the deceased in his absence. But it was from Shimla side and they were asking them to visit their place after marriage. 14. PW7 Lalit Kishore was declared hostile, but he stated that he did not know whose telephonic call was received by the deceased in his absence. But it was from Shimla side and they were asking them to visit their place after marriage. He categorically denied that the said call was from the accused as he was not happy with this marriage. Though deceased had told him about threats, but did not say that it was the accused who had threatened him. 15.PW9 Tek Chand, elder brother of the deceased was a cloth merchant having his shop at Panjgain. According to him, on 30.4.2005, the accused and elder sister of Vidya Devi had informed the deceased telephonically that accused was not happy with the marriage of Vidya Devi with the deceased. On 1.5.2005, the accused had visited Panjgain in a Taxi, but Ramesh was not there. Vidya Devi had prevailed upon the deceased not to meet the accused. He further stated that in the evening, Vidya Devi rang up to her parental house and her elder sister told that their marriage was acceptable to them. They were going to hold a function and they should attend it, but the family of the complainant impressed upon Vidya Devi and Ramesh not to go there, however, Vidya Devi ignored their requests and took Ramesh to attend the function at Basantpur in a Taxi of Mast Ram on 6.5.2005. In cross-examination, he stated that on 30.4.2005, a telephonic call was made by the accused and he came to know about threats on 2.5.2005, but however, no conversation had taken place between the deceased and the accused in his presence on telephone. Further, to this telephonic threat, he was not a direct witness, but according to him, his brother had disclosed about it who suggested to lodge the FIR, but Vidya Devi told him that it would further spoil their relationship. He also stated that on 1.5.2005, Bittu brother of Vidya Devi was making calls for attending the function. But, he did not say anything about the visit of deceased on 1.5.2005 at Panjgain. 16. PW12 Kamla, sister of Vidya Devi did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner, as such, she was declared hostile. He also stated that on 1.5.2005, Bittu brother of Vidya Devi was making calls for attending the function. But, he did not say anything about the visit of deceased on 1.5.2005 at Panjgain. 16. PW12 Kamla, sister of Vidya Devi did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner, as such, she was declared hostile. According to her, Vidya treated accused as ‘God-brother’, who used to tie Rakhi and attend functions held in their houses and sometimes he also visited them at Parwanoo. She also stated that Vidya (PW4) on the mediation of her friends got engaged with deceased who was residing at that time at Panjgain. Vidya and Suresh accused had been visiting Shimla to meet Ramesh and their relations were as brother and sister. 17. PW13 Mast Ram is a tailor-master, running a shop at Panjgain, visited the shop of deceased who was also his friend. According to him, on 1.5.2005, the deceased met him at Panjgain. On 30.4.2005 at 10.30 p.m., the deceased received threats on telephone from the accused as he did not take the marriage of Vidya Devi with him in a good taste. The deceased got scared and told him to drop him at Mandi, but he convinced him that there was no danger to his life and nothing adverse would take place. Next day, Ramesh and Vidya Devi were not in their house. On that day, accused, Kamla, driver and one other person came to Panjgain in a Van. They enquired about the whereabouts of Ramesh. The accused was angry and returned. After about one or two days, he received a telephonic message that a function was arranged in the house of the complainant, but they told Vidya and deceased not to attend it, but they ignored his advice. 18.Pertinently, PW3 Vidya Devi admitted that on 1.5.2005, her brother (PW1), sister Kamla had visited Panjgain on 1 .5.2005 and then returned without meeting them. On the same day, she contacted her brother and sister at Parwanoo informing them that she was going to her parental house. The accused was also informed about by her. 18.Pertinently, PW3 Vidya Devi admitted that on 1.5.2005, her brother (PW1), sister Kamla had visited Panjgain on 1 .5.2005 and then returned without meeting them. On the same day, she contacted her brother and sister at Parwanoo informing them that she was going to her parental house. The accused was also informed about by her. 19.On examining the aforesaid evidence, there is no cogent and reliable evidence with respect to the administering threat telephonically by the accused to the deceased on 30.4.2005, but however, it stands proved that on 1.5.2005, the accused alongwith brother and sister of Vidya Devi had visited Panjgain, but neither Vidya Devi nor the deceased were there, thus they had returned back on the same day. Therefore, the visit of accused on 1.5.2005 at Panjgain alongwith the family members of Vidya Devi raises no suspicion at all against the accused as he did not ostensibly stated anything about the deceased or Vidya Devi, but only appeared to be not happy by not meeting them and nothing more could be proved by the prosecution with respect to his visit on 1.5.2005 at Panjgain. But there is no cogent and reliable evidence qua administering threats by the accused to the deceased on 30.4.2005, as alleged. Circumstance No.(ii). 20.Insofar as the accused having been seen near the scene of crime with a gun soon before the occurrence is concerned, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the statements of PW8 Narinder Kumar and PW1 1 Pushkar. PW8 Narinder Kumar was the owner of Maruti Van No.HR-37-0006. His son-in- law is ‘God-brother’ of Kamla. He had sold the vehicle No.HR-37-0006 to the accused. PW1 1 Push kar stated that on 5.5.2005, he was waiting for a bus at Kalka for Dharampur, where Jiwan approached him and asked to take accused in the Maruti Van No.HR-37-0006 to Kangal. He agreed and while coming from Kalka, he picked up a lady from Parwanoo and one more person from Mashobra, who was dropped beyond Jalog. They stayed for the night at Kangal, but next day, accused went to the ‘Pandoe Devta’ and then went to his house at Kangal and started return journey at 5 p.m. At that time, accused was having a gun and a polythene packet with him. He dropped him at Basantpur around 7.30/ 8 p.m. and paid Rs.400/- to him. They stayed for the night at Kangal, but next day, accused went to the ‘Pandoe Devta’ and then went to his house at Kangal and started return journey at 5 p.m. At that time, accused was having a gun and a polythene packet with him. He dropped him at Basantpur around 7.30/ 8 p.m. and paid Rs.400/- to him. He had instructed him that if need be, he would call him next day, lest he should leave the Van with PW 19 Anchal Chahbra at Kalka. The accused told him that he was to go to the house of his sister, but thereafter he did not receive any call from the accused. Next day, he handed over the Van and key to Anchal. In cross- examination, he stated that he was not acquainted with the accused prior to the said incident nor the accused was got identified before the Magistrate. There is no evidence to show the distance between Kangal/Basantpur to Kothiser where the alleged incident had taken place, but even if it is just nearer to Basantpur, in that event, the prosecution has not come forward with any evidence that the accused was seen having gone towards the parental house of Vidya Devi, where the incident had taken place. However, it stands proved that the accused was having a gun with him when he was dropped in the evening on 6.5.2005. Circumstance No.(iii) 21.PW13 Mast Ram stated that the gun shot hit the temple region of the deceased and Hans Raj cried that Suresh your brother had killed Ramesh, but Kamla stopped him from saying so by putting her hand on his mouth. But, PW12 Kamla did not state so. She also disputed the fact that the accused was angry on account of the marriage of Vidya Devi with Ramesh. She denied that it was the accused, who had killed the deceased. Even Hans Raj had not made any reference in his statement when examined in the Court that he told that it was the accused who had shot at the deceased, nor this fact has been mentioned in the FIR. Therefore, this circumstance faded away being inconsistent. Circumstance No.(iv) 22.Further Khiali Ram is the father of the accused and it stands proved that on 4.3.2005, the accused had purchased 25 cartridges against the licence of his father. Therefore, this circumstance faded away being inconsistent. Circumstance No.(iv) 22.Further Khiali Ram is the father of the accused and it stands proved that on 4.3.2005, the accused had purchased 25 cartridges against the licence of his father. As per the case of the prosecution, the cause that the accused got angry arose only on the marriage of the deceased with Vidya Devi on 28.4.2005, therefore, it cannot be attributed to purchase the cartridges on 4.3.2005 with an intention to commit an offence. Therefore, this circumstance also stands not proved. Circumstance No.(v). 23.The disclosure statement of the accused with respect to the alleged recovery of the fired cartridge is Ext.PF pursuant to which the recovery was got effected vide memo Ext.PG. 24. Pertinently, the accused was arrested on 7.5.2005. The alleged disclosure statement was made on 16.5.2005 in the presence of PW25 (sic) 34 Devi Ram. The time gap of making disclosure statement from the date of incident itself makes it doubtful. Further, the cross-examination of Devi Ram marginal witness is of utmost importance, which further compounds the suspicion on the recovery of the empty cartridge. According to him on 10/11.5.2005, the police enquired from the accused as to where the cartridge was, it was then he stated that he had thrown it in the bushes. The accused was taken to the said place and he got recovered it on 11.5.2005. He further stated that the cartridge was recovered from a distance of 2-3 feet on the left side of the common passage, leading towards “Sandhai Mata’s temple’ downwards from the house of Hans Raj, whereas the disclosure statement and recovery memo, dated 16.5.2005 aforesaid shows that the empty cartridge was alleged to have been made from upside of the house of Hans Raj. But the entire story of prosecution qua its recovery on 16.5.2005 gets demolished as Devi Ram PW stated that it was already made on 10/11.5.2005 from downward from the house of Hans Raj as aforesaid. Therefore, the statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and recovery of empty cartridge is farce and this circumstance stands not proved in accordance with law. Circumstance No. (vi) - Forensic opinion. 25. As a matter of fact, in scientific criminology the main principle of forensic ballistics is to establish whether a given bullet or cartridge is used in a particular weapon. Circumstance No. (vi) - Forensic opinion. 25. As a matter of fact, in scientific criminology the main principle of forensic ballistics is to establish whether a given bullet or cartridge is used in a particular weapon. The scientific knowledge during the recent pasts in this regard has advanced considerably. It is now possible not only to tally the cartridge fired with the gun used but a number of other important facts can be elicited and decided though, which though with varying degrees of probability. Among these are the distance from which a shot was fired, the approximate time when the weapon was last fired and other questions of similar nature. These are all the questions that require solution in the present case. As already observed above, the cartridge was not recovered and found on 16.5.25005 as stated by the police, but according to the marginal witness Devi Ram it was found on 10/1 1.5.2005. Thus, the very base of the recovery of the cartridge is suspicious also on the ground that it was altogether at a different place as indicated in the disclosure and recovery memo. Further it is also necessary to connect the cartridge with the pellets that were ejected and then with the weapon that discharged the same. This is possible, if not only the time of firing of the gun tallies with the time of incident, but also the thumb prints of the gun on the cap of the cartridge and base of the cartridge tally with those found on the disputed cartridge and further the pellets are traced to the fire arm in question. The conclusions of the Fire Arms Expert PW23 Rajesh Kumar, Scientific Officer in this particular case do not take us far in the matter. Otherwise also, his opinion does not appear to be conclusive and he did not produce any material/ reasons before the Court to connect the crime cartridge with the gun Ext.P15. 26.The micro photographs by the Expert has also not been taken or produced nor the sketches drawn by him. Further he has not shown to be a skilled having adequate knowledge on the subject. He had only undergone some practical training at Madhuban (Haryana), FSL Chandigarh and Sagar (M.P.) having no diploma on the subject. 26.The micro photographs by the Expert has also not been taken or produced nor the sketches drawn by him. Further he has not shown to be a skilled having adequate knowledge on the subject. He had only undergone some practical training at Madhuban (Haryana), FSL Chandigarh and Sagar (M.P.) having no diploma on the subject. In this behalf, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Kodur Thimma Reddi and others v. State [ AIR 1957 AP 758 ] whereby it is held that unless the data collected by the Fire Arms Expert with respect to the fire arms whereby an offence is committed be supplied or the enlarged photos he has taken be produced so that the opinion of the expert may be verified by the Court, the Court ought not to accept the opinion of the expert without satisfying itself of the correctness of the same. Further reliance can also be placed on the judgments of the apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal and Others [ AIR 1999 SC 3318 ] and State of M.P. though CBI and Others v. Paltan Mallah and others [ (2005) 3 SCC 169 ] to the effect that a comparative record or photographs are required to be prepared by the Expert in support of his opinion. 27.Further, the Supreme Court in The State of Gujarat v. Adam Fateh Mohmed Umatiya and Others [ 1971 (3) SCC 208 ] observed that:- “(i) No photographs of the mis-fired test cartridge were taken. Evidence of identification unsupported by photographs is nothing more than an expression of opinion. The evidence does not establish that test cartridges and empty cartridges were fired from the same weapon or that the mis­fired cartridge was fired from the same weapon. (ii) That bulge marks on test cartridges and bulge marks on the empty cartridges were similar but not the same cannot establish that the empty cartridges were fired from the rifle. The bulge marks on the empty cartridges were of the shape of an eye. The expert witness did not take composite photographs of the empty cartridges superimposed by the test cartridges. The photographs which were taken were not taken in the same condition of light. (iii) If indentation marks were different at the base of the cartridges that would show that they were not fired from the same weapon. The expert witness did not take composite photographs of the empty cartridges superimposed by the test cartridges. The photographs which were taken were not taken in the same condition of light. (iii) If indentation marks were different at the base of the cartridges that would show that they were not fired from the same weapon. The evidence of the expert cannot, therefore, he relied upon to hold that the empty cartridges were fired from the rifle in question. (iv) It would not be a discovery until it was found on making search for a thing which was secretly concealed.” Thus, this opinion of the Expert lead us no where and cannot be taken as a proved circumstance. Circumstance No.(vii). 28.This circumstance itself is not sufficient as the Cell No.9418127141 belong to PW3 Vidya Devi, which according to her was given to the accused by her about a year back. On 7.7.2005 at about 00- 11-06 hours, from this Cell phone, a call was made at landline of PW1 Hans Raj on landline number 0177-2784736. Proving of this fact would not mean that the accused had intention to see that his mission was successful. According to the accused also, he had made a call from his village Kangal, but there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the intention of the call was otherwise, which could establish any link with the crime. Conclusion. 29.On critical examination of the aforesaid evidence by us, the very alleged crime cartridge could not be proved to have been recovered by the accused as alleged, beyond doubt and further it could not be linked with the gun Ext.P15 of the accused. The evidence of the Expert is discrepant and not worthy of any credit. The alleged incident had taken place at about 8/9 p.m. It was pitch dark. There was no occasion to notice the assailant who had fired gun shot from outside. Hans Raj and Kamla Devi did not support the prosecution version that it was the accused who had fired at the deceased. The alleged incident had taken place at about 8/9 p.m. It was pitch dark. There was no occasion to notice the assailant who had fired gun shot from outside. Hans Raj and Kamla Devi did not support the prosecution version that it was the accused who had fired at the deceased. Had Hans Raj noticed the assailant, he would not have missed mentioning his name in the FIR, therefore, the aforesaid circumstances put forth, on which the prosecution has heavily relied upon either cannot be proved in accordance with law or if some of the circumstances were proved to some extent, are not of conclusive nature and tendency so as to complete the chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused and accused alone leaving any doubt for any other hypothesis. Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find the grounds of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are reasonable and born out from the record, thus we see no reasons to interfere with it. As such, the appeal sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. 30.The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds, entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of this case. 31.The matter stands disposed of.