ORDER In the instant case, on 13.02.2006 the appellant, Jasvinder Singh Sandhu s/o Rajendra Singh Sandhu was convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Alwar for allegedly murdering Rajendra Kumar Saini, a brother of the complainant, Dinesh Kumar Saini (PW-1). In a nut-shell, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant fired five shots on Rajendra Kumar Saini and caused his death. The trial Judge, by its impugned judgment dated 13.02.2006 held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code; by a separate order of even date, the learned trial Judge has sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo one years' rigorous imprisonment. Instant appeal has been instituted by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to assail the judgment of conviction and order of sentence pronounced by the trial Court. During pendency of instant appeal, the appellant preferred an application bearing No. 3806/2008 under Section 391 read with Section 294 Cr. P.C. for taking additional documents on record. In the said application, it was prayed that the photocopies of the Log Book dated 25.03.2005 of the vehicles of Station House Officer and Superintendent of Police and the Daily Diary Report bearing Nos. 1307, 1308, 1309, 1314, 1318, 1810 and 1811 respectively and the copy of Malkhana Register pertaining to dates 26.03.2005 and 28.03.2005 respectively be taken on record as these documents were obtained by the relatives of the applicant under the Right to Information Act. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 28.08.2008 had ordered that the application shall be disposed of at the time of hearing of the appeal. In the application, the only ground pleaded is that the documents sought to be brought on record are of very important nature and they completely demolish the edifice of the case projected by the prosecution. Except the above reason, no other reason has been mentioned in the application. Mr. Suresh Sahni, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, during the course of arguments, has referred to these documents, to contend that they are essential. Reliance has been placed upon these documents in order to urge that if these documents are taken into consideration, then it will come to light that the appellant has not committed offence. Mr. Suresh Sahni, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, during the course of arguments, has referred to these documents, to contend that they are essential. Reliance has been placed upon these documents in order to urge that if these documents are taken into consideration, then it will come to light that the appellant has not committed offence. We shall deal with the arguments, orally advanced at appropriate stage in the impugned judgment. Suffice it to say, these documents were available during the course of trial, and no effort was made by the appellant to summon or call the officials in whose possession same were available, as defence witness. Thus, apparent that the appellant was not diligent enough to rely on these documents. Thus, we find no reason to allow the above said application permitting the appellant to lead additional evidence. Therefore, the application bearing No. 3806 of 2008 filed under Section 391 read with Section 294 Cr. P.C. is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. In the present case, criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written-report (Exhibit-P/1) submitted by Dinesh Kumar Saini (PW-1). The said written-report was presented on 25.03.2005 at about 11:05 P.M. before Rajpal Singh (PW-15), Station House Officer, Police Station, Aravali Vihar, Alwar. The said written-report, when translated into English reads as under:- “To, The Station House Officer, Police Station, Aravali Vihar, Alwar, Subject – For lodging of F.I.R. Sir, Today, on 25.03.2005 at about 09:30 P.M. I was present in my house along with my family members. Meanwhile, Pramod Verma and Sunil Jain came to my house. They informed me that in the Club my brother, Rajendra Kumar Saini has been shot by Jasvinder Singh Sandhu. We all brothers went to the Club. On the backside of Club, my brother was lying fallen on the ground. We immediately took him to the hospital where Doctor declared him dead. The occurrence had taken place at Jai Krishan Club. The name and address of the accused is:- Jasvinder Singh Sandhu s/o. Rajendra Singh Sandhu, resident of 30, Motidoongari, Alwar. The name of my deceased brother is Rajendra Kumar Saini s/o Gordhan Prasad Saini, resident of 40, Mannu Marg. We immediately took him to the hospital where Doctor declared him dead. The occurrence had taken place at Jai Krishan Club. The name and address of the accused is:- Jasvinder Singh Sandhu s/o. Rajendra Singh Sandhu, resident of 30, Motidoongari, Alwar. The name of my deceased brother is Rajendra Kumar Saini s/o Gordhan Prasad Saini, resident of 40, Mannu Marg. At the time of occurrence, Digamber Saini s/o. Bheru Prasad Saini resident of Sher-ka-Tila, Alwar, Naresh Aggarwal s/o Sunder Lal, resident of 41, Motidoongari, Jitendra Kumar s/o. Bhawani Singh, resident of Kedalganj and Dinesh Aggarwal s/o. Udaichand Aggarwal, resident of 16-A, Mannu Marg, Mahesh Kumar s/o. Udaichand Aggarwal, resident 16-A, Mannu Marg were present. Signature Dinesh Saini Dated 25.03.2005 Dinesh Kumar Saini 40, Mannu Marg, Alwar.” On the basis of above written-report, formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/2) was registered at Police Station, Aravali Vihar, District Alwar for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The above said First Information Report was investigated. A report of investigation was presented in the Court of concerned Magistrate, and the appellant along with the report of investigation was committed to the Court of Sessions and the trial was entrusted to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Alwar. The trial Court charged the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The Charge stated that on 25.03.2005 at about 09:00 P.M. on the backside of Jai Kishan Club, Alwar, accused fired shots from his pistol and caused death of one Rajendra Kumar Saini. Thus, he committed offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove guilt of the accused the prosecution examined as many as fifteen-witnesses, and proved on record forty-nine documents. Out of fifteen-witnesses examined, Dinesh Kumar Saini (PW-1) proved the written-report (Exhibit-P/1). Digamber Saini (PW-2), Sunil Kumar (PW-3) and Naresh Agarwal (PW-6) appeared as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Amar Singh (PW-4) was examined to prove motive. Harish Chand Saini (PW-5), brother of deceased, was examined to say that they had taken the dead-body to the hospital and the fact that deceased and accused were partners in the firm called as M/s. Rajendra Enterprises and there was a monetary dispute between them. Amar Singh (PW-4) was examined to prove motive. Harish Chand Saini (PW-5), brother of deceased, was examined to say that they had taken the dead-body to the hospital and the fact that deceased and accused were partners in the firm called as M/s. Rajendra Enterprises and there was a monetary dispute between them. Narendra Singh Saini, (PW-7), being an employee of B.S.N.L. was examined to give details regarding allotment of two mobile numbers, and the documents furnished for activation of the connection. Omprakash (PW-8) was examined to prove entry register of the Jai Krishan Club, Alwar. Ajay Mathur (PW9) had witnessed the recovery of pistol, and license from the residence of accused. Dr. Phool Singh Chaudhari (PW-10), being Medical Jurist, was Member of the Medical Board which had conducted autopsy of Rajendra Kumar Saini. He proved on record the Post-Morterm Report (Exhibit-P/24). Kanwar Singh (PW-11) was posted as a Head Constable of Police Station, Aravali Vihar and being In-charge of Malkhana he was examined along with Hari Kishan (PW-12) to prove link evidence. Hari Kishan (PW-12) had carried sealed packets to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. Suresh Sharma (PW-13) had taken photographs of the spot on the asking of the Police. Ganpat Singh (PW-14) being employee of the Jai Kishan Club had produced membership and staff register of the Club. Rajpal Singh (PW-15) proved various facet of the investigation. Since the entire prosecution story revolves around the testimony of the complainant, and of the three eye witnesses, we shall briefly notice their deposition in the Court. Dinesh Kumar Saini (PW-1) stated that Rajendra was his younger brother. He has died. In the night of 25.03.2005, he was present at his house along with his family members. At about 09:30 P.M., Pramod Verma and Sunil Jain (PW-3) came to his house. They informed him that his brother, Rajendra has been shot by Jasvinder Singh Sandhu with his pistol. Immediately, this witness along with his elder brother, Kishorilal Saini, Harishchandra Saini (PW-5), nephew, and Anil Saini along with Sunil Jain (PW-3) and Pramod Verma reached at the place of occurrence i.e. Club. Behind the hut of Jai Kishan Club, he saw his brother (Rajendra) lying fallen on the ground, soaked with blood. They immediately lifted him, and brought him to the hospital. After examination, the doctor declared his brother as dead. Behind the hut of Jai Kishan Club, he saw his brother (Rajendra) lying fallen on the ground, soaked with blood. They immediately lifted him, and brought him to the hospital. After examination, the doctor declared his brother as dead. This witness stated that he went to Aravali Vihar Police Station and presented a written report (Exhibit-P/1). On the basis of which a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/2) was registered on the next date of occurrence i.e. 26.03.2005 in the presence of this witness. The Police had prepared the site-plan of the spot (Exhibit-P/3) and the Inquest (Exhibit-P/4). They had also taken clothes of the deceased into possession (vide Exhibit-P/7). In cross-examination, this witness stated that when he had gone to the Club only Guard was present. At that time, in the Club, Digamber Saini, (PW-2), Naresh Aggarwal, (PW-6) Jitendra Kumar and Mahesh Aggarwal were not present near the hut. Even Waiter and Manager of the Club have also not met him. This witness further stated that it to be correct that the seat of the Car in which they brought his brother to the hospital was stained with blood. This witness admitted that Pramod Verma and Sunil Jain (PW-3) had accompanied him to the Police Station for lodging the report. This witness further admitted that Jasvinder was partner of his brother. The witness stated that report (Exhibit-P/1) was not in his handwriting as the same was dictated to Sunil Jain. This witness admitted that his brother Rajendra was having Jasvinder accused, Digamber, (PW-2) Naresh Aggarwal (PW-6), Mahesh Aggarwal, Jitendra etc. as his close friends. This witness further stated that it to be correct that his brother and Digamber (PW-2) daily used to go to the Club. This witness stated it is not in his knowledge that Digamber had advanced any amount to the firm of his brother. The witness admitted that when they were taking his brother in the Car to the hospital, at that time vehicle of the Police had entered into Club. Further this witness stated that he had not seen Jasvinder along with the Police. The witness denied the suggestion that neither on the night of occurrence, Naresh Aggarwal, Jitendra, Digamber Saini etc. met him, nor they met him in the hospital. The witness admitted that it to be correct that empty cartridges were not found at one place, but they were lying scattered. The witness denied the suggestion that neither on the night of occurrence, Naresh Aggarwal, Jitendra, Digamber Saini etc. met him, nor they met him in the hospital. The witness admitted that it to be correct that empty cartridges were not found at one place, but they were lying scattered. This witness lastly stated that he had not seen bullet or pellet marks on the chairs. Digamber Saini, an eye-witness of the occurrence, appeared as PW-2. He stated that he knew Rajendra Kumar, the deceased, and Jasvinder Singh, the accused. This witness stated that on 25.03.2005 at about 09:00 P.M. he was sitting in the Club along with Naresh Aggarwal, Dinesh Aggarwal, Jasvinder Singh and Jitendra Kumar. They were planning as how to celebrate the Holi festival. Meanwhile, Jasvinder went outside and after about one-&-half minutes came back. On coming, immediately he fired at Rajendra. He fired three shots at Rajendra. Jasvinder fired shots from the pistol which was his licensed weapon. The witness stated that in order to restrain Jasvinder, he just caught hold of him then Jasvinder said, leave me, otherwise I will also kill you, but witness did not loose his grip. The witness had caught hold of the accused from his wrist, inspite of it, he fired another shot at Rajendra. The witness stated that when the first shot was fired, Rajendra was sitting on the chair. The witness stated that immediately after receipt of fire shot, Rajendra stood up and then fell down after receiving another fire shot. The witness stated that after the accused had fired another shot when deceased was lying on the ground due to fear he had left him. The witness stated that Jasvinder fired 5th shot on the temporal region of Rajendra. Thereafter, the accused ran away and, stood for a while in the lawn of the Club. Thereafter, the accused talked on his mobile with someone, while standing in the lawn. Thereafter, the accused left the Club on a Scooter. The witness stated that the people present in the Club disbursed. On the next day, the Police made the site-plan of the spot (Exhibit-P/3) and also recovered five empty cartridges from the place of occurrence vide memo (Exhibit-P/8). They were sealed into one packet. The Police had also taken blood stained earth, and the simple earth into possession vide Exhibit-P/9. The witness stated that the people present in the Club disbursed. On the next day, the Police made the site-plan of the spot (Exhibit-P/3) and also recovered five empty cartridges from the place of occurrence vide memo (Exhibit-P/8). They were sealed into one packet. The Police had also taken blood stained earth, and the simple earth into possession vide Exhibit-P/9. In cross-examination, this witness stated that it is correct that he had gone to the Club on Rajendra's invitation. Rajendra had invited him for dinner. He reached the Club between 07:30 to 08:00 P.M. At that time, Rajendra, Naresh Aggarwal, Jitendra and Dinesh met him. They were sitting in a hut made on the lawns of the Club. The witness further stated that all of them were having liquor. The witness admitted that it to be correct that Jasvinder, accused had not taken liquor. He had only taken cold drink (Pepsi). The witness further admitted that it to be correct that Rajendra and Jasvinder were partners in a business. The witness admitted that it to be correct that he had advanced loan to the firm of the accused and the deceased. The witness stated that he had given Rs. 2,00,000/- as a loan. The witness admitted that as and when the firm of the accused and the deceased required money, he used to give them advance i.e. amount on interest. The witness further denied that for not returning the money, there was exchange of abuses. The witness stated it to be incorrect that later-on at the intervention of Rajendra, plot of Jasvinder was transferred in the name of the wife of this witness. The witness further denied that he along with 'gundas' has gone to the house of Rajendra. The witness admitted that it to be correct that Jasvinder immediately on arrival had greeted everybody. Except by giving various suggestions the defence by extending a lengthy searching cross-examination, could not cause any dent in the testimony of the witness. Sunil Kumar (PW-3) deposed in the court that he knew Rajendra and the accused, Jasvinder. Rajendra had died. On 25.03.2005 at about 09:00 P.M. he along with Pramod were sitting in the dinning hall of the Jai Krishan Club, Alwar. Suddenly they heard a noise of fire shots, everybody ran halter and skelter. Sunil Kumar (PW-3) deposed in the court that he knew Rajendra and the accused, Jasvinder. Rajendra had died. On 25.03.2005 at about 09:00 P.M. he along with Pramod were sitting in the dinning hall of the Jai Krishan Club, Alwar. Suddenly they heard a noise of fire shots, everybody ran halter and skelter. They came into the lobby of the Club, where he found that all the members of the Club were running towards the porch; he also went towards the porch. From the backside Jasvinder armed with pistol came and said that he had to take Rs. 20,00,000/- from Rajendra. Therefore, he has killed him. He ran away towards the porch and immediately he along with Pramod went to the house of Rajendra. The witness further stated that he relayed information to Dinesh Kumar Saini (PW-1) regarding the murder. Then Dinesh, Harish, Kishorilal and his son, Anil came to the Club. Rajendra was lying in a pool of blood; he was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. He had accompanied the complainant to Police for lodging the report. In cross-examination, this witness was confronted with his previous statement (Exhibit-D/1) where the fact that accused said that he had to take Rs. 20,00,000/- from the deceased was not mentioned. Naresh Aggarwal (PW-6) stated that on 25.03.2005 he was sitting in the Jai Krishan Club along with Rajendra, Digamber, Jitender and Dinesh. The accused Jasvinder came. He was offered cold drink. The accused went to ease himself and came after two minutes. Immediately on arrival, he fired shot at Rajendra. The shot was fired from the distance of two/three feet. The pellets hit Rajendra's chest. The witness further stated that Digamber caught hold of the accused. At that time, Jasvinder had stated that leave him, otherwise he will also fire on him. Jasvinder had fired another shot at Rajendra. Digamber left the accused, then he fired another shot on temporal region of Rajendra. Rajendra immediately on receipt of fire shot stood from the chair, and took one or two steps, and fell down. The witness become perplexed and came to the porch, everybody was running here and there. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that it to be correct that when the shots were fired, they were taking liquor. The witness stated that on that day, Jitendra had brought liquor. The witness become perplexed and came to the porch, everybody was running here and there. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that it to be correct that when the shots were fired, they were taking liquor. The witness stated that on that day, Jitendra had brought liquor. They started drinks at about 07:30 P.M. Amar Singh (PW-4) stated that he knew Rajendra Saini, the deceased and Jasvinder, the accused. This witness stated that at about 09:30 P.M., he received a call from the mobile of Jasvinder informing that he had killed Rajendra by firing shots. The witness had told accused that he has done wrong, upon which Jasvinder said that Rajendra was not settling his account. Thereafter, Jasvinder disconnected the phone. The witness gave mobile number on which he had received a call from the accused. Narendra Singh Saini (PW-7), being employee of the B.S.N.L. had proved the phone number of the witness Amar Singh (PW-4) and of the accused, Jasvinder Singh (vide Exhibit-P/11 and Exhibit-P/15). Dr. Phool Singh Chaudhari (PW-10), being Member of Medical Board had conducted autopsy on the dead-body of deceased Rajendra Kumar Saini on 26.03.2005. This witness proved the Post-Morterm Report (Exhibit-P/24). In the Post-Mortem Report, the following injuries were found on the person of deceased:- 1. Punctured lacerated wound on face left side near tragus of size 2x2 cm with blackening in surrounding in ½x½ cm area. There is also semi clotted and unclotted blood present at the wound. The path of the wound is from Lt. Side of auricular region then right side passes through oral cavity and piercing on right side of cheek after making passes in maxilla. The passes is ½x½ cm in diameter. The bullet is removed from the right cheek. The wound of cavity have inverted margins. 2. Punctured lacerated wound on chest left side 5cm above and medial to nipple of size 1x1 cm with invasion and blackening in surrounding is ¼x¼ cm in area. The wound passes from left side of upper lobe and passes downward piercing the middle lobe and sternum to the post chest wall below and lateral to 10th thoracic vertebra. The wound is exit wound and margin are everted. The size is ½ x ½ cm. 3. Punctured lacerated wound of size 1x1 cm with blackening in surrounding and move on right side just lateral to sternum in mid pant. The wound is exit wound and margin are everted. The size is ½ x ½ cm. 3. Punctured lacerated wound of size 1x1 cm with blackening in surrounding and move on right side just lateral to sternum in mid pant. The passes of wound is from right to left side below the sternum and passing under the chest cavity coming out from left side of Ant. Axillary line and between 7th and 8th rib. The wound of exit have everted margins and size is ½ x ½ cm. The passage also have size of ½x½ cm of diameter. 4. Punctured lacerated wound in left side of chest 3 cm below the left clavicle at mid clavicular line. The size is ½ x ½ cm with blackening in surrounding tissues. The wound is passes from left side to right side after passing the left upper lobe passes in right middle lobe and embedded in right post thoracic wall at 5th and 6th rib. The bullet is removed. 5. Punctured lacerated wound on left side of chest below th rib at mammary line. The wound is of ½ x ½ cm with blackening in surrounding is ¼x¼ cm area with inverted margins. The passes of wound is from left to right side after passing in left lower lobe, it passes in right lower lobe and after piercing diaphragm and right lobe of liver, the bullet is embedded in post thoracic wall just below th rib at post axillary line. The passage is ½ x ½ cm in diameter. The bullet recovered from right post thoracic wall below 11th rib. 6. Abrasion nose left side Ant. and lower pant of size 1x1 cm. 7. Diffuse swelling on face at right side of cheek region due to collection of blood under skin.” As per opinion of the Medical Board, cause of death was shock due to injures caused to lungs, liver and face which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Rajpal Singh (PW-15) proved the written-report (Exhibit-P/1) received by him from Dinesh Kumar Saini (PW-1) for registration of the First Information Report (Exhibit-P/2). This witness stated that he had conducted the Inquest proceedings, (vide Exhibit-P4 & Exhibit-P/5) taken clothes of the deceased into possession (vide Exhibit-P/7) and prepared the site-plan of the spot (Exhibit-P/3). From the spot, this witness has taken into possession five empty cartridges of pistol. This witness stated that he had conducted the Inquest proceedings, (vide Exhibit-P4 & Exhibit-P/5) taken clothes of the deceased into possession (vide Exhibit-P/7) and prepared the site-plan of the spot (Exhibit-P/3). From the spot, this witness has taken into possession five empty cartridges of pistol. The witness further stated that he had effected the arrest of accused on 26.03.2005 and in pursuance of the disclosure statement, he got recovered pistol .32 bore along with live cartridge from the bed room of the house of accused (vide Exhibit-P/21). The witness further stated that during investigation, he had obtained call details regarding the mobile of the accused. The witness proved computerized record of call details (Exhibit-P/34). The witness had also taken balance-sheet of M/s. Rajendra Enterprises into possession (vide Exhibit-P/35). In cross-examination, this witness admitted that as per call details of the mobile number of accused at about 09:15 on the date of occurrence he had a talk for 55 seconds with Ramdev Singh, Additional Superintendent of Police, Alwar. Prosecution closed its evidence. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. All incriminating evidence was put to accused. He admitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that in the Club, shots were fired and he was a partner of Rajendra Enterprises. Accused made a written submission in answer to Question No. 37, whereby he was given an opportunity to put forward his version. In the written statement, the accused stated that on the day of occurrence at about 08:00 or 08:30 P.M. he was called by Digamber and Rajendra. He went there and saw that there was exchange of abuses between them. At that time, Mahesh, Dinesh and Jitendra were also sitting with the accused and near to the table of accused, one Sardarji, namely Avtar Singh was also taking liquor along with one or two persons. They intervened and asked deceased and Digamber to maintain peace, Meanwhile, Waiter brought Pepsi. He had taken Pepsi. Thereafter, he had gone to ease himself. While going to ease himself, he kept his pistol on the table and while leaving, accused told Rajendra to take care of his pistol. After sometime, he heard firing of the shots. When he returned, he saw that pistol was in the hand of Digamber he was giving abuses. At that time, Rajendra was lying on the ground. While going to ease himself, he kept his pistol on the table and while leaving, accused told Rajendra to take care of his pistol. After sometime, he heard firing of the shots. When he returned, he saw that pistol was in the hand of Digamber he was giving abuses. At that time, Rajendra was lying on the ground. Thereafter, Digamber had pointed pistol upon the accused. The accused made an attempt to catch pistol and he fell on the ground. Digamber was saying that he will close the firm and he wanted to kill the accused. Then, Avatar Singh caught hold of Digamber and they separated each other. Digamber left the Club in a van. The accused stated that Digamber had killed Rajendra by firing shot. Thereafter, accused called Superintendent of Police, Alwar and informed him that Digamber had killed Rajendra Saini. This witness further stated that for some time, he waited at the Club for giving information, then he came to Aravali Vihar Police Station and due to political influence, he has been falsely named as accused. Avtar Singh appeared as DW-1 and supported the version of the accused and stated that deceased was killed by Digamber (PW-2) by firing shots from the pistol of accused. Arvind Kumar (DW-2) proved documents Exhibit D-3/1 and Exhibit D-4/1 which were issued by Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar. Exhibit D/3/1 and Exhibit D-4/1 are details regarding purchase of plot in auction, which was purchased by the accused on behalf of Smt. Savita wife of Digamber Saini. Exhibit D4/1 is the allotment letter issued in favour of Smt. Savita wife of Digamber Saini. Dr. K.D. Mehta (DW-3) stated that he was Senior Vice President of the Club. On 25.03.2005 he received a telephonic call that the shots have been fired in the Club. The witness informed the Collector who is ex-officio President of the Club. The witness immediately reached at the Club. The witness stated that at that time nobody was present and only two persons were standing on the road. Meanwhile, the Collector and the Superintendent of Police came he along with the Collector and the Superintendent of Police had inspected the spot. This witness further stated that the In-charge of Police Station had taken empty hostler. Having noted the case of prosecution and defence, we shall notice the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Mr. Meanwhile, the Collector and the Superintendent of Police came he along with the Collector and the Superintendent of Police had inspected the spot. This witness further stated that the In-charge of Police Station had taken empty hostler. Having noted the case of prosecution and defence, we shall notice the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Mr. Suresh Sahni, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, has raised following contentions: firstly, Digamber Saini (PW-2) is the real culprit; he had fired at the deceased from the revolver of the appellant. Secondly, the accused by making a statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and by examining Avtar Singh (DW-1) has brought on record the fact that Digamber had caused murder of Rajendra Saini. Thirdly, in the present case, report was registered on 25.03.2005 at 11:05 P.M. and the Special report reached the Area Magistrate on 28.03.2005. Fourthly, there is a delay in reaching of the Special Report. The delay has been used for consultations and deliberations, to concoct a false version, and to screen the real offender, and to substitute the appellant as accused. Fifthly, Pramod, who was cited as eye-witness in the written-report (Exhibit-P/1), has not been examined. Thus, the Court should draw adverse inference against the prosecution by invoking Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Sixthly, Rajpal Singh (PW-15), being Investigating Officer, admitted in cross-examination that the accused had a telephonic conversation with the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ramdev Singh immediately after the occurrence at about 09:15 P.M. Thus, it should be inferred that the present appellant is not the accused. Seventhly, the very fact that the accused had called a Senior Police Official is sufficient to infer that the conduct of the accused-appellant is not of a guilty person. Eighthly, the recovery of revolver, as per Exhibit-P/21 is a padding. The revolver was already recovered by the Police on the night of occurrence, as there was an entry to this effect in the Malkhana register (Exhibit-P/25/1). Ninthly, the trial Court has not considered the version given by the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The trial Court has gravely erred in not considering the defence evidence in the right perspective. Tenthly, it is contended that the witnesses are highly discrepant, they have made contradictory statements and have improved their version. Ninthly, the trial Court has not considered the version given by the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The trial Court has gravely erred in not considering the defence evidence in the right perspective. Tenthly, it is contended that the witnesses are highly discrepant, they have made contradictory statements and have improved their version. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon their testimony as the version of eye witnesses is full of embellishment and blemish. Eleventhly, no reliance can be placed upon the site-plan (Exhibit-P/3) as the same was prepared at the instance of prosecution witnesses. Hence, same is hit by Section 162 Cr. P.C. To fortify the above submissions, reliance has been placed upon the case of Tori Singh Vs. The State of uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 399. It is contended by the learned counsel that the disclosure statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Exhibit-P/21) leading to recovery of weapon is not attested by the independent witnesses and same should not be not taken into consideration. It is further contended by the learned counsel that no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of Rajpal Singh (PW-15) as the entire investigation carried by him is tainted and being a Police Official he is highly interested to support the prosecution case. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that Digamber Saini (PW-2) and Naresh Aggarwal (PW-6) have not signed the Inquest Report (Exhibit-P/4). Thus, we should doubt the version given by them in the Court. We shall first deal with the third and fourth arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, regarding delay in reaching of the Special Report to the Illaqa Magistrate. There is no doubt that the residence and the Court of the Area Magistrate are situated in the same City, Alwar. And there is a delay of three-days in reaching of Special Report to the Area Magistrate. But the delay in reaching of Special Report in each and every case is not per-se fatal to the prosecution. Rule 5.5 of the Rajasthan Police Rules requires that one copy of the First Information Report, at the earliest, should be sent to the Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 157 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Rule 5.5 of the Rajasthan Police Rules requires that one copy of the First Information Report, at the earliest, should be sent to the Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 157 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is true that in the present case, no explanation has been furnished by the prosecution to explain the delay. But we cannot ignore the fact that in the present case, a single accused has been sent for the trial. In a case of Ramjani and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2004, decided on 06.01.2015, we had taken note of legal position and observed as under: “6. This Court in Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) vs. State of U.P. held that FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case, is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if known to the informant. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. 7. Sending the copy of the special report to the Magistrate as required under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the only external check on the working of the police agency, imposed by law which is required to be strictly followed. The delay in sending the copy of the FIR may by itself not render the whole of the case of the prosecution as doubtful but shall put the court on guard to find out as to whether the version as stated in the court was the same version as earlier reported in the FIR or was the result of deliberations involving some other persons who were actually not involved in the commission of the crime. (Emphasis supplied). Immediate sending of the report mentioned in Section 157 Cr PC is the mandate of law. Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. (Emphasis supplied). Immediate sending of the report mentioned in Section 157 Cr PC is the mandate of law. Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the court to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. Insisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. (Emphasis supplied). It is always for the prosecution to explain such a delay and if tendered, no adverse inference can be drawn against it. 8. In the instant case, the copy of the report referred to in Section 157 Cr PC is shown to have been received by the Magistrate on 27-8-1991. Even though there is a mention in the FIR that its copy was sent through special messenger, yet no date or time of sending the said report is mentioned. The Magistrate, receiving the copy of the report, has also not noted the time of its receipt on 27-8-1991. We are of the opinion that the Magistrate receiving reports under Section 157 Cr PC, particularly when it relates to the commission of the heinous crime are required to note not only the date but also the time of the receipt of the copy thereof. Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State has pointed out the existence of various circumstances which may perhaps be the cause of delay in sending the copy of the report and its receipt by the Magistrate but surely there is a difference between the “may be” and “must be”. The prosecution has apparently failed to explain the delay in sending the copy of the said report in terms of Section 157 Cr PC to the Magistrate of the area. This aspect has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that many of the accused were innocent and wrongly roped in the case allegedly on account of enmity existing between the complainant and the accused party. There is some substance in such a submission.” Recently, in Brahm Swaroop & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2011 (6) SCC 288 , the Lordship of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “Delay in sending report to the Magistrate 14. There is some substance in such a submission.” Recently, in Brahm Swaroop & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2011 (6) SCC 288 , the Lordship of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “Delay in sending report to the Magistrate 14. Undoubtedly, there is delay of 5 days in sending the special report. This Court in Badam Singh vs. State of M.P. while considering this issue held that where the investigating officer categorically stated that he was not in a position to give any explanation for the delay in sending the special report, it may be fatal to the prosecution's case. 15. However, a larger Bench of three Judges in Balram Singh vs. State of Punjab, held as under: “10 We notice that in reality there is no delay in preparing the FIR but there was some delay in transmitting the said information to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Having been satisfied with the fact that the FIR in question was registered in the morning of 6-5-1990, we do not think that the delay thereafter in communicating it to the Jurisdictional Magistrate on the facts of this case, has really given any room to doubt that the said document (FIR) was created after much deliberations. At any rate, while considering the complaint of the appellants in regard to the delay in the FIR reaching the Jurisdictional Magistrate, we have to also bear in mind the creditworthiness of the ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution and if we find that such ocular evidence is worthy of acceptance, the element of delay in registering a complaint or sending the same to the Jurisdictional Magistrate by itself would not in any manner weaken the prosecution case.” 16. In State of Rajasthan vs. Teja Singh, this Court held that the receipt of the special report by the Magistrate is a question of fact and the prosecution may explain the delay in sending the special report. However, the explanation so furnished by the prosecution must be convincing and acceptable. The same view has been reiterated in Ramesh Baburao Devaskar vs. State of Maharashtra. 17. In Sarvesh Narain Shukla vs. Daroga Singh, this Court held that delay in forwarding the special report to the Magistrate could not raise a suspicion that FIR had been written later and was ante-timed. The same view has been reiterated in Ramesh Baburao Devaskar vs. State of Maharashtra. 17. In Sarvesh Narain Shukla vs. Daroga Singh, this Court held that delay in forwarding the special report to the Magistrate could not raise a suspicion that FIR had been written later and was ante-timed. Suspicion of manipulation of the documents prepared during the initial investigation would not dislodge the documentary and oral evidence on the spontaneity of the lodging of the FIR. 18. In Aqeel Ahmad, this Court held that the forwarding of the report to the Magistrate is indispensable and absolute and it must be sent at the earliest, promptly and without any undue delay as the purpose is to avoid the poibility of improvement in the prosecution's case and the introduction of a distorted version by deliberations and consultation and to enable the Magistrate concerned to keep a watch on progress of investigation. However, no rule of universal application can be laid down that whenever there is some delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, the prosecution version becomes unreliable. It would depend upon the facts of each case. If there has been some lapse on the part of the investigating officer that would not affect the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses.” In the present case, the First Information Report has been registered on the basis of statement made by Dinesh Kumar Saini (PW-1), who is not an eye-witness of the occurrence. He being a truthful witness has very fairly stated that regarding the name of accused, in formation was relayed to him by Pramoad and Sunil Kumar. A perusal of the First Information Report clearly reveal s that the factum of death of the brother of complainant and the name of accuse d has been noted, as told to the first informant by the eye witnesses. Thus, it cannot be said that First Information Report was as a result of consultations and deliberations. The prosecution could have made an attempt to introduce the brother of the deceased as an eye-witness, but First Information Report simply gave a detail that in the Club at Alwar, brother of the first informant, as per information given by the eye-witness, has been murdered by the present appellant. In the present case, there is no inflation of the number of accused. In the present case, there is no inflation of the number of accused. Thus, it is not a case where taking into consideration, delay in reaching of special report, we should be on guard to sift grain from the chaff. Thus, third and fourth arguments advanced are rejected. It is also the case of the accused that the murder has taken place in the Club. He also admits the presence of the eye-witnesses. The accused has also admitted that his weapon was used for causing the murder. The only difference in version of the prosecution and the defence is as to who had fired the shot? Now we shall deal with the first and second arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, as to what evidentiary values should be extended to the statement made by the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and defence witness, Avtar Singh (DW1). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Singh vs. Prem Singh and Another, (2002) 10 SCC 236 has held that the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. cannot be made a sole basis of conviction. However, the Court can rely upon the statement made by the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. in whole or in part to corroborate the prosecution case. It is possible and in the given facts the Court can also rely on the inculpatory part of statement made by the accused if the exculpatory part is found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. It would be apposite here to reproduce the following portion of the judgment:- “27. The statement made in defence by accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but only a part of such statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The law on the subject is almost settled that statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. of the accused can either be relied in whole or in part. It may also be possible to rely on the inculpatory part of his statement if the exculpatory part in found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution See Nishi Kant Jha vs. State of Bihar, AIR (1969) SC 422. P.C. of the accused can either be relied in whole or in part. It may also be possible to rely on the inculpatory part of his statement if the exculpatory part in found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution See Nishi Kant Jha vs. State of Bihar, AIR (1969) SC 422. “23. "In this case the exculpatory part of the statement in Ex. 6 is not only inherently improbable but is contradicted by the other evidence. According to this statement, the injury which the appellant received was caused by the appellant's attempt to catch hold of the hand of Lal Mohan Sharma to prevent the attack on the victim. This was contradicted by the statement of the accused himself under S, 342 Cr. P.C. to the effect that he had received the injury in a scuffle with a herdsman. The injury found on his body when he was examined by the doctor on 13th October 1961 negatives both these versions. Neither of these versions accounts for the profuse bleeding which led to his washing his clothes and having a bath in the river Patro, the amount of bleeding and the washing of the blood-stains being so considerable as to attract the attention of Ram Kishore Pandey, PW 17 and asking him about the cause thereof. The bleeding was not a simple one as his clothes all got stained with blood as also his books, his exercise book and his belt and shoes. More than that the knife which was discovered on his person was found to have been stained with blood according to the report of the Chemical Examiner. According to the post mortem report this knife could have been the cause of the injuries on the victim. In circumstances like these there being enough evidence to reject the exculpatory part of the statement of the appellant in Ex, 6 the High Court had acted rightly in accepting the inculpatory part and piercing the same with the other evidence to come to the conclusion that the appellant was the person responsible for the crime." [Emphasis supplied] Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is apparent that from the statement made by accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C., the place of occurrence, weapon used, injuries sustained by the deceased due to firing of the shots, presence of the witnesses stands admitted in statement made by accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C., the accused has only disputed as to who has fired the shots. It has come in the evidence of Dinesh Kumar Saini (PW-1) that the deceased is his brother and he were having very close friendly relationship with accused Jasvinder, Digamber (PW-2), Naresh (PW-6), Mahesh and Jitendra etc. Thus, Naresh Agarwal (PW-6) and Sunil Kumar (PW-3) will be the last persons to screen the real offender. Furthermore, Amar Singh (PW-4) has stated that immediately after the occurrence, the accused made him a telephonic call stating that he had murdered Rajendra. The very fact that accused made a call to Amar Singh stands proved from the call details of the mobile of accused. Thus, we cannot doubt the versions given by Sunil Kumar (PW-3) and Naresh Aggarwal (PW-6) which is duly corroborated from admission made by the appellant to Amar Singh (PW-4). Furthermore, a perusal of documents, Exhibit-D3/1 and Exhibit-D4/1 clearly reveals that the appellant had acted on behalf of the wife of Digamber (PW-2) for purchase of plot in the auction. Thus, relations of the appellant with Digamber were also cordial. In the context of above, we are of the view that the statement made by accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. corroborates the prosecution case on all broad features. The assertion of the accused that from his pistol shots were fired by Digamber and not by him is belied by the testimonies of the witnesses, who have no animus against the appellant. Avtar Singh (DW-1) also admitted the presence of the accused in the Club with Digamber and the deceased. To us, the defence version has been taken at a very belated stage; it has seen the light of the day too late. By merely saying that the accused had telephonic conversations for 55 seconds with the Additional Superintendent of Police is not sufficient to infer that the defence version was disclosed at the earliest. The appellant was immediately arrested. He was produced in the Court of Magistrate. No application was submitted in the Court of Magistrate by the accused giving the version, which is now being projected by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr. The appellant was immediately arrested. He was produced in the Court of Magistrate. No application was submitted in the Court of Magistrate by the accused giving the version, which is now being projected by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The weapon (gun) of the appellant had been used, by another person for causing the murder. All fingers were raised against him. He raised no hue and cry that he is being made a scape-goat. Neither the accused, nor Avtar Singh (DW-1) had made any representation to any Higher Authority regarding false implication of the accused. The version given by the accused was unfolded only when statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was being recorded. At a highly belated stage, the accused had come out with his version. No complaint had been filed by him against Digamber for having caused murder of Rajendra from the weapon of the accused. A heavy burden was upon the accused right from the beginning to explain as to how his licensed pistol has been used. He made no efforts to inform the authorities in writing, at the first opportunity, by explaining as to how his weapon was used by another person. The arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant are that no reliance can be placed upon the site-plan, or the recovery of weapon is a padding, pale into insignificance, due to the stand taken by accused in his written submissions under Section 313 Cr. P.C. as place of occurrence and weapon used have not been disputed. The site-plan is prepared by the Investigating Officer for the visual aid of the Court. Recovery of weapon is to prove the use of the weapon in the occurrence. In statement made under Section 313 Cr. P.C., the accused has admitted the place of occurrence, and also the fact that his weapon was used in the occurrence. Though, he has only disputed as to who has used the weapon. Non-examination of Pramod to us is of no consequence. The Courts always insist for quality of the witness examined and not quantity of the witnesses. Thus, argument that non-examination of Pramod, should be adversely construed against the prosecution is also rejected. It is a settled legal position that number of witnesses are not required to prove the case of prosecution, but the truthful witnesses are required. The Courts always insist for quality of the witness examined and not quantity of the witnesses. Thus, argument that non-examination of Pramod, should be adversely construed against the prosecution is also rejected. It is a settled legal position that number of witnesses are not required to prove the case of prosecution, but the truthful witnesses are required. To us, Sunil Kumar (PW-3) and Naresh (PW-6) are most independent witnesses. Therefore, reliance has been rightly placed by the trial Court upon their testimonies. Merely because the accused, immediately after the occurrence, had called the Additional Superintendent of Police, Alwar is not sufficient to infer that the accused had given his version. The appellant had not produced Ramdev, Additional Superintendent of Police with whom he had a telephonic conversation as a witness in defence. Therefore, what was stated by him to Ramdev, Additional Superintendent of Police can only be proved by that witness. Taking the totality of circumstances, we are of the view that the testimonies of witnesses examined by prosecution aspire confidence, and no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of the defence witness Avtar Singh (DW-1), and the written submission made by accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and the defence version is an after-thought and same is not spontaneous. Minor discrepancies or contradictions in the testimony of witnesses are bound to occur with passage of time. But on the basis thereof, the testimonies of the witnesses, who were independent, cannot be discarded. No major or substantial discrepancy or contradiction has been pointed out by the counsel for the appellant to impeach the credibility of the witnesses. Consequently, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed, being devoid of merit.