JUDGMENT Sunil B. Shukre, J. - Hearing was conducted through Video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper. 2. Heard. 3. Admit. 4. The matter is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 5. This appellant has been arraigned in Crime No.770 of 2019 registered at Police Station, Khaparkheda for an offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also offences punishable under Section 3 and Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. The complaint against this appellant/co-accused has been filed by one Shishupal Bagde at about 15.16 hours on 01.12.2019. 6. According to learned counsel for the appellant, there are discrepancies in the police investigation and these discrepancies create a veritable doubt regarding the exact role of this appellant and also his complicity in serious crime like that of murder of one Mangesh Bagde. 7. The discrepancies that have been pointed out are as follows:- (i) The clothes of this appellant, have not been seized by the police, although, he has been alleged to have taken actual part in the commission of murder of one Mangesh Bagde; (ii) There is no MLC report collected by the investigating officer, disclosing the material facts relating to carrying of the dead body of Mangesh Bagde to the hospital. (iii) The owner of the car by which the dead body of Mangesh Bagde was taken to the hospital, has not been traced out and consequently, his statement has not been recorded; (iv) Although, the crime has been registered at 15.16 hours of 01.12.2019, the spot panchnama shows that the entire action relating to drawing of the spot punchanama started well before 13.45 p.m. of 01.12.2019, which lasted till about 15.15 hours of 01.12.2019 and that there is no explanation whatsoever given by the investigating officer in this regard, thereby, creating doubt over the genuineness of the investigation made in the present case; (v) One eye witness, Nasim Iqbal Khan, who had reached the spot of incident much before the other witnesses and who had seen the incident, has attributed a minor role to the present appellant in the sense that he has alleged the present appellant as giving fist and kick blows to the deceased while the fatal stone blow was given by the co-accused of the appellant; (vi) One important witness, Nagsen Chankapure, who had informed Kamlesh Chankapure, to whom the oral dying declaration has been alleged to have been made, did not see the deceased Mangesh as lying at the spot of incident and what was seen by him was only one black Pulsar motor cycle lying at the spot of incident. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as these discrepancies have not been explained anywhere in the material collected so far by the investigating officer and in any case, no major role having been attributed to the present appellant, the appellant deserves to be released on bail. 9. The prayer so made has been strongly opposed by shri Pathan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and in support of his submissions on resistance, he has also taken us through the evidence collected during the course of investigation by the police. 10. On going through the FIR, the spot panchnama, the statement of the important witnesses, at this stage, we find that there is sufficient material available on record to make out a prima facie case against this appellant for the offences registered against him. 11. There are many discrepancies in the investigation done by the police as alleged and they have been pointed out by us in the earlier paragraph. 11. There are many discrepancies in the investigation done by the police as alleged and they have been pointed out by us in the earlier paragraph. But, we do not think that at this stage, these discrepancies could be gone into and any opinion could be recorded by us regarding their having any impact finally on the prosecution case as much which would depend upon the quality of the evidence that would be adduced on merits of the matter. This is all the more so, because there is an oral dying declaration made by the deceased to at least three of the witnesses and one of them is Kamlesh Chankapure. This dying declaration, deserves, prima facie, credit as there is at this stage, consistency in the accounts of the three witnesses to whom it has been made by the deceased and there appears to be, at least at this stage, no infirmity in the dying declaration so made. This prima facie evidence, at this stage, goes against the appellant and the overall impact of the discrepancies pointed out to us by the learned counsel for the appellant on the dying declaration can be seen only when detailed evidence is available on record and that would be a stage of trial. 12. If the investigating officer has failed to seize the clothes of this appellant or has not collected MLC report or has not recorded statement of some witness, we do not think that advantage of these lacuna in the investigation could be given to this appellant, at this stage itself, the reason being that it''s a matter of appreciation of evidence, something not permissible at this stage. Besides, as a proposition of law, it is difficult to accept that the deficiencies in the investigation made by police must necessarily lead to an inference that there is a doubt about credibility of the witnesses, unless there is other evidence available on record which goes to show that gaping holes in the prosecution have been left deliberately and the accounts of witnesses are also untrustworthy. Such conclusions are the province of assessment of evidence and the dont''s of prima facie consideration of evidence. About registration of FIR at about 3.16 p.m., and drawing of the spot panchnama between about 1 p.m. to 3.16 p.m., we find that there is already an explanation available on record in this regard. Such conclusions are the province of assessment of evidence and the dont''s of prima facie consideration of evidence. About registration of FIR at about 3.16 p.m., and drawing of the spot panchnama between about 1 p.m. to 3.16 p.m., we find that there is already an explanation available on record in this regard. It could be seen from the panchnama that one police constable of Police Station, Khaperkheda had received an information from some other source regarding lying of dead body of Mangesh Bagde on Suradevi Road, near Suradevi T-Point and that appears to be the reason for the police to despatch the team to the spot of incident for carrying out necessary formality. As such, we do not see, prima facie, any contradiction registration of FIR had a later on drawn out of spot panchnama. 13. It is true that one witness, Nagsen Chankapure, has only seen lying of black Pulsar motor cycle at the spot of incident and did not see also lying of dead body of Mangesh Bagde nearby. But, on going through the spot punchanama, we find that these two spots were located apart from each other and they were situated on two different roads. Pulsar Motor cycle was lying on Khaperkheda to Kampti Raod and whereas, the dead body of Mangesh was lying on Suradevi Road. There is an agreement among all the material witnesses that this incident has occurred at a location situated at Suradevi T-Point, meaning thereby that there were in existence at least two different roads. Therefore, nothing much could be read into the alleged miss on the part of Nagsen and prima facie it has not damaged the case of the prosecution. As regards, non tracing of the car owner, we must say, it is something which would have to be considered on merit of the matter. 14. The statement of Nasim Ikbal Khan indicates that this appellant had also played active role in killing of Mangesh Bagde and in fact, the first aggressive step towards the killing appears to have been prima facie taken by this appellant. It has been alleged by Nasim Iqbal Khan that this appellant first caught hold of Mangesh Bagde, made him fall on the road and thereafter, this appellant started raining fist and kick blows on the deceased. It has been alleged by Nasim Iqbal Khan that this appellant first caught hold of Mangesh Bagde, made him fall on the road and thereafter, this appellant started raining fist and kick blows on the deceased. It was only after these initial acts that the co-accused of the appellant appears to have been emboldened to enter the scene of crime and appears to have done the final act. All these acts, at this stage, could not be considered to be diffused and disperse, rather they were integrated, prima facie, disabling this Court from viewing the role of the appellant from a prospective different from that of the co-accused. 15. In the result, we are not inclined to grant this appeal. 16. The appeal stands dismissed. 17. It is made clear that these observations deal with the prima facie nature of the case against the appellant, and therefore, will have no impact on merits of the case before the Trial Court. 18. This order be uploaded on the High Court Website and also be communicated to the learned counsel appearing for the parties, either on the email address or on Whats App or by such other mode, as is permissible in law.