JUDGMENT Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. - Aggrieved by the acquittal order dated 09.02.2010, passed by the Sessions Judge / Fourth FTC, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial No. 253 of 2003, the victim, Ajay Chaudhary, and the State of Uttarakhand have filed two separate appeals, namely, Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2010, and Government Appeal No. 15 of 2010, respectively, before this Court. 2. By judgment dated 05.10.2010, a learned Coordinate Bench had decided both the Appeals; it had convicted the accused, Rajeev Garg alias Raju. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.10.2010, the accused, Rajeev Garg alias Raju, had filed two SLPs, namely, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1342-1343 of 2011, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. By judgment dated 19.09.2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the judgment dated 05.10.2010, and had remanded the case to this Court. Therefore, both the appeals, mentioned hereinabove, are being taken-up together, as they emanate from the same impugned acquittal order. Moreover, similar contentions have been raised by both the learned counsel for the victim, and the learned counsel for the State. Hence, both the appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 30.12.2002, Sudesh Kumar Saini (P.W. 1) lodged a written complaint (Ex.Ka. 1) before the Station House Officer, P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, wherein he claimed that "on 30.12.2002, he along with Rajnish Kumar Saini (P. W. 2), Shahzad, Vinay Vats, Kunwar Pal Pradhan, and Ajay Chaudhary were coming back after having their dinner at Hotel Polaris. They were traveling in two cars. When both the cars reached Rupali Furniture, Rajeev Garg alias Raju came in a jeep from the opposite direction. He stopped his jeep in front of these cars. His Jeep number is 5109. Rajeev Garg, and another person, who is unknown to us, got down from the jeep. Raju started verbally abusing Ajay Chaudhary. He said to Ajay Chaudhary that "you have become a big Neta (politician); you have started talking nonsense about me. Therefore, let me teach you a lesson". Having said so, Rajiv Garg pulled out his licensed pistol, and with an intention to kill Ajay Chaudhary, he fired on Ajay Chaudhary about four to five times. Consequently, Ajay Chaudhary suffered injuries on both his thighs, and in his waist. Immediately, I and my other companions caught hold of Rajiv Garg, and snatched the pistol from his hands. Having said so, Rajiv Garg pulled out his licensed pistol, and with an intention to kill Ajay Chaudhary, he fired on Ajay Chaudhary about four to five times. Consequently, Ajay Chaudhary suffered injuries on both his thighs, and in his waist. Immediately, I and my other companions caught hold of Rajiv Garg, and snatched the pistol from his hands. Rajiv Garg ran away. We immediately shifted Ajay Chaudhary to Pal Nursing Home at Roorkee." "Having admitted him at the Pal Nursing Home", the complainant claims that "I have come to the police station to lodge a report. I have also brought the licensed pistol, bearing No. 79593, lama 7.65 mm, which I am producing before the police". 5. On the basis of this complaint (Ex. Ka 1), a formal First Information Report ('FIR' for short), namely FIR No.322/02 (Ex. Ka. 9) was registered for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The said FIR was registered on 31.12.2002 at 12:10 AM. Having registered the FIR, the investigation commenced. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, and submitted twelve documents. The Court also examined one Mr. Rodas, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, as a Court Witness. The defense neither produced any witness, nor submitted any documents. 7. After going through the evidence produced by the prosecution, by the impugned order dated 09.02.2010, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused-respondent, Rajiv Garg alias Raju, for offences under Sections 307, and 504 IPC. Hence, both the present appeals before this Court. 8. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the appellant-injured, has raised the following contentions before this Court:- Firstly, the learned Trial Court has erred in ignoring the clear-cut testimony of Ajay Chaudhary (P.W. 4), the injured in the case, and the testimonies of Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1) and Rajnish Kumar Saini (P.W. 2), both of whom are eye-witnesses of the incident. Ajay Chaudhary (P.W. 4) has described the incident in a great detail in his testimony. Therefore, his testimony should not have been ignored by the learned Trial Court. Secondly, the testimony of Ajay Chaudhary (P.W. 4) has been corroborated by the testimonies of Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1), and Rajnish Kumar Saini (P.W. 2). Admittedly, Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1), the complainant, was with the injured, Ajay Chaudhary, and with Rajnish Kumar Saini (P.W. 2), the other eye-witness. Secondly, the testimony of Ajay Chaudhary (P.W. 4) has been corroborated by the testimonies of Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1), and Rajnish Kumar Saini (P.W. 2). Admittedly, Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1), the complainant, was with the injured, Ajay Chaudhary, and with Rajnish Kumar Saini (P.W. 2), the other eye-witness. Therefore, their presence at the scene of the crime could not be doubted. But, despite their unequivocal testimonies, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondent. Thirdly, the learned Trial Court has misread the testimony of Dr. Rajendra Pal (P.W. 5). For, according to this witness, Ajay Chaudhary (P.W. 4), had, indeed, suffered two firearm injuries on the waist, one firearm injury on his left thigh, and two firearm injuries on the right thigh. In total, the injured had suffered five firearm injuries. The presence of the firearm injuries is also testified by Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1), and Rajnish Kumar Saini (P.W. 2), who have claimed that the accused had fired four or five shots at the injured. Therefore, even the medical evidence has been ignored by the learned Trial Court. Fourthly, the learned Trial Court has misread the testimony of Mr. Rodas (C.W. 1), Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory. For, according to the learned Trial Court, this witness had claimed that the two bullets recovered from the body of the injured were fired from two different firearms. However, such is not the claim of this witness. In fact, the witness had claimed that both the bullets were fired from .32 bore pistol. Therefore, there is patent perversity in the impugned judgment. For, the learned Trial Court has ignored the evidence, which was readily available on record. The learned Trial Court has also mis-assessed the evidence produced by the prosecution. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set-aside. The accused-respondent, Rajiv Garg alias Raju, deserves to be convicted for the offences under Sections 307, and 504 IPC. 9. The contentions, raised by the learned counsel for the victim, have been adopted by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, Mr. J.S. Virk. Therefore, the submissions made by Mr. J.S. Virk are not being reproduced. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. 9. The contentions, raised by the learned counsel for the victim, have been adopted by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, Mr. J.S. Virk. Therefore, the submissions made by Mr. J.S. Virk are not being reproduced. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. H.C. Pathak, the learned counsel for the accused, has raised the following counterarguments before this Court:-Firstly, the scope of interference with an acquittal order by the appellate Court is extremely limited. If two views are possible, and if a reasonable view has been taken by the learned Trial Court for acquitting the accused, the Appellate Court should not lightly interfere with the acquittal order. According to the learned Senior Counsel the Trial Court has certainly taken a reasonable view after critically examining the evidence produced by the prosecution. Thus, the impugned order should not be set aside by this Court. Secondly, the prosecution case is full of holes. Therefore, the prosecution has singularly failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Thirdly, the prosecution has failed to establish the genesis of the case; the prosecution has presented a story, which is difficult to be believed because of the self-contradictory testimonies of eye-witnesses, because of the contradiction between the ocular and the medical evidence, because of inherent contradictions between the testimonies of the witnesses and the record of the case. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was justified in concluding that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof. Hence, the acquittal is legally justified. Fifthly, Sudesh Kumar (P.W.1) claims that immediately after the incident, he had taken the police to the scene of the crime. Surprisingly, both according to the site-plan, and according to Sudesh Kumar (P.W.1), no blood was found at the scene of the crime. Of course, according to Sudesh Kumar (P.W.1), due to light shower, the blood of the injured was washed away. However, this part of the testimony has not been corroborated by any other witness, including Sub Inspector Mahesh Chandra Panchbhaiya (P.W.7), the Investigating Officer. Sixthly, according to Sudesh Kumar (P.W.1), at the time of the incident, the injured Ajay Chaudhary was armed with his pistol. Yet, Ajay Chaudhary has not used his pistol to defend himself. However, this part of the testimony has not been corroborated by any other witness, including Sub Inspector Mahesh Chandra Panchbhaiya (P.W.7), the Investigating Officer. Sixthly, according to Sudesh Kumar (P.W.1), at the time of the incident, the injured Ajay Chaudhary was armed with his pistol. Yet, Ajay Chaudhary has not used his pistol to defend himself. Moreover, both Sudesh Kumar (P.W.1) and Rajnish Kumar (P.W. 2) would have the Court believe that Sudesh (P.W. 1) and his friends caught hold of Rajeev Garg, and snatched the pistol away from him. Despite the fact that Rajeev Garg was caught hold by five persons, he some how managed to run away from them. Seventhly, even the lodging of the FIR is shrouded in mystery. With regard to this aspect of the case, Sudesh Kumar (P.W.1) has given a self-contradictory testimony. His testimony is further belied by the testimony of Jagdish Kumar (P.W. 6) Assistant Sub Inspector. According to the learned counsel, the FIR is ante-dated. Hence, the FIR looses all its significance. Eighthly, Ajay Chaudhary (P.W. 4) is an unreliable witness. For, his testimony is belied by the medical evidence established by Dr. Rajendra Pal (P.W. 5). Both Ajay Chaudhary (P.W.4) and the two eye-witnesses, Sudesh Kumar (P.W.1) and Rajnish Kumar Saini (P.W.2), have claimed that only the accused had shot the injured. Moreover, they have claimed that the bullets were fired only from one direction when Ajay Chaudhary (P.W.4) had turned around to go back to the Car. Furthermore, they have claimed that the accused had fired from a distance of five to seven steps from Ajay Chaudhary (P.W. 4). However, Dr. Rajendra Pal (P.W. 5), who carried out the operation on Ajay Chaudhary (P.W. 4), and recovered the bullets from his body, has claimed that the bullets were fired from two different directions. Moreover, according to him, there was blackening and tattooing on some of the injuries. Therefore, he has claimed that the shots were fired from a close range, and not from five to seven steps away. Thus, ocular evidence is belied by the medical evidence. Thus, neither the injured, nor the two eyewitnesses are reliable witnesses. Ninthly, Mr. Rodas (C.W. 1), the Ballistic Expert, claims that the bullets were fired from two different firearms. Therefore, he has claimed that the shots were fired from a close range, and not from five to seven steps away. Thus, ocular evidence is belied by the medical evidence. Thus, neither the injured, nor the two eyewitnesses are reliable witnesses. Ninthly, Mr. Rodas (C.W. 1), the Ballistic Expert, claims that the bullets were fired from two different firearms. He is not in a position to emphatically state, whether the bullets allegedly recovered from the body of the injured, and sent to the FSL, were fired from the same pistol which was snatched from Rajeev Garg. According to the learned counsel, the entire case depends on the testimony of the Ballistic Expert. But the recovery of the bullet or empty cartridges, the handing-over of the recovered bullets to the police, the bullets received by the FSL, whether such bullets were, indeed, fired from the pistol belonging to the accused, all these circumstances are shrouded in mystery. Since the prosecution has not established its case beyond a reasonable doubt on these crucial aspects, the learned Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. Lastly, the learned Trial Court has validly noticed that Ajay Chaudhary (P.W. 4), the injured, himself is involved in criminal cases, and that he has hidden material facts in his testimony. Therefore, he is an unreliable and untrustworthy witness. Furthermore, the learned Trial Court has noticed that, although there are alleged to be five eye-witnesses in the case, the prosecution has examined merely two eyewitnesses. The non-examination of the other three eyewitnesses is fatal to the prosecution case. For, adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act would have to be drawn, which was rightly drawn by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment, and examined the record. 12. There are certain established principles with regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court while dealing with an acquittal order. In the case of Sampat Babso Kale v. Stateof Maharashtra [ (2019) 4 SCC 739 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles with regard to the powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against an acquittal order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- 8. In the case of Sampat Babso Kale v. Stateof Maharashtra [ (2019) 4 SCC 739 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles with regard to the powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against an acquittal order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- 8. With regard to the powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, the law is well established that the presumption of innocence which is attached to every accused person gets strengthened when such an accused is acquitted by the trial court and the High Court should not lightly interfere with the decision of the trial court which has recorded the evidence and observed the demeanour of witnesses. This Court in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [ (2007) 4 SCC 415 , laid down the following principles: (SCC p. 432, para 42) "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 13. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Naresh [ (2009) 9 SCC 368 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that "an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there are some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused". 14. These principles have recently been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Ali & another v. State of Himachal Pradesh [ (2020) 10 SCC 166 ]. Therefore, these settled principles of criminal jurisprudence would have to be kept in mind while examining the legality or illegality of the impugned judgment. 15. It is, indeed, tried to state that the scope of interference with an acquittal order is extremely limited. In case, the view taken by the learned Trial Court is a reasonable one, then the acquittal order should not be interfered with lightly by the Appellate Court. It is only when the learned Trial Court has failed to admit an evidence, which was admissible, or ignored the evidence, which was readily available on record, or mis-appreciated the evidence, or has acquitted the accused on the basis of surmises and conjectures, or there is perversity in the reasoning of the learned Trial Court, only in such circumstances would the Appellate Court be justified in overturning the verdict of acquittal, and in convicting the accused. Therefore, while dealing with an acquittal order, the Appellate Court has to reassess the evidence available on record, and evaluate the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court. 16. Ajay Chauhdary (P.W. 4), the injured, is the star witness of the prosecution. In his examination-in-chief, he states that "the incident had occurred on 30.12.2002 at night. I and my friends Kunwar Pal Pradhan, Shahzad Khan, Rajnish Saini (P.W.2), Sudesh Saini (P.W.1) and Vinay Vats, we were having our dinner at Hotel Polaris. 16. Ajay Chauhdary (P.W. 4), the injured, is the star witness of the prosecution. In his examination-in-chief, he states that "the incident had occurred on 30.12.2002 at night. I and my friends Kunwar Pal Pradhan, Shahzad Khan, Rajnish Saini (P.W.2), Sudesh Saini (P.W.1) and Vinay Vats, we were having our dinner at Hotel Polaris. After dinner, we got into Shahjajd's Zen car, and Rajnish's Car; we left for the main Bazar. While Sudesh Saini and myself sat in Shahzad's car, Kunwar Pal and Vinay Vats were in Rajnish's car. When we reached near the Nagar Palika, Sudesh asked us to drop him of at his house. Therefore, Shahzad turned his car towards his house. Rajnish's car also followed us. When we reached near the Malakpur Chungi, near Rupali Furniture, a Jeep, bearing No. 5109, came from the opposite direction. Rajeev Garg alias Raju, and another person got down from the jeep. Rajeev Garg started verbally abusing me. He told me that you have become a big politician; you have filed reports against me. I also got down from my Car. I told him not to call me names. My friends also got down from their cars, and they asked me to go with them. The moment I turned around and turned towards the right window of the car, and started unrolling the window, Rajeev Garg alias Raju shot me from the back with an intention to kill me. He fired five shots on both my legs and my back. I fell down. My friends tried to catch hold of Rajeev Garg. They snatched away his pistol. But Rajeev Garg managed to escape. The incident occurred at 11:00 PM. At the time of the incident, the light of Rajeev Garg's Jeep was on, and the lights of both of our cars were on. I recognized Rajeev Garg in the lights of the both the cars, and the light which was on the electricity pole. Then, my companions picked me up, and took me to Pal Nursing Home, where I was treated." 17. In his cross-examination, Ajay Chaudhary (P.W. 4) informs the Court that there was some political rivalry prior to this incident with Ankur Garg. Ankur Garg is a resident of Rajeev Garg's village. He further clarified that Ankur's father had lodged a report against the father of the accused. In his cross-examination, Ajay Chaudhary (P.W. 4) informs the Court that there was some political rivalry prior to this incident with Ankur Garg. Ankur Garg is a resident of Rajeev Garg's village. He further clarified that Ankur's father had lodged a report against the father of the accused. This witness claims that in getting that report lodged, he had helped Ankur's father. He further states that he had called the police station for lodging the said complaint, but he never went to the police station. He further claimed that "since he is a leader in the Youth Congress he had phoned the police station". He further claimed that "he had informed the Investigating Officer that he had helped Ankur's father in lodging the FIR against the father of the accused. In case this fact has not been recorded in his statement he cannot give any explanation for the same". 18. Moreover, in his cross-examination, this witness claimed that the person, who accompanied Rajeev Garg, he neither verbally abused this witness, nor attacked this witness. He further claimed that "when the accused started verbally abusing him, it is at that time that he got out of the car". He admits that he, too, had a licensed revolver (pistol). He further claimed that "when the accused got down from his jeep, he was not carrying a pistol in his hand, even when the accused verbally abused, he did not have a pistol in his hand". He further claimed that when the accused was verbally abusing them, they did not get into any physical fight. Therefore, there was no need for his companions to separate the two. He claimed that when he turned around towards his car, and the accused shot him for the first time, he turned his neck and saw that Rajeev Garg had a pistol in his hand. 19. Therefore, this witness would have the Court believed that only Rajeev Garg shot him, and that, too, from a single direction. He further claimed that the person, accompanying Rajeev Garg, did not attack him. He further claimed that he and Rajeev Garg did not have any physical fight. There was only a verbal abuse from the side of Rajeev Garg. He further claimed that his companions caught hold of Rajeev Garg and snatched his pistol. But Rajeev Garg managed to escape from the scene of the crime. 20. He further claimed that he and Rajeev Garg did not have any physical fight. There was only a verbal abuse from the side of Rajeev Garg. He further claimed that his companions caught hold of Rajeev Garg and snatched his pistol. But Rajeev Garg managed to escape from the scene of the crime. 20. However, the testimony of this witness is belied by the testimony of Dr. Rajendra Pal (P.W.5). Dr. Rajendra Pal (P.W.5), who had conducted the operation upon the injured, claimed that the injured had, indeed, sustained five injuries on both the legs and in his back. However, according to Dr. Rajendra Pal (P.W.5), the entry and exit wounds clearly indicate that the bullets were fired from different directions. The fact that the bullets were fired from different directions belies the testimony of the injured that the bullets were fired from the same direction. 21. The entire case hinges on Ballistic evidence, i.e. on the recovery of the pistol, the recovery of the empty cartridge, the recovery of the bullets, the handing-over of the bullet by the Dr. Rajendra Pal (P.W.5) to the police, the receiving of the bullets by the FSL, and the finding of Mr. Rodas (C.W. 1), the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory. However, the evidence with regard to each of these aspects is shrouded in mystery. 22. In his examination-in-chief, Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1), claims that his companions had snatched the pistol from the hands of the accused. When they reached the police station, they handed-over the pistol with five empty cartridges to the police. Yet, in his cross-examination, he admits that the empty cartridges were recovered from the scene of crime by the police. Moreover, according to Mahesh Chandra Panchbhaiya (P.W. 7), Sub-Inspector and the Investigating Officer, the six empty cartridges were recovered from the place of the incident. He has proven the recovery memo of the empty cartridges (Ex. Ka. 3). According to the recovery memo (Ex. Ka. 3), six empty cartridges were recovered from the scene of the crime on 31.12.2002 at 12:45 PM. But, interestingly, the recovery memo (Ex. Ka. 3) does not bear either the signature of Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1), or of Shahzad, who is claimed to have accompanied Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1) to the scene of crime. Even Sub-Inspector, Mahesh Chandra Panchbhaiya (P.W.7), the Investigating Officer, admits that the recovery memo (Ex. Ka. But, interestingly, the recovery memo (Ex. Ka. 3) does not bear either the signature of Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1), or of Shahzad, who is claimed to have accompanied Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1) to the scene of crime. Even Sub-Inspector, Mahesh Chandra Panchbhaiya (P.W.7), the Investigating Officer, admits that the recovery memo (Ex. Ka. 3) does not bear the signatures of the recovery witnesses, or of the police personnel. Because of the self-contradictory stand taken by Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1) about the recovery of these five empty cartridges, because of the contradiction between the testimonies of Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1) and Mahesh Chandra Panchbhaiya (P.W. 7) about the place of recovery of the empty cartridges, because the recovery memo (Ex. Ka. 3) is not signed by the recovery witnesses, or the police personnel, the recovery of these empty cartridges becomes highly doubtful. 23. According to Dr. Rajendra Pal (P.W. 5), he had recovered two bullets from the body of the injured. While one bullet was a complete one, the other one was a damaged one. According to him, on 31.12.2002, he had sent these bullets, after putting them in a glass bottle. He had sealed the glass bottle, and handed it over to his Compounder, Surendra. Thus, it is Compounder Surendra, who had taken these two bullets to the police station. However, Dayur Ali (P.W. 3) claims, in his examination-in-chief, that it is he who had given the two bullets contained in a glass bottle to the police. He claimed that "the bloodstained clothes and bullets were given to him by Dr. Rajendra Pal (P.W.5)". "These bullets were taken from the body of Ajay Chaudhary by Dr. Sahab". Thus, there is a contradiction about how the bullets reached the police station. While Dr. Rajendra Pal (P.W. 5) claims that the bullets were sent with his Compounder Surendra, Dayur Ali (P.W. 3) claims that the bullets were delivered by him at the police station. 24. Mr. Rodas (C.W.1), Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, is another important witness in this case. For, the entire case revolves around ballistic evidence. Needless to say, it is the foremost duty of the prosecution to establish, not just that the bullets were recovered either from the scene of the crime, or the body of the injured, or the deceased, but most importantly to establish that the bullets were fired from the pistol used by the accused. 25. Needless to say, it is the foremost duty of the prosecution to establish, not just that the bullets were recovered either from the scene of the crime, or the body of the injured, or the deceased, but most importantly to establish that the bullets were fired from the pistol used by the accused. 25. Mr. Rodas (C.W. 1), the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, in his examination-in-chief, informs the Court that he had received two bundles: the first bundle contained a sealed pistol, and the second bundle contained two bullets. The first bullet was marked as EB-1 and the second bullet was marked as EB-2. He further claimed that two experimental bullets were fired from the recovered pistol. Furthermore, "when the experimental bullets and the disputed bullets were compared, it was difficult to give a definite finding that the disputed bullets were, indeed, fired from the pistol recovered and sent by the police". Once this conclusion has been reached by the expert witness, it is difficult to accept the fact that the two bullets recovered from the body of the injured were, indeed, fired from the pistol recovered from the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to correlate the recovered bullets to the pistol allegedly recovered from the accused. Therefore, it is unclear whether the bullets recovered from the body of Ajay Chaudhary, the injured, were fired from the pistol recovered from the accused, or not? Once there is a doubt about the co-relation between the recovered built, and the recovered pistol, the prosecution case falls apart. For, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. 26. The ballistic evidence is further complicated by the fact that according to Dr. Rajendra Pal (P.W.5) the trajectory of the bullet, the entry and exit points of the injuries indicate that the bullets were fired from two different directions. As mentioned above, this part of the testimony falsifies the testimony of the injured and of the two eye-witnesses. 27. Mr. Rodas (C.W.1) further stated in the questions asked by the Court that one of the two bullets was deformedor de-shaped. According to him, a bullet becomes deformed inside a human body, when it hits the hardest limb, i.e. a bone. According to him, "Even having collided with the bone, the bullet becomes de-shaped. In that condition a fracture in the bone is a must." Despite the fact that even Dr. According to him, a bullet becomes deformed inside a human body, when it hits the hardest limb, i.e. a bone. According to him, "Even having collided with the bone, the bullet becomes de-shaped. In that condition a fracture in the bone is a must." Despite the fact that even Dr. Rajedra Pal (P.W. 5) claims that a de-shaped bullet was recovered from the body of the injured, admittedly the injured did not suffer any fracture of the bone. Therefore, there is a contradiction between the testimony of Dr. Rajendra Pal (P.W. 5), and the evidence of Mr. Rodas (C.W.1), Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory. 28. Furthermore, according to both the eye-witness, Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1), and Rajnish Kumar Saini (P.W. 2), the accused shot the injured from five to seven steps away. But according to Dr. Rajendra Pal (P.W.5) and according to the injury report (Ex. Ka. 5), the injured had suffered blackening and tattooing around the injury no. 1. According to Mr. Rodas (C.W.1) blacking is possible only from a distance of one feet, and tattooing from a distance of two feet. "From more than this distance blacking and tattooing cannot be caused", claimed this witness. Therefore, the medical evidence, and the expert opinion of the ballistic expert belie the testimonies of the alleged eye-witnesses Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1) and Rajnish Kumar Saini (P.W.2). 29. While noticing the contradiction within the testimony of Sudesh Kumar (P.W.1), while noticing the testimonies of inter se eye-witnesses, and the testimony of Dr. Rajendra Pal (P.W.5), and the testimony of Mr. Rodas (C.W. 1), the learned trial Court was justified in doubting the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the time and place of the incident. 30. Most importantly, the testimony of Mr. Rodas (C.W.1) has left the prosecution case as an inconclusive case. For, there is no cogent and convincing evidence to conclude that the two bullets allegedly recovered from the body of the injured were, indeed, fired from the pistol allegedly recovered from the accused. Therefore, the learned Trial Court is justified in concluding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt. 31. The learned Trial Court has also noticed the fact that there is a cloud of suspicion over the place and the time when the FIR was lodged. Therefore, the learned Trial Court is justified in concluding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt. 31. The learned Trial Court has also noticed the fact that there is a cloud of suspicion over the place and the time when the FIR was lodged. For, according to Sudesh Kumar (P.W.1), he had written the complaint at the hospital; yet, in his cross-examination, he claims that the complaint was written in the police station. Further, he claims that when he went to the police station around 12:15 AM, the accused was already in the lock-up. But, according to Mahesh Chandra Panchbhaiya (P.W. 7), the accused was not arrested till the FIR was lodged. Furthermore, there is a contradiction between the testimony of Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1) and Jagdish Kumar, ASI (P.W. 6) with regard to giving of the copy of the FIR to Sudesh Kumar (P.W.1), the complainant. While Jagdish Kumar (P.W. 6) claims that the copy of the FIR was given to Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1) immediately after the FIR was registered, Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1) claims that the copy of the FIR was given to him next morning. Considering these aspects of the case, the learned Trial Court is absolutely justified in concluding that the place and the time of writing of the complaint, the submission of the complaint, the recording of the FIR, and giving a copy of the FIR to the complainant are facts in a cloud of suspicion. 32. Furthermore, Sudesh Kumar (P.W. 1) claims that when he went to the Police Station to lodge the complaint, the accused was already in the lock-up. However, Mahesh Chandra Panchbhaiya (P.W. 7), Sub-Inspector and the Investigating Officer, denies this fact. This contradiction further creates a doubt with regard to the exact timing of lodging of the FIR. Hence, a possibility does exist that the FIR is ante-timed. Thus, the FIR loses all its significance. 33. It is, indeed, trite to state that in a case of direct evidence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt. However, the present case is full of doubts. The prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of proof imposed upon it. Thus, the FIR loses all its significance. 33. It is, indeed, trite to state that in a case of direct evidence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt. However, the present case is full of doubts. The prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of proof imposed upon it. Since the learned Trial Court has taken a reasonable view, after critically analyzing the evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned acquittal order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 34. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in Nboth these appeal. Hence, both the appeals are hereby dismissed.