JUDGMENT Mehta, J. - The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 07.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No.24/2011: Offences Under Section Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/ 6 Months' Additional Imprisonment 148 IPC 3 Years' R.I. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred these two appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. Since both these appeals arise out of a common Judgment, they have been heard and are being decided together. 3. Facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals are noted hereinbelow: The complainant Ramnarayan son of Rameshwar (PW-3) presented a written report (Ex.P/17) to the SHO, Police Station Sujangarh on 29.06.2011 at the Government Hospital, Sujangarh alleging inter alia that he was working as a salesman at a country liquor shop in the village Ganoda. On the same day i.e. 29.06.2011, at about 01.50 pm., he was sitting at the shop with his brother Rakesh, Ramniwas Kothyari and Mobaram at which point of time, two Scorpio vehicles, one having the number plate No.RJ-27-UA-8553 and the other one being unnumbered, came and stopped in front of the shop. Ram Singh, Chhotu Singh, Mahavir Singh, Anand Pal Singh, Manjit Singh, Vicky Singh, Bhawani Singh, Jeetu Singh, Bhagwan Singh, K.D. Charan, Pratap Singh, Mahendra Singh, Datar Singh and Narpat Singh Rajput, got down from the Scorpio vehicles and immediately on getting down, they started indiscriminate firing in which, one shot hit his brother Rakesh who died on the spot. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.142/2011 (Ex.P/62) came to be registered at the Police Station Sujangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act. The accused persons came to be arrested in the following sequence: Name of the Accused Arrest Memo Date of Arrest Ram Singh Ex. P/ 9 17/08/2011 at 05:30 PM Kailash @ K.D. Charan Ex. The accused persons came to be arrested in the following sequence: Name of the Accused Arrest Memo Date of Arrest Ram Singh Ex. P/ 9 17/08/2011 at 05:30 PM Kailash @ K.D. Charan Ex. P/12 06/01/2012 at 01:30 AM Vicky Singh @ Rupendra Pal Singh Ex.P/23 05/06/2012 at 10:20 AM Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh Ex.P/28 06/06/2012 at 08:40 AM Balbir Banuda @ Birbal Singh Ex.P/37 18/06/2012 at 08.30 AM Manjit Singh Ex.P/27 31/07/2012 at 05:30 PM Anand Pal Singh Ex.P/20 11/07/2013 at 12:15 PM Mahavir Singh Ex.P/31 07/06/2015 at 12:30 PM Pratap Singh Ex.P/46 07/07/2015 at 01:10 PM Chhotu Singh Ex.P/49 23/06/2016 at 03:05 PM 4. Thorough investigation was undertaken. Bhawani Singh, Jeetu Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Mahendra Singh, Datar Singh and Narpat Singh, though named in the FIR, were not found involved in the commission of the crime. Upon completing investigation, charge-sheets came to be filed against the accused persons (whose names are set out in the above chart) in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh. Three of the charge-sheeted accused namely Balbir Banuda, Anand Pal Singh and Pratap Singh passed away during pendency of the trial/appeal. As the offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively Sessions triable, the case was committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu for trial where charges were framed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC. The accused Vicky Singh escaped from custody and thus, his trial was separated vide order dated 14.11.2017. The remaining accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 36 witnesses and exhibited 63 documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the allegations set out in the prosecution case, the accused refuted the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. However, no oral evidence was led in defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and, appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence this appeal. 5. Sarva Shri Ravindra Charan and Shri Dhirendra Singh, Advocates representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The incident neither happened at the place nor in the manner alleged by the prosecution witnesses. Hence this appeal. 5. Sarva Shri Ravindra Charan and Shri Dhirendra Singh, Advocates representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The incident neither happened at the place nor in the manner alleged by the prosecution witnesses. As many as 14 persons were named as accused in the FIR of which, 6 were exonerated by the investigating agency concluding that they were not even present at the spot during the incident. This conclusion of investigating agency was never questioned. The accused Vicky Singh and Monti Singh ere not named in the FIR yet they were charge-sheeted on exaggerated allegations of the witnesses. The story set up by the material prosecution witnesses, namely the first informant Ramnarayan (PW-3) and Govind Ram (PW-6) that as many as 14 accused came to the spot in two Scorpio vehicles armed tooth and nail and that they indiscriminately fired gunshots towards the liquor shop, is totally false and fabricated because not a single empty cartridge, wads of the fired cartridges or the bullets were recovered from the place of the incident when the I.O. inspected the same and prepared the site inspection plan (Ex.P/6). It was further contended that Ramnarayan and Govind Ram claimed that while the firing was going on, they escaped from the liquor shop through a window and when they returned to the spot, they saw the dead body of Rakesh lying on the platform outside the shop. Shri Charan and Shri Dhirendra Singh contended that this story as portrayed by the witnesses Ramnarayan and Govind Ram, in their evidence, is patently false because when site inspection was undertaken by the I.O., he did not notice the presence of any window in the building where the country liquor shop was being run. They further contended that if at all, the witnesses had made an attempt to run outside from the main gate of the shop while the incident was going on, then they would have not escaped unscathed and would have definitely got hit by the gunshots being made by the assailants. They further contended that if at all, the witnesses had made an attempt to run outside from the main gate of the shop while the incident was going on, then they would have not escaped unscathed and would have definitely got hit by the gunshots being made by the assailants. It was further contended that the evidence of the material eye-witnesses is contradicted by the medical evidence because whilst the eye-witnesses claimed that numerous accused were indiscriminately firing towards the liquor shop and many of these shots hit Rakesh, but when the postmortem was carried out, only a single wound caused by gunshot was noticed by the Medical Jurist Dr. Dileep Soni (PW-19) and thus, the theory of indiscriminate firing by multiple accused persons, is falsified. It was further contended that the prosecution witnesses tried to portray at the trial that the fatal gunshot, which was fired at Rakesh, was made from a distance of about 15-20 feet. However, when the Medical Jurist conducted postmortem upon the dead body, he noticed that the gunshot wound had blackened edges which fact completely demolishes evidence of eye-witnesses regarding the distance from where the shot was fired. The fact that the exit wound was lower than the entry wound, also discredits the claim of the witnesses that the fatal gunshot was fired by the assailant while standing on the road. Learned defence counsel further contended that as per the statements of the eye-witnesses, the liquor shop was being operated in the building owned by Narpat Singh who was named as an accused in the FIR. However, while deposing in the Court, the first informant Ramnarayan did not name Narpat Singh as being one of the assailants. They urged that after Rakesh got injured, he was taken to the Government Hospital by Narpat Singh in his own vehicle. As per them, Narpat Singh undoubtedly was present at the spot well before the incident began and thus, he was the only independent witness of the incident but he was intentionally withheld by the prosecution and hence, an adverse inference needs to be drawn in this regard. On these grounds, the defence counsel implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment and acquit the accused appellants of the charges. 6. On these grounds, the defence counsel implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment and acquit the accused appellants of the charges. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri J.S. Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Pradeep Choudhary, Advocate representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel. They urged that the appellants are hardened criminals and had formed a gang which rampantly indulged in extortion and blackmailing. On the fateful day, they had indulged in an incident of firing at some other place and were trying to escape. They reached the shop of the complainant and were planning to indulge in some other nefarious activities. At this point of time, victim Rakesh came out of the shop and on seeing him, the accused persons, without any justification, started firing gunshots towards him in an indiscriminate manner. One of the gunshots hit the deceased Rakesh and proved fatal. Regarding the so-called infirmities/ contradictions appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the contention of learned Public Prosecutor and the complainant's counsel was that trivial contradictions are bound to appear in the testimony of truthful witnesses but their evidence cannot be discarded merely because of such trivial contradictions. They contended that the incident had overtones of a terrorist like attack and thus, the witnesses would naturally be terrified and it is totally unnatural to expect that they could give a report in a composed manner after having been traumatized by such an act. They thus urged that the appellants do not deserve any indulgence by this Court in appeals which are fit to be dismissed. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have carefully gone through the impugned Judgment as well as the record. 8. For appreciating the contentions advanced at bar, the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses needs to be re-appreciated. It may be stated here that the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses were recorded twice because the accused Mahavir Singh, Pratap Singh and Chhotu Singh were arrested at a later stage and the trial had to be conducted de-novo. 9. Firstly, we deliberate upon the allegations as levelled in the written report (Ex.P/17) submitted by Ramnarayan (PW-3). It may be stated here that the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses were recorded twice because the accused Mahavir Singh, Pratap Singh and Chhotu Singh were arrested at a later stage and the trial had to be conducted de-novo. 9. Firstly, we deliberate upon the allegations as levelled in the written report (Ex.P/17) submitted by Ramnarayan (PW-3). In this report, Ramnarayan alleged that as many as 14 accused came to his shop in two vehicles and immediately on reaching there, they started indiscriminate firing with their respective firearms and that one of the gunshots hit Rakesh resulting in his death. After investigation, as many as 6 of these accused persons including Narpat Singh, were not found involved in the crime and were exonerated. The prosecution made no attempt whatsoever to seek addition of these persons as accused in the case by invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. The accused appellant Monti Singh and the absconding accused Vicky Singh were not named in the FIR. Hence, apparently, the informant made a clear attempt to over-implicate the names of accused persons in the FIR. Thus, without any doubt, the prosecution case has lost a great deal of credibility as there was a wholesale implication of the accused persons in the FIR and this fact would have to be kept in mind when the evidence of the witnesses is evaluated. 10. Now, we proceed to deliberate upon the evidence of Ramnarayan (PW-3). While testifying on oath, Ramnarayan alleged that he was engaged as a salesman at the Ganoda liquor shop, the licence whereof was issued in the name of Govind Ram. On the fateful day, he, his brother (the deceased Rakesh), Ramniwas and Mobaram were sitting at the shop. The time was between 01.30-02.00 pm. Two Scorpio vehicles came from the direction of Sujangarh. Anand Pal Singh, Ram Singh, Vicky, Balbir Banuda and 2-3 other men got down from the first vehicle. He could identify the driver if he saw him. Anand Pal Singh was having a double barrel gun. Balbir Banuda was having a weapon of 11/2 feet length. Another man was having a Mauser gun. In the second vehicle, which followed en suite Mahavir Singh, Chhotu Singh, K.D. Charan, Pratap Singh, Bhawani Singh, Jeetu Singh, Datar Singh, another Pratap Singh and Mahendra Singh were present and so were 2-3 unknown men. Balbir Banuda was having a weapon of 11/2 feet length. Another man was having a Mauser gun. In the second vehicle, which followed en suite Mahavir Singh, Chhotu Singh, K.D. Charan, Pratap Singh, Bhawani Singh, Jeetu Singh, Datar Singh, another Pratap Singh and Mahendra Singh were present and so were 2-3 unknown men. Anand Pal Singh, Balbir Banuda and the unknown man started firing with guns towards the informant and his companions. One fire hit Rakesh who died at the spot. The assailants escaped in their vehicles after firing the gunshots. Then they took Rakesh to Sujangarh. No one other than Rakesh got injured in the incident. Rakesh was declared dead at the Sujangarh Hospital. He lodged the written report (Ex.P/17) at the Police Station Sujangarh. He saw the dead body of his brother. The bullet had passed through leaving a punctured wound on the body. In cross-examination, the witness stated that Narpat Singh was not accompanying them when they took Rakesh to the Sujangarh Hospital. He was confronted with his police statement (Ex.D/1) wherein, it was noted that Narpat Singh was sitting on the first floor at the time of the incident. He was called down and then Rakesh was taken to the hospital in his Bolero vehicle. The witness denied this part of his previous statement. He tried to feign ignorance to the fact whether Narpat Singh was sitting on the first floor or not. He stated that they took the vehicle of Narpat Singh without asking him. The key was lying in the vehicle. The witness was asked questions to controvert his claim of being employed as salesman on the liquor shop. He was also confronted with the significant improvements (regarding particulars of weapons held by the accused which was introduced by the witness for the first time in his sworn testimony) which he could not reconcile. He stated that the accused started firing as soon as they got down from the vehicles. They kept on firing with their respective weapons for about 5-7 minutes. He, Ramniwas and Mobaram were not in the liquor shop at the time when the accused persons were firing, but they were present in the adjoining shop. Rakesh was sitting besides them. He denied the suggestion that other than the gate of the shop, there was no aperture in the building. Some of the bullets landed in the shop as well. Rakesh was sitting besides them. He denied the suggestion that other than the gate of the shop, there was no aperture in the building. Some of the bullets landed in the shop as well. He could not count as to how many bullets fell there. Thepolice searched the place of incident carefully. He could not say whether any empties/bullets were found at the spot. He was confronted regarding the contradictions in his testimony vis-a-vis the written report (Ex.P/17) to which he offered an explanation that he might have written the Part 'C to D' panic. The accused got down from their vehicles and started shooting indiscriminately. One bullet struck Rakesh from 20 feet distance where the offenders were standing. He could not say as to whether the bullet which hit Rakesh fell out after passing through his body. Rakesh was standing outside the shop when the bullet hit him. Significant quantity of blood spilled where Rakesh had fallen down. When the vehicles stopped outside the shop, Rakesh went out to have a look and indiscriminate gunshots were fired at him. He stated that the blood fell on a big area on the platform but the police lifted the blood only from one tile vide recovery memo (Ex.P/7). The bullet, which hit Rakesh, passed through his body but the police could not find the same. He could not identify the weapon with which the shot was fired at Rakesh. He tried to explain that Rakesh was standing just near the door of the shop. The level of the road and the platform, where Rakesh was standing, was almost equal. In the next breath, witness stated that there were steps of 3 feet for climbing upto the shop. He admitted that Mahavir Singh, Vicky Singh, Ram Singh, Chhotu Singh, Pratap Singh and K.D. Charan did not fire gunshots, but they were hurling exhortations to kill. When confronted with the police statement (Ex.D/1), the witness admitted that he stated therein that only Anand Pal Singh, Balbir Banuda and the unknown man fired the guns. A very significant suggestion in reference to the police statement was given to the witness wherein, it is recorded that he escaped from the window of the shop when the accused opened the gunfires. A very significant suggestion in reference to the police statement was given to the witness wherein, it is recorded that he escaped from the window of the shop when the accused opened the gunfires. This portion of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Ramnarayan (Ex.D/1) was marked 'I to J' and reads as below: The witness denied to have given this part of the statement to the police. Suggestions were given to him that he was, as a matter of fact, not employed as a salesman at the liquor shop; that Rakesh did not get shot at the liquor shop; that no incident of indiscriminate gunfire for a period of of 5-7 minutes took place at the liquor shop and that he did not take Rakesh to the Hospital. The witness offered bald denial to these suggestions. After the appearance of the accused Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh and Chhotu Singh, the witness was again examined on oath. In cross-examination, he admitted that in the previous deposition recorded on 08.02.2016, he did not take the name of Manjit Singh as being a participant in the crime. He was also confronted with the fact that there was no allegation in the written report (Ex.P/17) that Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh was the driver of the vehicle in which Anand Pal Singh was present. He could not explain the omission of the name of Monti Singh in the written report and the previous statement (Ex.D/1) wherein, it was categorically recorded that he did not know the name of the driver of the vehicle in which, Anand Pal Singh was present. 11. Ramniwas (PW-7) also claimed to be an eye-witness of the incident. In his sworn testimony, he alleged that there were four partners in the country liquor shop at Ganoda namely Bajrang, Govindram, Nanuram and Sukhdev. The licence was issued in the name of Govind Ram. An authorisation (Naukarnama) had been issued in his name. Mobaram and Ramnarayan were employed as salesmen in the shop which was located in the field of Narpat Singh. On the fateful day, he, Ramnarayan, Rakesh, Govind Ram and Mobaram were sitting in the shop adjoining the liquor shop. The time was around 01.45-02.00 pm. Two Scorpio vehicles came towards the shop from Sujangarh. One was having the number-plate No.RJ-27-UA-8553 and the other was unnumbered. On the fateful day, he, Ramnarayan, Rakesh, Govind Ram and Mobaram were sitting in the shop adjoining the liquor shop. The time was around 01.45-02.00 pm. Two Scorpio vehicles came towards the shop from Sujangarh. One was having the number-plate No.RJ-27-UA-8553 and the other was unnumbered. Ram Singh, Anand Pal Singh, Manjit Singh, Vicky, Balbir Banuda and two men whose names he did not know, were present in the first vehicle. The other vehicle was being driven by Mahavir Singh, Chhotu Singh, Pratap Singh, K.D. Charan and 2-3 unknown men were present in that vehicle. Anand Pal Singh was having a 12 Bore double barrelled gun. Balbir Banuda was having a weapon of lVi feet. One man was having a Mauser gun. They got down from the vehicles. A signal was given by Ram Singh whereafter, the assailants holding the weapons, started making indiscriminate fires. Manjit Singh, Vicky Singh, Chhotu Singh, Mahavir Singh, Pratap Singh and K.D. Charan were hurling exhortations to kill. At that time, Rakesh got a call and therefore, he was moving out of the shop when he got hit by the bullet. There was a partition near the window of the shop where the witness claimed to have hidden with his companions. The accused proceeded towards village Sarodiya after firing the gunshots. They came outside and saw that Rakesh was lying on the parapet outside the shop. They called out for Narpat Singh whose vehicle was parked outside. Rakesh was boarded on to the vehicle and was taken to the Government Hospital, Sujangarh where the doctors declared him dead. On being cross-examined, the witness was confronted with his police statement (Ex.D/3) which was recorded as late as on 08.07.2011. The witness stated that he did not know why police did not record his statement earlier. He was present in the hospital and thereafter, he was in the village. He himself did not approach the police officials to tell them that he had seen the incident with his own eyes. The licence of the shop was issued in the name of Govind Ram. A partnership document was prepared but he did not give it to the police as they did not ask for it. The fact regarding the partnership was not intimated to the Excise Department. This agreement was private/informal. He did not give his authorisation letter to the police. The licence of the shop was issued in the name of Govind Ram. A partnership document was prepared but he did not give it to the police as they did not ask for it. The fact regarding the partnership was not intimated to the Excise Department. This agreement was private/informal. He did not give his authorisation letter to the police. The authorisation of Ramnarayan as salesman was issued by the Excise Department but the document was not given to the police. Rakesh was neither a partner in the shop nor was he employed as a servant thereupon. He had casually come to the shop to meet them. The witness was confronted with his police statement (Ex.D/3) regarding the omission of the date of the incident. A question was put to the witness that Narpat Singh used to reside on the first floor of the building, but he refuted it by saying that Narpat did not live there permanently but came occasionally. Extensive cross-examination was made from the witness regarding the sequence in which, Rakesh received the gunshot injury. The witness tried to evade the suggestion that while giving the police statement, he had shown presence of partition in the shop. He explained that the platform tiles were stained with the blood which spilled out from the gunshot wound of Rakesh. The vehicles stopped at a distance of about 15 feet from the shop and the shots were fired from a distance of about 10 feet. There was a small window in the shop where they were sitting but they did not try to escape from the window. The liquor shop was at a height of about 1 foot from the road. The bullet hit Rakesh while he was standing. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot. It may be stated here that the witness Ramniwas tried to introduce Govind Ram as an eye-witness of the incident, but this attempt of the witness brings his credibility under a grave cloud of doubt because the first informant Ramnarayan did not utter a word about the presence of Govind Ram at the shop when the incident took place. Therefore, a serious doubt is created that the witness Ramniwas was actually not present at the spot at the time of the incident. 12. Therefore, a serious doubt is created that the witness Ramniwas was actually not present at the spot at the time of the incident. 12. The third person claiming to be an eye-witness of the incident, was Mobaram who was examined as PW-20. In his sworn testimony, the witness stated that the incident took place between 01.30 to 02.00 pm. He, Narpat Singh and Chain Singh were on the roof. A Scorpio vehicle came from Sujangarh and was parked near the shop. Ramniwas, Ramnarayan and Govind Ram were sitting inside. The occupants of the Scorpio vehicle got down and started hurling abuses. At that time, Rakesh was standing outside the shop. The assailants asked him as to whether he was involved in the liquor shop incident of the previous day to which Rakesh offered a denial. Balbir Banuda, Ramdhan Fauji and 2-3 unknown persons were sitting inside the vehicle. Ramdhan Fauji tried to open fire with his gun at the shop but could not succeed. Then, Balbir Banuda gave another weapon to Ramdhan Fauji. He fired below the cooler and the shot hit the wall. The persons, who were present in the shop, ran away towards the field. He was standing in the liquor shop and thereafter closed the channel gate as well as the iron gate of the shop and asked Rakesh to run away. Rakesh tried to enter the other shop on which, Ramdhan Fauji again fired his gun towards him. The bullet hit Rakesh. The accused continued to fire gunshots. Rakesh fell down in the middle of the gate of the shop. The witness refused to identify the accused persons as being the assailants involved in the incident. Even when cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor after being declared hostile, he stuck to the version that Rakesh was shot by Ramdhan Fauji. Apparently, the witness was declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor only on the aspect of the identification of some of the assailants. However, the remaining part of his evidence wherein, the witness described the incident, completely contradicts the version as stated by the star prosecution witnesses Ramnarayan (PW-3) and Ramniwas (PW-7). 13. Govind Ram (PW-6) was also portrayed to be an eye-witness of the incident. However, he was discarded by the trial court after discussing the evidence. However, the remaining part of his evidence wherein, the witness described the incident, completely contradicts the version as stated by the star prosecution witnesses Ramnarayan (PW-3) and Ramniwas (PW-7). 13. Govind Ram (PW-6) was also portrayed to be an eye-witness of the incident. However, he was discarded by the trial court after discussing the evidence. After perusing the testimony of Govind Ram, we are in conformity with the findings recorded by the trial court that Govind Ram is a concocted witness and was not present at the spot. 14. The witness Raghuveer Singh (PW-8) did not state anything about the incident and was declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor. Even upon cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he did not agree to any of the suggestions. Hence, the evidence of this witness is inconsequential so far as the prosecution case is concerned. 15. Jaisingh Dhanak (PW-9) was posted as the Maalkhana Incharge at the Police Station Sujangarh at the relevant point of time. His evidence is more or less formal in nature. 16. Ranjeet Singh (PW-10), who was posted as ASI at the Police Sujangarh, gave formal evidence regarding the arrest of accused Vicky Singh @ Rupendra Pal Singh from the court premises at Sunjangarh. 17. Sultan Singh (PW-11), Constable, gave evidence regarding transmission of sample bags of the case at hand from the Police Station Sujangarh to the FSL, Jodhpur. The evidence of this witness is also, more or less, formal in nature because on going through the entire prosecution case regarding recoveries, apparently, the articles, which were carried by this witness, do not connect the accused with the alleged incident in any manner whatsoever. 18. Sheeshpal (PW-12) was associated in the arrest of the accused Vicky Singh @ Rupendra Pal Singh vide arrest memo (Ex.P/23) and his evidence is also formal. 19. Kan Singh (PW-13) was posted at the Police Station Sujangarh on 31.07.2012. He gave formal evidence regarding the arrest of the accused Manjit Singh vide arrest memo (Ex.P/27) and the accused Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh on 06.06.2012 vide arrest memo (Ex.P/28). 20. Kailashdan (PW-14) was associated as a witness in the arrest memo of accused Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh (Ex.P/28). 21. Madan Beniwal (PW-15) was posted as SHO at Police Station Dangiyawas on 30.05.2012. 20. Kailashdan (PW-14) was associated as a witness in the arrest memo of accused Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh (Ex.P/28). 21. Madan Beniwal (PW-15) was posted as SHO at Police Station Dangiyawas on 30.05.2012. He gave evidence regarding submission of written report by Ranjeet Singh, S.I.P. with a revolver allegedly seized from the accused Mahipal Singh and an Alto Car bearing registration No.RJ-01-CA-8533. He registered the FIR No.84/2012 on the basis of the report given by Ranjeet Singh. The evidence of this witness is also formal in nature and almost inconsequential, so far as the case at hand is concerned. 22. Chhotelal (PW-16) was posted as Maalkhana Incharge in the SOG, Jaipur. He gave evidence that on 15.02.2012, some mobile phones, cash amount of rupees 7 lacs and a black bag were deposited in the Maalkhana by the Additional Superintendent of Police Shri Piyush Dixit. However, the evidence of this witness is also inconsequential because these seizures were allegedly made from the accused Anandpal Singh who has passed away. 23. Pannalal (PW-17) was associated in the arrest of the accused Mahavir Singh vide arrest memo (Ex.P/31). The evidence of this witness is also formal in nature. 24. Dr. Dileep Soni (PW-19) was one of the members of the Medical Board, which conducted autopsy upon the dead body of Rakesh. The witness stated that the Board, upon conducting autopsy, noticed a circular wound admeasuring 1.5 X 1.5 inch below the naval of the deceased. The margins of the wound were inverted. The direction of the wound was descending and upon opening the abdominal cavity, excessive bleeding was noticed therein. Almost three liters of blood was found in the cavity. The small intestine was perforated at number of places. An exit wound admeasuring 2.5 X 2.5 inches with lacerated averted margins was noticed just beside the vertebrae. There was a perforation of 1 X 1 inch in the main blood vessel near the abdomen. Neither any bullet nor any pellet was recovered from the abdominal cavity. An X-ray examination was undertaken to confirm this fact. The injury was caused by a firearm and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In cross-examination, the following significant facts were admitted by the Medical Jurist: (i) the entry wound was having slight blackening which indicated infliction of firearm injury from a close range. An X-ray examination was undertaken to confirm this fact. The injury was caused by a firearm and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In cross-examination, the following significant facts were admitted by the Medical Jurist: (i) the entry wound was having slight blackening which indicated infliction of firearm injury from a close range. He, on his own, explained that the injury, which was caused to the deceased, could have been received by a gunshot fired from a distance of 15 feet. (ii) A pertinent suggestion was given by the defence that the gunshot causing the fatal wound to the injured was caused from a distance of 11/2 feet which the witness denied, (iii) The witness admitted that the direction of the wound was not horizontal but was descending inwards. There was a difference of 11/2 inch in the levels of the entry wound and the exit wound. From a perusal of the testimony of this witness, it can be easily inferred that firstly, the entry wound, which was noticed on the abdominal area of the deceased, was having blackened edges. Neither any bullet nor any pellet was recovered from inside the body. The bullet/ projectile travelled downwards from the entry to the exit. We would be discussing the effect of testimony of this witness in detail after appreciation of I.O.'s testimony. 25. The initial investigation of the case, which was the most important part, was undertaken by Shri Jagdish Bohra (PW-34) who was posted as SHO of the Police Station Sujangarh on the date of the incident i.e. 29.06.2011. While deposing on oath, Jagdish Bohra stated that at about 01.40 PM, he got telephonic information, from an unknown man who told that gunshots had been fired at Bhojlai Bas in which, three persons had been injured and were taken to the Government Hospital Sujangarh. The witness constituted a team of police officials and immediately rushed to the Government Hospital Sujangarh. First Information Report was submitted to him on 29.06.2011 at 03.15 PM (Ex.P/62). There, the witness seized the blood stained clothes and other articles of the victim Rakesh vide memo (Ex.P/2). The Fard Surathaal Lash (Ex.P/4) was prepared. The dead body was handed over to the relatives vide memo (Ex.P/5). First Information Report was submitted to him on 29.06.2011 at 03.15 PM (Ex.P/62). There, the witness seized the blood stained clothes and other articles of the victim Rakesh vide memo (Ex.P/2). The Fard Surathaal Lash (Ex.P/4) was prepared. The dead body was handed over to the relatives vide memo (Ex.P/5). After completing the formalities at the hospital, the witness proceeded to the place of incident and prepared the Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/6) and the site description (Ex.P/6A). He seized a blood stained marble tile vide memo (Ex.P/7) and a plain marble tile vide memo (Ex.P/8). He proved the Rojnamcha entry (Ex.P/58) pertaining to the departure of the police team to the hospital at Sujangarh and the return of the team after conducting the essential steps of investigation. In the Rojnamcha entry made at 11.45 pm., it is mentioned that injured persons had been referred to Sikar and Jaipur and thus, Khan ASI was dispatched to Jaipur for recording their statements. It is also recorded that the same set of assailants, who had previously fired gunshots near the petrol pump, also fired at the Ganoda liquor shop in which one person expired. The relatives of the deceased refused to accept the dead body, etc. The witness proved the seized articles viz. clothes of the deceased, his personal articles i.e. driving licence, identity card, credit card, photographs, purse, etc. and the pieces of the marble tiles on which articles were marked. In cross-examination, the witness was asked as to where the report (Ex.P/17) was written. He was confronted with the omissions and the contradictions in the FIR which we have discussed while elaborating upon the testimony of Ramnarayan (PW-3). The witness admitted that he did not collect any document pertaining to the licence of the liquor vend. He admitted that the names of the accused Balbir Banuda and Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh were not mentioned in the report (Ex.P/17). Likewise, there was an omission in the report (Ex.P/17) regarding the weapons held by Anandpal Singh and Balbir Banuda. It was also not mentioned in the report that Anandpal Singh, Balbir Banuda and one more person, started firing after coming at the liquor shop. The witness was also asked questions regarding omissions in the police statement of Ramnarayan (Ex.D/1). Extensive cross-examination was made from the witness regarding the observations noted in the Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/6). It was also not mentioned in the report that Anandpal Singh, Balbir Banuda and one more person, started firing after coming at the liquor shop. The witness was also asked questions regarding omissions in the police statement of Ramnarayan (Ex.D/1). Extensive cross-examination was made from the witness regarding the observations noted in the Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/6). He admitted that it was not recorded in the Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/6) and the site description memo (Ex.P/6A) as to the exact position from where, the accused fired gunshots at the victim. The most important fact which the witness admitted in reference to Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/6) was that while conducting the site inspection, he did not notice any marks of gunfires on the walls, the door frame and the door of the premises in question. Neither pellets nor bullets were found lying at the crime scene. No window was available in the liquor shop as per the Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/6). The witness admitted that had any window existed, he would have definitely mentioned it in the map (Ex.P/6). When he reached the spot, the shop was open and the complainant was present there. A specific suggestion was given to the witness that he did not notice any marks of violence and that is why, he did not depute any policeman to secure the crime scene. He also admitted that as per the Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/6), no partition wall was noticeable between the rooms marked as 'B and C. He did not find marks of multiple gunshots having been fired nearly the liquor shop. The witness admitted that he was informed during investigation that Rakesh had been taken to the hospital in the vehicle of Narpat Singh. However, he did not inspect the said vehicle. Ramnarayan did not meet him before the site inspection memo was prepared. He did not make any investigation or inquiry from Narpat Singh or from people of the neighbouring area. It was not mentioned in memorandum Ex.P/1 (seizure memo of the clothes of the deceased) that two holes were noticed in either the vest, trousers or the shirt worn by the deceased at the time of the incident. The witness admitted that no foreign bodies i.e. pellets or bullets were found in the body of the deceased when postmortem was undertaken. The witness was given suggestions regarding unfair investigation which he denied. The witness admitted that no foreign bodies i.e. pellets or bullets were found in the body of the deceased when postmortem was undertaken. The witness was given suggestions regarding unfair investigation which he denied. The witness also proved the FSL report (Ex.P/63), however, as no incriminating recovery allegedly effected from the accused was sent to the FSL, the same is more or less academic in nature. 26. The investigation was subsequently handed over to Nitesh Arya (PW-22) who was posted as CO. Police Station Sujangarh on 30.06.2011. This witness recorded the statements of the witnesses, arrested the accused Ram Singh on 17.08.2011 vide arrest memo (Ex.P/9) and recovered number plates bearing fabricated numbers of one of the vehicles allegedly used in the incident. The accused Kailash @ K.D. Charan was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/12) on 06.01.2012 and at his instance, the place of incident was verified. The exercise of verification of place of incident was undertaken at the instance of the accused Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh. The accused Balbir Banuda was arrested on 18.06.2012 and the place of incident was verified at his instance. The accused Anandpal Singh was arrested on 11.07.2013 vide arrest memo (Ex.P/20) and on his information, it was found that the pistol used in firing at the Ganoda liquor shophad been seized by the SOG and the record of the SOG was exhibited by the witness. Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence of this witness as well, it becomes clear that his evidence is also formal in nature as no incriminating fact was collected by the I.O. which can connect the accused persons with the crime. The witness admitted that he did not recover any firearm or bullets, etc. from the accused during investigation. Neither he nor the previous I.O. found any pellets or bullets or empty cartridges, etc. at the place of incident. On conducting investigation, he did not find Narpat Singh involved in the crime and stated that his name had been falsely introduced in the FIR. He also did not find the accused Bhawani Singh, Jeetu Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Mahendra Singh and Datar Singh involved in the incident and stated that these persons were falsely portrayed as accused in the FIR. The witness admitted that number plates which he claimed to have seized from the accused Ram Singh were not exhibited in his evidence. He also did not find the accused Bhawani Singh, Jeetu Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Mahendra Singh and Datar Singh involved in the incident and stated that these persons were falsely portrayed as accused in the FIR. The witness admitted that number plates which he claimed to have seized from the accused Ram Singh were not exhibited in his evidence. From the evidence of this witness, it can be concluded beyond all manner of doubt that:- (i) there has been a wholesale implication of the names of the accused in the FIR and in the statements of the material prosecution witnesses; (ii) that the witness did not notice bullet marks at the place of incident. (iii) no fired bullets/pellets or empty cartridges were recovered from the place of incident; The fact that neither Jagdish Bohra (PW-34) nor Nitesh Arya (PW-22), the two investigating officers, could find a single of bullets/ pellets or empty cartridges allegedly fired by the assailants at the place of incident, gives rise to a strong indication that the incident did not take place in the manner and at the place as alleged by the eye witnesses. 27. For the sake of repetition, it may be noted that the Medical Jurist Dr. Dileep Soni (PW-19), referred to supra, clearly admitted in his testimony that the bullet which hit the deceased Rakesh, entered from his abdominal area and exited from near the vertebrae. Since the projectile passed through the body of the deceased, manifestly it must have fallen down at the crime scene. As claimed by the alleged eye-witnesses Ramnarayan (PW-3) and Ramniwas (PW-7), Rakesh was standing on the platform outside the liquor shop facing the road from where, the gunshots were fired towards him. As per the positions marked in the Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/6), Rakesh was shown standing at mark 'X' which is outside the room mark 'B'. It is only at that place, the I.O. claimed to have found blood on the floor tiles. This mark 'X' is approachable from the road by climbing a few stairs. In the Site Inspection Plan, there is no mention of the place from where, the accused allegedly fired the gunshots. Since the Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/6) bears the signatures of the star prosecution witness Ramnarayan (PW-3), manifestly, the witness must have pointed out to the I.O. the place from where the accused persons fired the gunshots. In the Site Inspection Plan, there is no mention of the place from where, the accused allegedly fired the gunshots. Since the Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/6) bears the signatures of the star prosecution witness Ramnarayan (PW-3), manifestly, the witness must have pointed out to the I.O. the place from where the accused persons fired the gunshots. However, there is complete absence of this description in the Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/6) and the site description memo (Ex.P/6A). Furthermore, if the gunshots had been fired from the direction of the road and, as the entry wound was found on the abdominal area of Rakesh, manifestly, he must be facing the road when he got hit by the gunshot. In that event, as the bullet/pellet exited from the body of Rakesh, the projectiles were bound to have fallen nearby the place where the deceased was standing or even might have travelled into the room because a gate is shown just behind the mark in the Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/6). Thus, a serious doubt is created that the deceased Rakesh did not receive the firearm injury at the place and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution witnesses Ramnarayan (PW-3) and Ramniwas (PW-7). 28. In addition thereto, we may take note of the fact that the witness Ramniwas (PW-7) admitted that the accused were standing at a distance of 10 feet while making the gun fires. The shop is at a height of 1 foot from the road. Rakesh, received the firearm injury in a standing position. The witness Ramnarayan (PW-3) stated in his evidence that the gunshot which hit Rakesh was fired from a distance of 20 feet. In reference to the evidence of these witnesses, when we analyse the evidence of the Medical Jurist Dr. Dileep Soni (PW-19), it becomes clear that there is a grave contradiction in the ocular testimony vis-a-vis the medical testimony. The Medical Jurist Dr. Dileep Soni (PW-19), while conducting postmortem, noticed that the entry wound was having blackened edges. As per the principles of medical jurisprudence elaborated in celebrated text book "Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology", if blackening is noticed in a firearm wound, it can be safely deduced that the muzzle of the firearm would be at a distance of within 3-4 feet from the body of the victim. As per the principles of medical jurisprudence elaborated in celebrated text book "Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology", if blackening is noticed in a firearm wound, it can be safely deduced that the muzzle of the firearm would be at a distance of within 3-4 feet from the body of the victim. The entry wound which was noticed on the body of the deceased, was higher than the exit wound. The doctor clearly stated that the projectile travelled downwards. Thus apparently, the assailant must have fired the gunshot at the deceased from a greater altitude. However, as per the statements of the eye witnesses and the Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/6), the victim was standing on the platform of the shop which was at a height of about 1 foot from the road whereas, the accused were standing on the ground. Therefore, there was not even a faintest possibility of the trajectory of the wound going downwards, had the fatal gunshot been fired in the manner alleged by the prosecution witnesses. 29. As a consequence and after appreciating the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses, we are of the firm view that: (i) the first informant and the material prosecution witnesses intentionally tried to over-implicate a large number of persons as accused in this case by naming them in the FIR and in their sworn testimony; (ii) As per the witnesses, the incident took place in the premises which was owned by Narpat Singh. It was his vehicle which was used to take Rakesh to the hospital. The witness Mobaram stated that Narpat Singh was also one amongst those who took Rakesh to the hospital. Despite that, Narpat Singh was named as an accused in the FIR. But when the informant Ramnarayan (PW-3) was examined on oath, he did not allege that Narpat Singh was also one amongst the assailants; (iii) Even though Narpat Singh was not found involved in the crime, the investigating officer made no attempt whatsoever to record his statement. Narpat Singh's evidence have been very vital to reveal the true story; (iv) there are grave contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses Ramnarayan and Mobaram as to how they managed to escape from the shop in question because there was no exit other than the gate outside which, Rakesh was allegedly standing when the gunshots were fired at him. If the witnesses had tried to escape from the same opening, they too would have been hit. Some of the witnesses claimed that they escaped from a window whereas, no such opening was seen in the building when site was inspected. Thus, the very presence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the place of incident becomes doubtful; (v) the fact that the blackening was noticed on the entry wound of the dead body of Rakesh when postmortem was conducted, clearly indicates that the gunshot must have been fired from a distance of not more than 3-4 feet. However, the witnesses Ramnarayan (PW-3) and Ramniwas (PW-7) have clearly stated that the gunshots were fired from a distance of 10-20 feet. Therefore, the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses is totally contradicted by the medical evidence; (vi) In continuation, the fact that Rakesh was standing just outside the shop on a platform at a height of about 1 foot from the road level and as the assailants fired the gunshots while standing on the ground, there was no possibility whatsoever that the trajectory of the wound would be going downwards. However, this fact was conclusively stated by the medical jurist in the sworn testimony and was also noted in the postmortem report (Ex.P/32) which again brings the credibility of the prosecution case under doubt. (vii) The projectile which hit Rakesh entered from the abdomen and exited from the back. As per the prosecution story, Rakesh was standing in front of the shop and was facing the road. In that event, the projectile/projectiles which hit Rakesh and exited through the wound and would definitely be found lying just outside the shop or inside the room. However, both the investigating officers admitted that they did not see any trace of projectiles, be it the fired bullets or the empties, etc. at the place of the incident. None of the prosecution witnesses gave any reliable evidence regarding the motive behind the incident. 30. In wake of the discussion made herein above, we are in agreement with the contention of the learned defence counsel that the incident did not take place at the liquor shop and that Rakesh might have received the gunshot injury at some other place. This material lacuna in the prosecution case completely discredits the testimony of the prosecution eye-witnesses. 30. In wake of the discussion made herein above, we are in agreement with the contention of the learned defence counsel that the incident did not take place at the liquor shop and that Rakesh might have received the gunshot injury at some other place. This material lacuna in the prosecution case completely discredits the testimony of the prosecution eye-witnesses. As many as 6 out of the total 14 named accused persons, were exonerated by the 1.0. finding that they had been falsely implicated. As per the prosecution witnesses, more than one assailants fired multiple gunshots towards Rakesh and in the general direction of the liquor shop. However, only one gunshot injury was found on body of Rakesh and not a trace of bullets, pellets or empty cartridges, wads, etc. were found at the crime scene. These aspects completely destroy the credibility of evidence of the material prosecution witnesses. 31. As an upshot and after analysing the entire record, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to lead convincing evidence so as to seek affirmation of guilt of the accused persons in this case. The prosecution story suffers from huge lacunas and loopholes which are impossible to reconcile. The trial court committed grave error of facts while appreciating the evidence and recording the questioned findings for convicting the accused appellants in the manner stated above. Hence, the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained. 32. As a consequence, the impugned Judgment dated 07.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No.24/2011, is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. The accused appellants Ramsingh and Manjit Singh are in custody. They shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The accused appellants Kailashdan @ K.D. Charan, Mahvir Singh, Chhotu Singh and Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged The appeals are allowed accordingly. 33. The accused appellants Ramsingh and Manjit Singh are in custody. They shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The accused appellants Kailashdan @ K.D. Charan, Mahvir Singh, Chhotu Singh and Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged The appeals are allowed accordingly. 33. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C, each of the appellants is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellants shall appear before the Supreme Court. 34. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith. A copy of this order be placed in each file.