ORDER 1. This appeal is at the instance of the State of Uttar Pradesh and is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 17-9-2015 in Criminal Appeal No.2376/2011, by which the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents - herein - original accused and thereby set aside the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No.620/2005, 621/2005 and 622/2005 respectively, arising from the First Information Report bearing Crime No.30/2005, Crime No.31/2005 and Crime No.32/2005 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'IPC') and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution may be summarized as under:- 3. The deceased were husband and wife. They were agriculturists. They earned their livelihood from agricultural operations. The respondents - herein (original accused persons) are brothers. They are also agriculturists and they also earn their livelihood from agricultural operations. It appears from the materials on record that there was a long standing dispute between the deceased persons and the accused persons relating to a property. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident, i.e., 27-3-2005 at about 11.30 a.m., the accused persons picked up an altercation with the deceased and at the end of it the two accused fired from their respective fire arms resulting in serious injuries to the husband and wife who later succumbed. 5. According to the prosecution, at the time of the incident the two sons of the deceased persons were present. 'PW 1' - Subhash Kumar, and the 'PW 2' - Suddu claim to be the eye-witnesses to the incident. 6. The First Information Report came to be resisted at around 1.50 p.m. in Thariyav Police Station, District Fatehpur, U.P. by 'PW 1. The First Information Report reads thus:- "PS: Thariav (Paper Torn) Chandrabhan Prasad Tiwari, R/o Village: Aurayi, District: (Paper Torn) resident. 6. The First Information Report came to be resisted at around 1.50 p.m. in Thariyav Police Station, District Fatehpur, U.P. by 'PW 1. The First Information Report reads thus:- "PS: Thariav (Paper Torn) Chandrabhan Prasad Tiwari, R/o Village: Aurayi, District: (Paper Torn) resident. Today on 27.03.2005 at about (Paper Torn) in the day time, when my mother by name: Kunti Devi aged about 50 years and my father: Chandrabhan (Paper Torn) Tiwari, aged about 55 years were present in our Lentil Fields to cut the harvest, at that itself, our villagers Sukhendra Kumar and Chulli Tiwari - both sons of Krishna Gopal Tiwari with whom we have previous land dispute already armed with illegal fire arms came to the field at about 11.30 AM to my parents and objected them from cutting the standing crop to which we told them -"This field belong to us and this crop too belongs to us." This enraged them as a result of which they fired with their aforesaid firearms in a random manner resulting in the wounds upon my parents who died instantaneously at the spot itself. On witnessing this ghastly incident the agricultural workers working in the field got scared ran away from there and even passers too abandoned their normal road route and fled away from the spot towards the village by walk ways path due to the scare and commotion and terror created by these assailants resulting in chaos and atmosphere of terror in the whole area meanwhile this incident has been witnessed by the neighbourhood workers present nearby at that moment. The dead bodies of my deceased parents are still lying on the spot. Applicant: Subhash Kumar, S/o: Chandrabhan Prasad Tiwari, Village: Aurayi, PS: Thariyav, Fatehpur, Date 27.03.2005. Written by: Md. Waheed, S/o: Bhullu, R/o: Bahrampur, PS: Thariyav, Fatehpur. Note: I, H. M. 482: (Paper torn) Gautam do hereby certify that the copy of the FIR is true and correct word by word. Ex.A-2 HM Sd/- (illegible)/- 27.03.2005" 7. We take notice of the fact that the Police Station in which the FIR came to be registered is at a distance of about 7 kms. from the place of the incident. It seems to be the case of 'PW 1' that he walked all the way to the Police Station for the purpose of lodging the FIR. 8. Upon FIR being registered, the Police started with the investigation. from the place of the incident. It seems to be the case of 'PW 1' that he walked all the way to the Police Station for the purpose of lodging the FIR. 8. Upon FIR being registered, the Police started with the investigation. The inquest panchnamas of the two dead-bodies were drawn. Clothes worn by the two deceased were collected in the presence of independent witnesses for the purpose of sending them to the forensic science laboratory for chemical analysis. The dead-bodies were sent for post-mortem. The two post-mortem reports on record reveal that the cause of death was due to firearm injuries. It appears that in the course of investigation, the fire arms were discovered at the instance of the accused persons by drawing panchnamas under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the Evidence Act'). The fire arms were also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of seeking opinion of the Ballistic expert. However, the Investigating Officer was not able to procure any report from the ballistic expert. 9. At the end of the investigation, police filed charge-sheet for the offence enumerated above. 10. The case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions under the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'). 11. The Trial Court framed charge for the offence enumerated above to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 12. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:- PW 1 Complainant Subhash Kumar PW 2 Suddu PW 3 Surendra Kumar Shukla, witness for recovery of weapon PW 4 SI Ram Swarup, prepared Chik report and GD PW 5 Doctor Gupta, Performed post mortem PW 6 SI Suresh, I.O PW 7 Constable Prasad, Prepared chik report and GD PW 8 Initial I.O Pandey PW 9 SI Kalpanath Chaudhary, conducted inquest proceedings PW 10 I.O Rajesh Kumar, arms act 13. The prosecution also led the following pieces of documentary evidence:- 1. Ex.A-1 : the Written Complaint Report; 2. Ex. A-2 : the Draft Copy of FIR filed u/s 302 of IPC; 3. Ex. A-3 : Carbon copy of the G.D.; 4. Ex. A-4 & 5 : Post Mortem Reports of the deceased Chandrabhan and Smt. Kunti respectively; 5. Ex. A- 6 : the Confiscation Memo of the Country gun; 6. Ex.A-1 : the Written Complaint Report; 2. Ex. A-2 : the Draft Copy of FIR filed u/s 302 of IPC; 3. Ex. A-3 : Carbon copy of the G.D.; 4. Ex. A-4 & 5 : Post Mortem Reports of the deceased Chandrabhan and Smt. Kunti respectively; 5. Ex. A- 6 : the Confiscation Memo of the Country gun; 6. Ex.A-7 : the draft copy of the FIR u/s 25 of Arms Act; 7. Ex.A-8 : the Carbon Copy of G. D. u/s 25 of Arms Act; 8. Ex. A-9 & 10 : the confiscation memo of blood soaked earth and controlled earth samples as well as empty cartridges; 10. Ex. A-11 : the site plan; 11. Ex. A-12 : the Charge Sheet u/s 302 of IPC; 12. Ex. A-13 & 14 : dead body Panchanama of deceased Chandrabhan and Smt. Kunti respectively; 13. Ex. A-15 to 22 : the letter of C.M.O., letter of R. I, photographs and challan of deceased Chandrabhan and Smt. Kunti, 14. Ex.A-23 : the site plan of the incident spot; 15. Ex.A-24 & 25 : the Charge Sheets u/s 25 of Arms Act, and 16. Ex. A-26 & 27 : the description of admittance by the prosecution respectively. 14. On closure of the recording of the oral evidence, the further statements of the two accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code, in which both the accused persons pleaded to be innocent. 15. The Trial Court upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record held both the accused persons guilty of the offence they were charged with and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment with fine. 16. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court came to be challenged before the High Court and the High Court by its impugned judgment and order allowed the Criminal Appeal and acquitted both the accused. 17. In such circumstances, referred to above, the State is here before us with the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE :- 18. Ms. Garima Prasad, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of U.P. vehemently submitted that the High Court committed a serious error in acquitting the two accused. 19. 17. In such circumstances, referred to above, the State is here before us with the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE :- 18. Ms. Garima Prasad, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of U.P. vehemently submitted that the High Court committed a serious error in acquitting the two accused. 19. According to her, there was no good reason for the High Court to disturb a very well-reasoned Judgment of the Trial Court holding both the accused persons guilty of alleged offence. She would submit that the High Court fell in error in disbelieving the two eye-witnesses, i.e., 'PW 1' & 'PW 2' respectively. 20. She further submitted that both the firearms were discovered at the instance of the two accused by drawing panchnamas under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, the High Court disbelieved such discovery only on the ground that the panch witnesses failed to support the case of the prosecution and thereby failed to prove the contents of the panchnama. 21. According to her, even if the panch witnesses turned hostile, the contents of the panchnamas can always be proved through the oral evidence of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has in fact proved the discovery of the two firearms at the instance of the accused persons in accordance with law. 22. In the last, Ms. Prasad submitted that it is true that there is no opinion of the ballistic expert on record, however, the same, by itself, is no reason to disbelieve the two eye-witnesses. According to her, perfunctory investigation cannot be a ground to acquit the accused persons charged with a serious offence like double murder. 23. In such circumstances, referred to above, Ms. Garima Prasad submitted that there being merit in her appeal, the same may be allowed and the Judgment and Order passed by the Trail Court may be restored. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS :- 24. On the other hand, Ms. Sonia Mathur, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents, i.e., the two accused persons vehemently submitted that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned Judgment and Order. 25. According to Ms. Mathur, it is always open for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and take a different view if necessary. 26. Ms. 25. According to Ms. Mathur, it is always open for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and take a different view if necessary. 26. Ms. Mathur would submit that the entire case of the prosecution hinges on the oral evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses, i.e., 'PW 1' & 'PW 2' respectively, the two sons of the deceased persons. 27. According to Ms. Mathur, both these witnesses are unbelievable. The oral evidence of both these witnesses does not inspire any confidence. 28. In fact, according to Ms. Mathur, the 'PW 2' in his oral evidence has admitted that he had not witnessed anything. The 'PW 1' who lodged the FIR also does not say anything as regards the presence of his brother at the time of the incident. 29. In such circumstances, according to Ms. Mathur, the two witnesses were rightly disbelieved by the High Court. 30. As regards the discovery of the firearms at the instance of the two accused persons is concerned, she submitted that once the oral evidence of the two eye-witnesses is found to be unreliable, then even if the discovery of the two firearms at the instance of the accused persons is to be believed, the same is not sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty of a serious offence like murder. 31. In the last Ms. Mathur submitted that unless and until this Court finds the reasoning assigned by the High Court to be absolutely perverse or contrary to the evidence on record, ordinarily, the Judgment and Order of acquittal should not be disturbed. 32. In the circumstances, referred to above, she prayed that there being no merit in this appeal, the same may be dismissed. ANALYSIS :- 33. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal. 34. If we take the view that 'PW 2' was not present at the scene of occurrence and had not witnessed anything, then we are left with only one eye-witness, i.e., 'PW 1' . 35. We proceed on the footing that the entire case now rests on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness. 34. If we take the view that 'PW 2' was not present at the scene of occurrence and had not witnessed anything, then we are left with only one eye-witness, i.e., 'PW 1' . 35. We proceed on the footing that the entire case now rests on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness. If the evidence of a solitary eye-witness is found to be true, trustworthy and reliable, then it is open for the Court to rely upon the same for the purpose of holding the accused persons guilty of alleged offence. Ordinarily the evidence of a solitary witness can be classified into three categories, (i) wholly reliable (ii) wholly un-reliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 36. If the evidence of a solitary eye-witness is found to be wholly reliable, there is no problem in accepting the same, if he is found to be wholly unreliable, the court should discard it in toto. If a situation arises wherein the court finds the evidence of a solitary eye-witness neither wholly reliable nor wholly un-reliable, in such circumstances, the court insists for corroboration in material particulars. 37. In the case on hand, the High Court was justified in taking the view that neither 'PW 1' nor 'PW 2' could be said to be reliable eye-witnesses. 38. The High Court has entertained a genuine doubt having regard to the nature of the evidence on record as regards the very presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence. This is evident from the discussion in Para Nos. 21, 22, 24, 25 and 29 respectively of the judgment:- "21. It is true that it is a broad day light murder wherein two persons have lost their lives and the complainant is the unfortunate son of these two deceased persons. 22. Law is settled on the point that seriousness of the offence is by itself not the ground to hold that the accused persons have committed the offence. But the involvement of the accused persons must stand proved by the evidence on record. On this point reference may be made to the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilaver Hussain S/o Mohammadibhai Laliwala etc vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in (1991) 1 SCC 253 , particularly paragraph no. 3 of the aforesaid judgment has been referred, which reads as under:- "3. On this point reference may be made to the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilaver Hussain S/o Mohammadibhai Laliwala etc vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in (1991) 1 SCC 253 , particularly paragraph no. 3 of the aforesaid judgment has been referred, which reads as under:- "3. All this generated a little emotion during submissions. But sentiments or emotions, howsoever strong, are neither relevant nor have any place in a court of law. Acquittal or conviction depends on proof or otherwise of the criminological chain which invariably comprises of why, where, when, how and who. Each knot of the chain has to be proved, beyond shadow of doubt to bring home the guilt. Any crack or loosening in it weakens the prosecution. Each link, must be so consistent that the only conclusion which must follow is that the accused is guilty. Although guilty should not escape (sic). But on reliable evidence, truthful witnesses and honest and fair investigation. No free man should be amerced by framing or to assuage feelings as it is fatal to human dignity and destructive of social, ethical and legal norm. Heinousness of crime or cruelty in its execution however abhorrent and hateful cannot reflect in deciding the guilt." (emphasis added) 23. FIR in every criminal trial is very important document around which the entire case of prosecution revolves. Now the first point to be considered is whether the FIR came into existence at the time and in the manner as alleged by PW-1 and whether the evidence of PW-1 falls within the purview of wholly reliable or not. 24. The incident of this case is alleged to have taken place on 27.03.2005 at 11.30 a.m. and the FIR of this case was lodged at 1:50 p.m. i.e. after about 2 hours and 20 minutes of the occurrence. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence, as per chik report, was 7 kms. The FIR was scribed by one Waheed who is resident of different village Bahrampur. On the point of FIR the complainant in his evidence has stated that on the date of occurrence he reached the police station at about 2.00 p.m. he went on foot and he disclosed the incident to some police officer and the said police officer called Waheed. The other persons who had accompanied him were also present there. On the point of FIR the complainant in his evidence has stated that on the date of occurrence he reached the police station at about 2.00 p.m. he went on foot and he disclosed the incident to some police officer and the said police officer called Waheed. The other persons who had accompanied him were also present there. The manner in which he had disclosed the incident to the police officer he directed Waheed to scribe the FIR and Waheed scribed the FIR and his signature was obtained on the said report. He has further stated that the said report was given by him to the police officer and the police officer went alongwith the said report to the place of occurrence. Darogaji went separately and he came back to the place of occurrence on foot. He reached the place of occurrence at about 4.00 p.m. at that time police personnel were present on the place of occurrence. When he reached the place of occurrence then his signature was obtained on his report which was proved as Exhibit Ka-1. He has further confirmed this fact by saying that he was asked to sign the only paper on the place of occurrence which was Exhibit Ka-1. He has also stated that by the time he left the village to go to police station by that time one police jeep had reached the place of occurrence and in the said jeep the police officer who had recorded his statement was also present. By the time he came back from the police station to the place of occurrence by that time the second officer and the other police constables also reached the place of occurrence. Thus this statement of this witness gives rise to the inference that the police got some information of this incident on which it came into action and before the complainant started for the police station to lodge the FIR the police had reached the place of occurrence. But what was that information on which the police came into action has been withheld by the prosecution. Keeping in view the evidence of PW-1 regarding the origin of the FIR, in the peculiar facts of this case, this fact assumes importance. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention of this Court towards the provision of Section 154 sub clause II Cr.P.C: which reads as under:- "154. Keeping in view the evidence of PW-1 regarding the origin of the FIR, in the peculiar facts of this case, this fact assumes importance. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention of this Court towards the provision of Section 154 sub clause II Cr.P.C: which reads as under:- "154. Information in cognizable cases- (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. If given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) As copy of the information as recorded under subsection (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (I) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence." According to the aforesaid provision of Section 154 sub clause II Cr.P.C. the copy of the FIR, after registration of the case, must be handed over to the complainant forthwith. But in the instant case it is admission of the complainant himself that he signed the said information after his arrival at the place of occurrence. Thus the provision of Section 154 sub clause II Cr.P.C. were not complied with. It also proves that FIR was not registered at the time as is alleged by the prosecution. But in the instant case it is admission of the complainant himself that he signed the said information after his arrival at the place of occurrence. Thus the provision of Section 154 sub clause II Cr.P.C. were not complied with. It also proves that FIR was not registered at the time as is alleged by the prosecution. Keeping in view the statement of PW-1 that he signed it at the place of occurrence, the FIR must have been registered after arrival of the police party back to the police station, We would like to mention here that this fact, by itself, cannot be treated to be fatal for prosecution because this is a lapse on the part of the police agency and not on the part of the complainant but the fact remains that the police had reached the place of occurrence before the complainant could lodge the FIR. In the facts of this case, when the appellants are coming with a definite defence that the incident had taken place in isolation and no one has witnessed the incident, therefore, this aspect assumes importance. It transpires that some information regarding recovery of two dead bodies was sent to the police then police came into action and thereafter the complaint was sent to the police station and under the supervision of a police officer the FIR of this case was prepared which was scribed by one Waheed. Thus the origin of the FIR in these circumstances comes under a shadow of doubt. Law is settled on the point that even if the origin of the FIR is under a shadow of doubt even then the same, by itself, would not be the sole ground to discard the entire prosecution case but definitely a duty is cast upon the Court to scrutinize the evidence with extra care and caution. 25. As stated earlier, only two witnesses of fact have been produced by the prosecution. At the cost of repetition we would say that PW-1 has admitted in his cross-examination that no other person except him had witnessed the incident. This statement of PW-1 the complainant rules out the presence of PW-2 who happens to be his real brother. PW-2 in the very beginning of his cross-examination has admitted that he reached the place of occurrence after the incident. This statement of PW-1 the complainant rules out the presence of PW-2 who happens to be his real brother. PW-2 in the very beginning of his cross-examination has admitted that he reached the place of occurrence after the incident. Thus their remains the sole evidence of PW-1, As discussed earlier, the conviction can be recorded on the basis of sole evidence of a witness when evidence of such witnesses is found to be wholly reliable. Now in this perspective evidence of PW-1 has to be considered. According to the version of the FIR both the deceased died on the spot. PW-1 has given similar statement in his examination-in-chief wherein he has stated that his mother and father both died on the spot and thereafter the appellants ran away. He was also attacked by the appellants. In his cross examination this witness has stated that first of all the police personnel brought the dead body of his mother from the field to a grove. The said field was at a distance of about 1 km. and dead body was sealed in the grove. The dead body of his father was also brought from the said field to the grove and the inquest was conducted there. Perusal of the two inquest reports shows that inquest proceedings of the two dead bodies started at 15:00 hours and concluded on 5:00 p.m. Both the inquest reports were conducted in the field within the area of village Aurai, and not in any grove land. PW-9 S.I. Kalpnath Chaudhary has denied this statement of the complainant and has stated that inquest proceedings were conducted in the field and the dead bodies were not brought by him to any grove. Perusal of the site plan, which according to the prosecution case was prepared on the pointing out of the complainant himself, shows that the dead body of Chandrabhan Tiwari was found in the vacant field of Sri Keshav Yadav while he received gun shot injury at place B which was situated in his own field. The distance between points B and B1 has been shown in the site plan to be about 100 meters. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the deceased ran after receiving gun shot injury and fell at a distance of about 100 meters. The distance between points B and B1 has been shown in the site plan to be about 100 meters. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the deceased ran after receiving gun shot injury and fell at a distance of about 100 meters. PW-1 in his evidence has specifically stated that his parents died on the spot and this is the initial averment of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR that both the persons died on the spot. 29. The very glaring defect in the evidence of PW-1 is that he has specifically stated in his examination-in-chief that accused Surevndra Kumar @ Sunil Kumar was armed with SBBL Gun and the other appellant was armed with double barrel gun. He has not stated that these guns were country made. It is nowhere the statement of this witness that any of the appellants was armed with a country made weapon of 315 bore. While from the place of occurrence one empty cartridge of 315 bore was also recovered. The weapons used in the commission of offence were not disclosed in the FIR and this discrepancy assumes importance in the background that the police went to the extent of recovering country made pistols of 12 bore and 315 bore on the pointing out of the two appellants. In the FIR it was mentioned that appellants came with fire arm. PW-1 Subhash Kumar is a well grown up boy of 20 years and his statement was recorded after about 3 years of the incident. So no discrepancy was expected on the point of weapon used in the offence. This contradiction goes to the root of the case because it not only creates doubt regarding presence of PW-1 on the scene of occurrence but it also goes on to show that the police has falsely shown the recovery on the pointing out of the appellants. Difference between country made pistol and gun is well defined and any person can very well notice the same. It is not expected that there may be any contradiction on this point while the incident is alleged to have taken place in the broad day light. Difference between country made pistol and gun is well defined and any person can very well notice the same. It is not expected that there may be any contradiction on this point while the incident is alleged to have taken place in the broad day light. It appears that because of this inconsistent statement of PW-1, the prosecution in the statement of PW-2 tried to repair the dent caused by such statement of PW-1 and PW-2 has stated that the accused persons were armed with country-made pistols. But as stated earlier, he has also admitted that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of incident. So his statement does not help the prosecution to explain this major contradiction which goes to the root of the prosecution case." 39. The evidence on record gives an impression that neither 'PW 1' nor 'PW 2' had actually witnessed the incident but it is only when they came to know that the dead-bodies of their parents were lying in the field, they got into action. 40. In such circumstances, we find it difficult to take the view that the High Court committed a serious error in disbelieving the eye-witnesses to the incident. 41. We enquired with Ms. Prasad that if we had to discard the oral evidence of the two eye-witnesses, then whether any other evidence is on record to connect the two accused persons with the alleged crime. 42. According to Ms. Prasad, the two firearms alleged to have been used in the commission of the crime were discovered at the instance of the accused persons by drawing panchnamas under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 43. There is a problem as regards the aforesaid also. Discovery of weapon of offence can definitely be taken into consideration as one of the incriminating circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. However, evidence in the form of discovery should also inspire confidence. In the case on hand, unfortunately, the panch witnesses turned hostile and failed to prove the contents of the panchnama. 44. The law in this regard is well-settled. If an independent witness turns hostile that does not mean that the evidence in the form of panchnama is to be outright rejected or discarded. The Investigating Officer can definitely prove the contents of the panchanama. 45. 44. The law in this regard is well-settled. If an independent witness turns hostile that does not mean that the evidence in the form of panchnama is to be outright rejected or discarded. The Investigating Officer can definitely prove the contents of the panchanama. 45. However, the law expects the Investigating Officer to prove the contents of the panchnama in accordance with law. It is not just enough for the Investigating Officer to depose that he had drawn the panchnama in the presence of panch witnesses duly signed by the said witnesses and he himself. 46. We may extract some portion of his examination-in-chief as regards the discovery:- "On 31.3.2005, (1) arrested accused Survendra and Chulli and recorded their statements. They confessed their offence. At their instance, I recovered the weapons used in the incident and prepared the recovery memo thereof. The memo is available in the file. It is in my handwriting and signature. It has already been marked as Exhibit Ka-6. I copied the memo in the CD, and on the basis of the recovery memo, I got a case registered against accused Survendra alias Sunil Kumar and Chulli alias Rajendra Prasad us. 25 Arms Act, and case crime number thereof is 31/05 and 32/05." 47. The aforesaid can hardly be said to be proving the contents of the panchnama in accordance with law. 48. The prosecution also examined 'PW 6' - Suresh Chandra, the second Investigating Officer. 49. In his examination-in-chief, he has deposed as regards the discovery as under:- "At this stage, one sealed bundle was opened from which one country pistol 315 bore and one country pistol 12 bore were taken out and 3 empty cartridges 12 bore, 3 cartridges 315 bore and one live missed cartridge 12 bore were taken out from a brown envelope. In his examination-in-chief, he has deposed as regards the discovery as under:- "At this stage, one sealed bundle was opened from which one country pistol 315 bore and one country pistol 12 bore were taken out and 3 empty cartridges 12 bore, 3 cartridges 315 bore and one live missed cartridge 12 bore were taken out from a brown envelope. On seeing these articles, the witness stated that EC 1 315 bore E C 2 and E C 3 12 bore empty cartridges seem to have been recovered from the spot of 302(?) which have been showed as E C 1 E C 2 and C 3 by Ballistic expert and T C-1, T C-2, 315 bore empty cartridge and T C-3 missed cartridge 12 bore TC-4 empty cartridge 12 bore seem to have been tested by Ballistic expert which have been showed as T C-1 T C-2 and T C-3 and T C-4 by Ballistic expert, have been marked as Material Exhibit 1 to Material Exhibit-7. On seeing the country pistols of 12 bore and 315 bore respectively, the witness stated that they had been recovered from the accused persons. Out of them, pistol of 12 bore was got recovered by Chulli and 315 bore was got recovered by Sukhendra from wheat crop field, had been marked as Material Exhibit 8 and 9 respectively. And from the same bundle one container of blood stained and plain earth(illegible) was taken out which may have been recovered from the spot of 302 (?). The accused persons had told to have murdered Chandrabhan and Kunti by these country pistols?" 50. The evidence of 'PW 6' also does not help the State in any manner. 51. Thus, we have no hesitation in discarding the evidence of discovery. As noted above, there is no report of the ballistic expert as to whether the cartridges recovered from the place of occurrence were fired from the two firearms said to have been discovered at the instance of the accused persons. 52. Once we disbelieve the evidence of discovery of the weapon of offence, then what we are left with is the conduct of the accused. 52. Once we disbelieve the evidence of discovery of the weapon of offence, then what we are left with is the conduct of the accused. Even if we disbelieve the discovery, the Court can say that the fact that the two accused persons led the police party along with the panch witnesses to a particular place may reflect on his conduct which is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. 53. Time and again this Court has said in number of its decisions that howsoever relevant the conduct of the accused may be under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the same is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of a serious offence like murder. 54. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that no case is made out for our interference. The appeal of the State fails and is hereby dismissed.