Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

901.APEAL226 & 320_2014.doc Moreover, they have not seen weapons in the hands of the accused. There is delay in recording statement of PW-18. The clothes of these witnesses, who claim that they lifted the deceased and took him to hospital, should have been blood stained, as the deceased was assaulted and had firearm injury in the chest and shoulder. This creates doubt about the presence of these witnesses on the spot. He submitted that one empty and one live cartridges were found on the spot. One bullet was found in the chest, thus three shots were fired. However, witnesses deposed that they heard only two bullet shots. When as per the physical evidence, three cartridges/bullets were found, if falsifies occular evidence. This ambiguity is not explained by the prosecution. This makes the presence of the witnesses doubtful on the spot. He submitted that PW-22 Dr. Ramesh, who conducted postmortem, has deposed that the cartridge was found in the body, however, PW-15 panch, who had recovered the clothes of the deceased, has deposed that the medical officer gave cartridge to him and the said plastic wad was send to CA. The learned counsel submitted that the bullet which was recovered from the body was never sent to Forensic Laboratory. The report of CA is thus defective and cannot be relied. He submitted that the accused nos. 2 and 5 6 of 18