February, 1984. Apart from other things, he states therein that appellant Surendra Singh and two others caught hold of the deceased Ajay Kumar Singh and appellant Sachidanand Singh and another Ajay Kumar Singh shot at him hitting on his back. Apart from this, it appears to be quite incongruous when we come to the post mortem report, which is Ext.1. There is a singular bullet wound having entry from the front of the chest through the lungs and exit point at the back. We then have the inquest report (Ext.5), which talks of a bullet like wound on the back of the dead body of deceased Ajay Kumar Singh and does not speak of any injury on the front of the chest. If the prosecution case is correct, then the witnesses had seen the occurrence from close vicinity. The injury does not substantiate the evidence. There is no other connecting wound. The entry point is in front of chest and there is an exit point on the back. This unexplained discrepancy, in our view, is suggestive that, in fact, no one had seen when deceased Ajay Kumar Singh was shot. They had seen the dead body with the wound on the back and that is what they stated in the fardbeyan making of a story implicating the appellants, otherwise, such fatal discrepancy could not have been there in the evidence.
