course of defence any DW was examined. Though, it is not incumbent upon the accused to project himself as a witness however Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. acknowledges, and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, perhaps, the defence would have come forward to support its plea. Not only this, the Ext-D, (FIR) loses its propriety after going through Ext-4, the injury report. After examination of Ext-4 along with evidence of PW-8, Dr. Jagdish Sharma, it is evident that he had examined PW-3, Brajesh on a police requisition on 16.01.1996 at 10:10 a.m.. Defence had not cross-examined this witness even over the timing of his examination, that means to say, the timing of examination of victim by PW-8 remained unchallenged, unshaken. When Ext-D (FIR) is gone through, it is evident that it was recorded on 16.01.96 at about 11:00 a.m. at the house of appellant, Ram Baran. The improbability of the defence version is further found exposed vide Ext-E, the seizure list prepared in connection with Amarpur P.S. Case No.14/96 (Ext-D). As per Column-3 of the aforesaid Ext-E, it is evident that cartridges were recovered from the pocket of injured, Brajesh as well as from the earth near him while from Column-5, it is evident that a country made pistol, two cartridges of 7.62 mm along with charger as well as one fired cartridge was seized and most surprisingly, the time of seizure happens to be on 16.01.96 at about 11:35 a.m. That means to say, at the time of preparation of Ext-D, E,
