http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1044 of 2006

PETITIONER: Ujjagar Singh

RESPONDENT: State of Punjab

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/12/2007

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

    HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

1.              Ujjagar Singh, the appellant herein, a resident of village  Bangawali, Tehsil Malerkotla, was tried and convicted by the  Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur for the murder of his niece  Mukhtiar Kaur and was awarded the death penalty.  In  addition, he was convicted for an offence punishable under  section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous  imprisonment for 10 years and to a fine of Rs.5, 000/- and in  default of payment to undergo further R.I. for one year and  under section 309 of the IPC to a sentence of simple  imprisonment for one year.  The aforesaid convictions and  sentences have been maintained by the High Court and the  matter is before us in these proceedings by way of special leave.   The facts of the case are as under:- 2.              At about 2.00 p.m. on 10th November 2002 a boy whose  identity is not forthcoming, informed Satnam Singh PW2 that  an incident of firing had taken place in the house of Ujjagar  Singh situated in the fields on the outskirts of the village.   Satnam Singh conveyed this information to Sarpanch Jora  Singh PW1 who was attending a marriage at that time.  Jora  Singh accompanied by Gurdeep Singh PW3 thereupon rushed  to Ujjagar Singh\022s house and found Mukhtiar Kaur lying dead  with a gun shot injury and the appellant also with a gun shot  injury lying unconscious on the ground in the adjoining room.   Jora Singh and Gurdeep Singh immediately removed Ujjagar  Singh to the Civil Hospital, Dhuri in the jeep belonging to  Kulwant Singh PW4.  Jora Singh also met Inspector Harjinder  Pal Singh PW14 at 4.40 p.m. near the hospital, who recorded  his statement at that place and with his endorsement Ex.P.A.   sent it to Police Station, Dhuri where the formal FIR was  registered at about 4.45 p.m. with the special report being  delivered to the Illaka Magistrate at Dhuri itself at 6.20 p.m. the  same evening.  The facts as narrated were that Arjan Singh of  village Bangawali had three sons Puran Singh, Ujjagar Singh  (appellant) and Ajmer Singh.  Puran Singh had died about 20  years earlier leaving behind his wife, two sons and a daughter  Mukhtiar Kaur.  The two sons and the wife also died long before  the incident and Mukhtiar Kaur the sole surviving member of  this branch of the family had been married to Balwinder Singh  PW9 about 9 or 10 years earlier.  Puran Singh had however  transferred 30 or 35 bighas  of agricultural land falling to his  share after the death of his father in the name of the appellant\022s  sons  by a collusive decree in the year 1994 and the suggestion  was that this transaction had been objected to by Mukhtiar  Kaur who was demanding that the land be returned to her.  It  appears that Mukhtiar Kaur\022s relations with her in-laws had got

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

strained and she had left her matrimonial home and come to  live with Ujjagar Singh, her uncle, 7 or 8 months earlier and the  suggestion was that Mukhtiar Kaur had been killed by the  appellant with his licensed gun and he had thereafter attempted  to commit suicide. 3.              Having recorded the aforesaid facts in the FIR, PW14  Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh reached the place of incident and  lifted one spent 12 bore cartridge case (Shaktiman make) from  near Mukhtiar Kaur\022s dead body and one DBBL gun from the  place where Ujjagar Singh appeared to have been shot and  another spent cartridge case was recovered from the right barrel  of the gun.  After completion of the investigation at the spot,  Mukhtiar Kaur\022s dead body was sent for its post-mortem  examination.  The post-mortem examination was also  conducted by PW5 Dr. Ishwar Singh, Medical Officer, Civil  Hospital along with Dr. Harwinder Kaur PW17 and it was found  that Mukhtiar Kaur had two gunshot injuries on her dead body,  a wound of entry on the back of right side of chest 2 cm x 1 cm  with margining (sic) and blackening and a corresponding exit  wound of 5 cm x 3.5 cm to the front of the right side of the  chest.   Dr. Harwinder Kaur aforesaid also took swabs from the  vagina of the deceased and as per the chemical examiner\022s  report dated 2.1.2003 semen was found on the swab taken from  the vagina and from the underwear that Mukhtiar Kaur had  been wearing at the time of her death. The weapon and the  recovered cartridge cases  had also been sent to the Forensic  Science Laboratory which in its report dated 4.8.2004 opined  that the crime cartridge case CI \021could\022 have been fired by the  right barrel of the weapon whereas the crime cartridge case C2  \021had been\022 fired from the right barrel. 4.              On the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet  under sections 302, 376 and 309 of the IPC was filed against  the accused and as he pleaded not guilty he was brought to  trial.  During the trial Jora Singh PW1, Satnam Singh PW2,  Gurdeep  Singh PW3 and Kulwant Singh PW4  resiled from their  statements given to the police and were declared hostile.   Balwinder Singh PW9, however, supported the prosecution case  deposing that the land  had in fact been got transferred from  Gurmail Kaur, mother of Mukhtiar Kaur   to Ujjagar Singh by  fraud and Mukhtiar Kaur was therefore entitled to its return.   He also deposed that Mukhtiar Kaur had told him some time  earlier that the accused had been beating her and had also  committed sexual intercourse with her and that at about 11  p.m. on 10.11.2002 Karam Singh PW10 had informed him as to  what had transpired on which he along with his father Hamir  Singh PW12 and several others had rushed to Bangawali.   PW10 Karam Singh aforesaid confirmed the story given by  Balwinder Singh.  The prosecution also relied on the statements  of Dr. Vijay Kumar PW6 of the Civil Hospial, Dhuri  who  testified that the appellant had been brought to the hospital at  about 2.45 p.m. on 10.11.2002 with a serious gun shot injury,  Dr. Ripan Miglani PW15 of the Dayanand Medical College &  Hospital, Ludhiana who deposed that he had been admitted to  the department of Neuro surgery with a serious gun shot injury  and Dr. Sanjay Uppal PW16, a plastic surgeon who disclosed  that the appellant had been under his treatment for almost 5  weeks and the burnt area around the firearm injury had been  removed by him.  The prosecution also placed reliance on the  statement of ASI Jasbir Singh PW11 who had accompanied  Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh PW14 to the place of incident and  supported the recoveries made from the spot. 5.              The prosecution case was then put to the accused and  his statement recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.   In  reply to question 33 he stated as under:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

       \023I am innocent.  I have been implicated falsely  in this case.  I was treating Mukhtiar Kaur as my  daughter and loved her as my daughter.  False  allegations have been levelled against me.  I never  harassed Mukhtiar Kaur nor ever got her land  mutated from her mother by fraud.  I have not  killed Mukhtiar Kaur.  Mother of Mukhtiar Kaur  got the land mutated by her own free will and  Mukhtiar Kaur had no dispute about it. Balwinder  Singh her husband was addicted to vices and used  to beat her due to which she used to remain under  depression and sick generally, and used to come to  me as my daughter. My house (kothi) is situated  on the outer skirts of village Bangawali and door  (planks) had not been fixed so far to rooms.  Some  body suddenly came and fired at me.  I fell down  on the ground and became unconscious.   Therefore, I could not see what had happened to  Mukhtiar Kaur as she was in other room.  Later on  I came to know that some body had fired at her  and she died.  I regained consciousness in  hospital.  The story of rape by me with her has  been fabricated by her husband as he is inimical  towards me.  Even I do not know who took me to  hospital.  I have been implicated in this case  falsely.\024  

       The trial court and the High Court relying on the  circumstances available on the evidence convicted and  sentenced the appellant, as already mentioned above. 6.              Mr. Goburdhan, the learned counsel for the accused  has raised several arguments in the course of hearing.  He has  pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest  that Mukhtiar Kaur had been subjected to rape and in this view  of the matter the very basis for the imposition of the death  penalty was not made out.  He has also pointed out that there  were no eye witnesses to the incident and the 4 witnesses i.e.  Jora Singh and others who had reached the place of incident  and carried the injured appellant to the hospital had also  resiled and as the prosecution story now rested on  circumstantial evidence alone, it was imperative for the  investigating officer to have taken the finger prints from the  weapon and that in any case the recovery of the spent  cartridges and the gun were clearly suspicious as the weapon  had been sent to the laboratory after an inordinate  delay.  It  has also been submitted that in a case of attempted suicide a  firearm must of necessity be used from a very close range and    the absence of any blackening, charring or burning around the  wound on Ujjagar Singh clearly ruled out the possibility of such  an attempt.  It has finally been submitted that the land had  been transferred in the name of Ujjagar Singh\022s sons in the year  1994 by Gurmail Kaur, mother of Mukhtiar Kaur by a collusive  decree and there was no evidence to show that Mukhtiar Kaur  had ever displayed any unhappiness or made any complaint to  any person or any authority with regard to the decree and as  such, the very basis of the prosecution story did not exist. 7.              The learned State counsel has, however, supported the  judgment of the courts below.  He has further emphasized that  the prosecution\022s case stood proved from various factors  including the medical evidence, the reports of the Forensic  Science Laboratory, the Chemical Examiner, from the post- mortem reports and the recovery of the gun and cartridges. 8.              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and  gone through the record.  We first take up for consideration the  question of the conviction under section 376 of the IPC.  We

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

find from the medical evidence and from the chemical  examiner\022s reports that the vaginal swab and clothes taken from  the dead body did indicate the presence of semen.  There is  however absolutely no evidence to suggest (even assuming that  the intercourse had been committed by the appellant) that he  had done so without Mukhtiar Kaur\022s consent or against her  will.  Some suspicions of rape could perhaps have been raised  had some tell tale injuries been detected on Mukhtiar Kaur\022s  person but we find that the two injuries other than the gun shot  wounds i.e. injury No.3 being on the left pinna and No. 4 an  abrasion near the right eye do not indicate any attempt to rape  or the commission of rape.   It is also significant that the  investigators had made no attempt whatsoever to have the  appellant medically examined to ascertain his capacity to  perform sexual intercourse.  The learned State counsel relying  on the statement of PW14 Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh has  however submitted that the examination had not been possible  as the appellant had received a very serious gun shot injury and  was hanging between life and death.  We agree with the  submission of the learned counsel that an examination could  not have been carried out immediately but we see no  justification in the omission of the prosecution to have him  examined after he had recovered his health and been  discharged from hospital.  We are further of the opinion that  even assuming for a moment that sexual intercourse between  the two had indeed taken place it cannot be said from the  evidence before us that it was without the consent or against  the wishes of Mukhtiar Kaur.   We, therefore, find that Ujjagar  Singh\022s conviction under section 376 of the IPC cannot be  sustained. 9.              Mr. Goburdhan has placed great emphasis on the fact  that as the four witnesses who had reached the place of  incident i.e. Jora Singh, Satnam Singh, Gurdeep Singh and  Kulwant Singh had resiled from their statements and had  disowned their initial stories, the prosecution had of necessity  to rely on circumstantial evidence and if the chain of  circumstances remained incomplete or even if one link in the  chain was broken, the prosecution must fail.  He has also relied  on the judgment of  Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra  (2002) 7 SCC 543  to contend that it was open to the accused to  take advantage (insofar as possible) from the statement of a  witness though declared hostile and the four witnesses having  disowned the prosecution story and having given a different  version, the appellant was entitled to derive such benefit as  possible in this situation.                                                      10.     The learned State counsel has, however, emphasized  that both the trial court and the High Court had for good  reasons opined that the circumstances made out a case for  conviction and the accused having given a counter version some  obligation lay on him as well to explain the circumstances  against him inasmuch that admittedly he and the victim were  alone in the house at the time of the incident.     Reliance for  this argument has been placed on the decision of Raj Kumar  Prasad Tamarkar v. State of Bihar & Anr. 2007(1) SCALE 19       . 11.     We have considered their arguments very carefully. In   Mahmood v. State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 542 it has been  observed that in a case dependent wholly on circumstantial  evidence the court must be satisfied \026 (a)     that the circumstances from which the inference of  guilt is to be drawn, have been fully established by  unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt; (b)     that the circumstances are of  a determinative  tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the  accused; and  (c)     that the circumstances, taken collectively, are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

incapable of explanation on any reasonable  hypothesis save that of the guilt sought to be proved  against him.

In this case this Court held that the omission of the  prosecution, inter-alia, to have the finger prints found on the  alleged murder weapon was fatal to the prosecution story.  In  1984 (4) SCC 116 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of  Maharashtra, this Court discussed the ratio of the judgments in  Hanumant v. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343, Tufail (Alias)  Simmi v. State of U.P. (1969) 3 SCC 198 and Ramgopal v. State  of Maharashtra (1972) 4 SCC 625 and Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade  v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 and observed thus:                         \023A close analysis of this decision would show  that the following conditions must be fulfilled before  a case against an accused can be said to be fully  established:

(1)     the circumstances from which the  conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be  fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the  circumstances concerned \021must or should\022 and not  \021may be\022 established.  There is not only a grammatical  but a legal distinction between \021may be proved\022 and  \023must be or should be proved\024 as was held by this  Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of  Maharashtra where the following observations were  made : [SCC para 19,p.807 : SCC (cri) p.1047]

               Certainly, it is a primary principle that the  accused must be and not merely may be guilty before  a court can convict and the mental distance between  \021may be\022 is long and divides vague conjectures from  sure conclusions.

(2)     the facts so established should be consistent  only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the  accused, that is to say, they should not be  explainable on any other hypothesis except  that the accused is guilty,

(3)     the circumstances should be of a conclusive  nature and tendency,

(4)     they should exclude every possible  hypothesis except the one to be proved, and                                                       (5)      there must be a chain of evidence so  complete as not to leave any reasonable ground  for the conclusion consistent with the innocence  of the accused and must show that in all  human probability the act must have been done  by the accused.\024      

12.    Mr. Goburdhan has also cited  Mahmood v. State of  U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 542, Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of  Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC 35, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.  State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, Omwati (Smt) and Ors.  V. Mahendra Singh & Ors. (1998) 9 SCC 81, Sudama Pandey &  Ors. V. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 679, and R.R.Khanna  Reddy & Anr. V. State of A.P. (2006) 10 SCC 172  in support of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

his plea relating to the evaluation of circumstantial evidence.   These judgments have broadly followed the principles laid down  in the judgments referred to above and need not therefore be  dealt with us in extenso.  It must nonetheless be emphasized  that whether  a chain is complete or not would depend on the  facts of each case emanating from the evidence and no  universal yardstick should ever be attempted.  It is in this  background that we must examine the circumstances in the  present case. 13.     A few facts stand out from the prosecution story.  First,  the place of incident being adjoining rooms in the residential  house of the appellant and the fact that the alleged murder  weapon is his licensed DBBL gun is proved on record.  The  evidence also reveals that the appellant was living in the  premises along with his wife, mother and son, and two  daughters, who were studying outside the village, were frequent  visitors, but it is the admitted position that nobody but the  appellant and the deceased were present at the time of incident.   It is also clear from the evidence that the two spent cartridge  cases recovered, one from near Mukhtiar Kaur\022s dead body, and  the second from the right barrel of the gun lying near the  appellant had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory  which opined that one of the cartridges had been fired from the  gun and the other could have been fired therefrom.       14.     Mr. Goburdhan has, however, laid great emphasis on  the fact that no reference to the gun or cartridges had been  made in the inquest report and  that in any case the weapon  and the spent cartridges had been sent to the laboratory  belatedly.  We are of the opinion, however, that no adverse  inference can be drawn from either of these circumstances.  The  aforesaid articles had been carried to the Laboratory by  Constable Gopal Singh who in his affidavit dated 17th March  2003 deposed that he had first taken the articles to the  laboratory on 9th December 2002 but they had been returned by  the Director on the ground that the seals affixed thereon were  not of the requisite number and that after removing the  objections raised by the Director, the articles aforesaid had  been returned to the laboratory on 18th December 2002.  Gopal  Singh was cross-examined by the prosecution and but for some  inconsequential questions put to him with regard to the seals,  not even a suggestion was made that the aforesaid articles had  in any way been tampered with.  It is true, as contended,  that  in Column 22 of the inquest report which refers to the articles  found near the dead body, there is no reference to the spent  cartridges or the murder weapon but we find from a perusal of  the site plan Exh.PJJ prepared by the investigating officer  Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh PW14 on 10th November 2002  that the weapon is shown lying close to the place where the  appellant had been found unconscious and a spent cartridge  recovered from near the dead body of Mukhtiar Kaur. 15.     It has also been submitted by Mr. Goburdhan that there  appeared to be no motive for the incident as the story about  Mukhtiar Kaur\022s unhappiness about the transfer of land to the  sons of Ujjagar Singh sought to be proved by PW9 Balwinder  Singh and PW10 Karam Singh had been disbelieved by the High  Court with the observation that the statements of these two  witnesses could not be relied upon. It is true that in a case  relating to circumstantial evidence motive does assume great  importance but to say that the absence of motive would dislodge  the entire prosecution story is perhaps giving this one factor an  importance which is not due and (to use the clichi) the motive  is in the mind of the accused and can seldom be fathomed with  any degree of accuracy.  There is however a hint in the  testimony of PW14 Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh that his  enquiries had revealed that the accused was having illicit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

relations with Mukhtiar Kaur and we can assume that some  thing untoward had happened which could have triggered the  volatile and hostile incident.  There could perhaps be some  truth in this suggestion, as it is significant that though the  appellant had an extended family living with him i.e. mother,  wife, son living (in the village) and two young daughters who  were studying outside and residing in a hostel, but were  frequent visitors home, yet none of them has come forth to  depose in his favour.  To our mind, therefore, this is yet another  circumstance inculpating the accused. 16.     Mr. Goburdhan has also laid much stress on the  apparent discordance between the prosecution story and the  medical evidence and has argued that had the accused  attempted to commit suicide, the gun shot must, of necessity,  had to be fired from a very close range on which the wound  would have marks of burning or charring and that in any event  a full blooded shot from a very close range would have torn his  face apart.  He has in this connection referred us to the  statement of Dr. Ripan Miglani PW15 and the wound found on  the appellant at the time of his medical examination in the  Department of Surgery of the Dayanand Medical College &  Hospital, Ludhiana which was           \023About 15 x 8 cm curvilinear wound present  on the left half of face extending upto bone.  No  blackening or foreign body was visible.  Underlying  muscles were exposed and contamination was  present.\024       17.     He has thus urged that the absence of any blackening  underlined the argument that the shot had been fired from  some distance and as such an attempt at suicide was clearly to  be ruled out.  He has also drawn our attention to the cross- examination of the Doctor wherein he reiterated that there was  no visible blackening and that it was not possible for him to say  whether the injury was suicidal or otherwise.  The learned State  counsel has, however, relied on the statement of PW16 Dr.  Sanjay Uppal, who was apparently the first doctor to have  examined the appellant, wherein he clearly testified that the  blackened portion around the firearm injury had been removed  by him.   We are therefore of the opinion that this statement  falsifies Mr. Goburdhan\022s argument on this aspect.  It is also  significant that the shot had apparently travelled upwards  skirting the mandible, through the flesh of the cheek in an  upward direction with minimal damage to the bone structure  and it is indeed providential that the appellant got away with  only an injury, albeit a very serious one.  The fact that the shot  was fired from below going upwards is also supported by the  site plan Exh.PJJ wherein marks of a shot hitting the roof were  seen at point E whereas the appellant was found lying at point  D in the same room.  It is therefore apparent that the weapon  had indeed been fired by the appellant from a close range and  that the blackened portion around the wound had been  removed by Dr. Sanjay Uppal. 18.     The learned State counsel has emphasized that in the  light of the admitted position that the accused and the deceased  were the only ones present at the time of incident and that the  accused had projected a counter story, some credible  explanation was also expected from him.  Reference has been  made to Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar\022s case (supra) wherein in  circumstances surprisingly akin to the present matter, this  Court had the following observations to make:                 \023The conspectus of the events which had  been noticed by the learned Sessions Judge as also by  the High Court categorically go to show that at the  time when the occurrence took place, the deceased

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

and the respondent only were in the bedroom and the  terrace connecting the same.  There was no other  person.  The cause of death of the deceased Usha Devi  i.e. by a gun shot injury is not disputed.  The fact that  the terrace and the bedroom are adjoining each other  is not in dispute.         The autopsy report shows that \021a blackening  and charring\022 existed so far as Injury No.(i) is  concerned.  The blackening and charring keeping in  view the nature of the firearm, which is said to have  been used clearly go to show that a shot was fired from  a short distance.  Blackening or charring is possible  when a shot is fired from a distance of about 2 feet to  3 feet.  It, therefore, cannot be a case where the death  might have been caused by somebody by firing a shot  at the deceased from a distance of more than 6 feet.   The place of injury is also important.  The lacerated  wound was found over grabella (middle of forehead).  It  goes a long way to show that the same must have been  done by a person who wanted to kill the deceased from  a short distance.  There was, thus a remote possibility  of causation of such type of injury by any other  person, who was not in the terrace.  Once the  prosecution has been able to show that at the relevant  time, the room and terrace were in exclusive  occupation of the couple, the burden of proof lay upon  the respondent to show under what circumstances  death was caused to his wife.  The onus was on him.   He failed to discharge the same.\024          19.     We have considered the submission of the State counsel  very carefully.  It is true that it is generally for the prosecution  to prove its case beyond doubt but in circumstances such as  the present one, some explanation is also due from an accused  in order to absolve himself from suspicion of the crime.  In his  statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.  his positive stand  was that he alone had been in the house with Mukhtiar Kaur  when she had been killed and indeed as per Exhibit P.JJ  Mukhtiar Kaur\022s body had been found only one Karam (5 feet)  away from the place where the appellant lay injured.  It must be  emphasized that but for this self serving statement made by the  appellant, there is nothing on record to support his positive  stance.  Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that had the shot  been fired by some intruder, the direction would have been  more or less horizontal and parallel to the ground and not from  down upwards with the pellets hitting the jaw, skirting the  cheek and hitting the roof at point E.  In Modi\022s Medical  Jurisprudence and Toxicology (23rd Edition) at page 765 while  dealing with identification of homicidal and suicidal injuries it  has been observed that :         \023A suicidal firearm wound is usually a contact  wound situated on the side of the temple, depending on  which hand was used to shoot himself, in the centre of  the forehead, the roof of the mouth, in the chest or  epigastrium in front or the left side and some times  under the chin. The firearm is usually fired at close  range.  A small weapon like a revolver or a pistol is held  in the hand, while a rifle or a shot gun is supported on  the ground or against the wall.  Sometimes, the firing is  done by pulling a string tied to the trigger by the big toe.   The skin around the entry wound shows characteristic  blackening, scorching and tattooing. In such cases the  hand used to steady the weapon at the muzzle may be  blackened and scorched and may also be stained with  squirting of the blood from the injured arteries.               

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

       In homicidal and accidental shooting, the wound  may be on any part of the body and the path of the  bullet may be in any direction.  Homicidal shooting by  dacoits is not uncommon in India, and they are known  to make their own firearms.  Immediate death following  a firearm wound is uncommon and even when vital  organs are injured, a person may be capable of doing  extraordinary things.  Sometimes, firearm wounds may  look like knife slashes or a bullet hole may resemble a  penetrating stab wound, if the bullet strikes the head of  shoulder at an angle or when an unstable bullet  registers a broadside hit.  A Fateh describes a rare  homicidal gun shot wound of the mouth, where the  entry wound was in the tongue and the direction was  horizontally backward, while in suicidal wounds the  direction is upwards\027entrance would be in the palate  or posterior pharynx.\024            20.     Dr. B.R.Sharma in his Book \021Forensic Science in  Criminal Investigation and Trials\022 (Fourth Edition), at Page 1160  too has delineated the circumstances that could indicate  suicide and while referring to the site of the injury has  observed: \023Certain sites are predominantly used by suicides  for self-inflicted injuries.  For example, with firearm,  temple,forehead,mouth and chest are the favourite  sites.  With knife throat and wrist are the favourite  sites.  Hesitation injuries are also observed in some  suicide cases.\024       21.     It is, therefore, clear to us that the story of unknown  assailants entering the house and causing Mukhtiar Kaur\022s  murder etcetera has to be ruled out and that the prosecution  story that it was the appellant who had first shot Mukhtiar  Kaur and then attempted to commit suicide, stands proved.    We also find that no part of the evidence of the hostile witnesses  comes to the aid of the appellant. 22.     The question now arises as to the sentence that should  be imposed on the appellant.  It would be seen that both the  Sessions Court and the High Court were appalled by the  allegations and findings of incestuous rape and murder.  We are  however of the opinion, as already noted above, that a case of  rape has not been made out.   In this background the death  sentence is not called for.  We accordingly acquit the appellant  of the charge under section 376 of the IPC but maintain his  conviction for the other offences but commute his death  sentence to life.       23. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.