their deposition that they saw that the deceased was shot and got injuries, by which he was bleeding; and they took the deceased to hospital; but they did not get bloodstains on their clothes. That apart, the occurrence happened on 30.10.1997 at 9.45 p.m., however, source of light at the scene of crime was not mentioned in the FIR. Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 stated in their evidence that all the accused were armed with weapons in their hands, the FIR did not disclose as to which accused was in possession of which weapon and as to who shot the bullet. The fact of provoking and the fact of possession of the weapons by the accused persons were not mentioned in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., which were also accepted by the Investigating officer in his deposition. Thus, it was submitted that these discrepancies / inconsistencies / contradictions in the case of the prosecution falsify the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 qua involvement of the appellant in the crime.7 10.2. It