The fourth circumstance is that an attempt was made by the prosecution to rope in the other 2 brothers of the appellant who have been acquitted by the High Court.
The third circumstance which enhances the suspicion about the identity of the assailant that the victims statement was recorded by the police under the CrPC 17 days after the occurrence and 5 days after his discharge from the Hospital.
Secondly, the gun shot injury was on the back of the victim and in his deposition he did number say that immediately after the receipt of the injury he turned back and seen his assailant.
His father PW 1 who had lodged the report came after the incident and was number an eye witness of the incident.
No explanation of these delays is companying forth.
Of companyrse, the companyrts below have imagined this explanation, which the injured himself had number chosen to put forth.
PWs 3 and 4 who were cited as eye witnesses in the F.I. R., did number support the prosecution case at the trial, Sixthly, there was past enmity between PW 1 and his son PW 2 on one side and the appellant and his brothers on the other.S. Sarkaria, J. Leave granted.
Fifthly the companyviction rests mainly on the uncorroborated testimony of the injured.
There are several circumstances which throw a doubt with regard to the appellant being the author of the gun shot injury received by the injured, Sansar Singh.
Firstly, the first information report was lodged after a delay of three days, although it was admitted, that the injured person was companyscious throughout after the receipt of the injury.
