Judgment

The appellant is challenging in this appeal his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act recorded by Sessions Court, Patna in Sessions Case No. 86 of 1976 and confirmed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1976.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the evidence of eye-wit­nesses who have said that the deceased was hit on his back by the shot fired by the appellant. But P.W. 5 - Doctor Kalwar, who had performed post-mortem examination has deposed that entry wound was on the chest and the exit wound was on the back. Learned counsel submit­ted that the medical evidence clearly establishes that the assailant had fired a shot when the deceased was facing him and not when his back was towards the assailant, as deposed by the eye-witnesses. He submitted that in view of this inconsistency, the courts below ought not to have accepted their evidence.

3. This aspect was considered by the trial Court and also by the High Court and they have rightly rejected the same contention. The Doctor, who performed the post-mortem examination, as admitted that he had prepared the post-mortem report subsequently in his office on th