https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172259 Omission of some witnesses' names in the FIR, a witness's involvement in a counter-case, or non-examination of the investigating officer does not by itself justify rejection of otherwise credible prosecution evidence. Alleged medical and ocular inconsistency was also treated as insignificant where the prosecution version consistently suggested firing from a considerable distance. On the facts, a single gunshot from distance did not establish the intention required for murder under Section 302 IPC, so the offence was treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II, with corresponding liability of other accused depending on their role. en-us Tue, 07 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Sep 2025 11:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172259 Omission of some witnesses' names in the FIR, a witness's involvement in a counter-case, or non-examination of the investigating officer does not by itself justify rejection of otherwise credible prosecution evidence. Alleged medical and ocular inconsistency was also treated as insignificant where the prosecution version consistently suggested firing from a considerable distance. On the facts, a single gunshot from distance did not establish the intention required for murder under Section 302 IPC, so the offence was treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II, with corresponding liability of other accused depending on their role. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172259