16 Annapurna. From the document it appears that Govind was sent to the District Hospital with a forwarding letter that curiously has a note seeking opinion on whether the injury is self-inflicted. This directly contradicts the story of PW-29 that Rahul @ Govind had shouted and alerted the police that he was going to the District Hospital. 30. In terms of Ex. P104 Rahul had signed the spot map prepared on 19.06.2011 at 11:00 PM. However, it is also the case of the prosecution that Rahul was going to get his injured foot treated and was admitted in hospital during that time. It appears that Constable Dinesh took Rahul to the District Hospital and subsequently to MY Hospital. That constable has not been examined and no reasons for non-examination were given. Learned counsel submitted that there is no material about how Rahul went from District Hospital to the MY Hospital with a gunshot injury, or who took him from the District Hospital to MY Hospital and who conducted his x-ray. 31. It was next argued that as far as seizure memo of the right shoe is concerned, the memo (Ex. P75) was drawn at PS Annapurna at the behest of Abhay Tiwari, who too was not examined by the prosecution. This makes the contents of the document inadmissible. PW-20 Harbhajan Singh did not remember the logo on the shoe. He also did not depose as to which foot (left or right foot) did the shoe fit, or its size. He did not say whether it was a sports or leather shoe and also does not describe laces. PW-20 deposed that it was seized in his presence, however, he does not mention whether the same was sealed in front of him. PW-29 merely described that Abhay Tiwari found the shoe and it was contended that this was hearsay evidence. Importantly, there was no inquiry by the prosecution to prove that the seized shoe was even the same size as Rahul @ Govind’s. His foot size could have been measured under Sections 2(a) and 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 which was not done.