L.S. MEHTA, J.—By his judgment,dated 13-6-1967 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar, convicted the accused Milawa Singh under sec. 302, I.P.C., and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He was further convicted under sec. 307, I.P.C., and was sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine he was required to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also convicted under sec. 379, I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly narrated the prosecution version is that D. W. 6 Zinda Singhs daughter was to be married on June 3, 1966. A marriage party arrived from Jhiwana to the village Paijpur, wherein Zinda Singh resided. The party reached Paijpur at about 4 p. m. It stayed at Baryam Singhs house, situate near the residence of Zinda Singh. After taking dinner Balbir Singh, Joginder Singh, Govind Singh, Dalbir Singh and Bishan Singh sat in the courtyard on a cot Kishan Singh and Ram Singh took their meals on another cot lying nearby. Kishan Singh was having a 12 bore double barrel gun. Accused Milawa Singh son of Labh Singh, resident of Barla came there. He lifted Kishan Singhs gun, lying on the cot. Thereafter he took out two cartridges from his pocket with which he loaded the gun. Milawa Singh then aimed the gun towards Bishan Singh alias Bicchu Singh and fired it at him. In the meantime Bishan Singh had to lower his head to lift a tumbler of water. He, therefore, escaped the impact of the gun shot. Joginder Singh, who was sitting just behind Bishen Singh, was struck by the gun-shot. He died instantaneously. Milawa Singh then took to his heel with the gun. Ram Singh, Bishen Singh and Kishan Singh pursued him, but he could not be overtaken. It is alleged that there existed antagonism between Milawa Singh and Bishan Singh. Bishen Singh, P. W. 4, had been arrested by the Police, Ramgarh. in a Mubarakpur theft case. He was taken to the Police Station, Kishangarh. There he disclosed that Resham Singh, Lacchman Singh and Rehman were also co-accused in the case. Laechman Singh and Resham Singh were the brothers of the accused Milawa Singh. In pursuance of his information, Resham Singh and Lacchman Singh were taken into custody by the Police. Certain stolen property was recovered from their possession. There he disclosed that Resham Singh, Lacchman Singh and Rehman were also co-accused in the case. Laechman Singh and Resham Singh were the brothers of the accused Milawa Singh. In pursuance of his information, Resham Singh and Lacchman Singh were taken into custody by the Police. Certain stolen property was recovered from their possession. In the Central Jail, Alwar, in which Bishan Singh was confined, Milawa Singh, along with his father Labh Singh, came to meet his brothers. The accused Milawa Singh told Bishen Singh that as he had disclosed the names of his brothers, he would shoot him dead soon after he was released from jail Bishen Singh further told the police that Lachhman Singh, brother of the accused Milawa Singh and Avtar Singh, his uncle, had committed the murder of some Baniya. On his information the accused persons had been arrested in the murder case. That case is still sub-judice. Bishen Singh also went from his village Barla to Paijpur on June 3, 1965, to participate in the marriage ceremony of Zinda Singhs daughter. The accused saw him there in the house of Baryam Singh and wanted to hit him with a shot. On receipt of first information report, lodged by Gurmukh Singh, P.W. 1, at the Police Station, Kishangarh, District Alwar, on June 4, 1966, at 5 p. m., a case was registered under sec. 302, I. P. C, and investigation followed. Dr. A. N. Das, P. W. 7, Medical Officer, Incharge Primary Health Centre, Bas Kirpalnagar, conducted autopsy of the dead body of Joginder Singh at 4 p. m. Following injuries were noticed on his person : Infernal—(1) Plurae were healthy excepting for a few small penetrating injuries at the upper lobe of the left lung area; (2) Left lung was healthy except for a small perforating injuries at the upper lobe of the left lung. Pieces of bones and 20 pellets were recovered from the upper part of the left lung, along with the pieces of cartridge cover. (3) Large vessels were healthy except pieces of aortic walls inside the big vessels were present. Firm yellowish clots were present. They were elastic in nature. External—An oval lacerated type of penetrating injury on the upper part of sternum 2-1/2" x 1-1/4" with a slight inclination directed upwards and to the left. The margin of the wound was inverted. There was slight blackening of the skin. Firm yellowish clots were present. They were elastic in nature. External—An oval lacerated type of penetrating injury on the upper part of sternum 2-1/2" x 1-1/4" with a slight inclination directed upwards and to the left. The margin of the wound was inverted. There was slight blackening of the skin. Yellowish firm clots were present in the wound. The cause of death, according to the Doctor, was shock and haemorrhage and injury to vital organs, as a result of the homicidal gun shot injury, fired from a distance of about 6 feet. The injury was ante-mortem in nature. P.W.9 Ramdan, Station House Officer, Kishangarh, investigated the case. He went to the spot at about 7 a.m. on June 4, 1966. He prepared inquest report Ex. P. 2 and site plan Ex. P.5. He sent certain articles, seized on the spot, to the Chemical Examiner, Jaipur. Kishan Singh produced a 12 bore gun Ex.6 at the Police Station, Kishangarh. Kishan Singh got this gun along with a live cartridge and a fired cartridge from the mother of the accused, Mst. Matto Bai, D.W.I, in his absence. After requisite investigation, the police challaned the accused Milawa Singh in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kishangarh, under Ss. 302 and 379, I.P.C. The said Magistrate conducted committal proceedings in accordance with S. 207-A, Cr.P.C., and committed the accused to the court of Sessions Judge, Alwar, where from the case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge of the place. The trial court charged the accused under sec. 302, 307 and 379, I.P.C., to which he pleaded not guilty. In support of its case the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. In his statement recorded under sec. 342, Cr.P.C., the accused pleaded alibi. He further stated that Paltu, Kishan Singh, Govind Singh, and Gurmukh Singh had taken wine at Jiwana. Thereafter a quarrel ensued in between Gurmukh Singh on the one side and the accused and his brother, owing to which relations between the two became strained. The accused further depos-ed that Bishen Singh had committed a dacoity at Beroz and had absconded. He and his father Labh Singh helped the police in securing his arrest. Therefore, Bishen Singh falsely implicated him. In support of his defence he produced 6 witnesses. The accused further depos-ed that Bishen Singh had committed a dacoity at Beroz and had absconded. He and his father Labh Singh helped the police in securing his arrest. Therefore, Bishen Singh falsely implicated him. In support of his defence he produced 6 witnesses. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar, relying upon the prosecu-tion evidence and discarding the testimony of the defence witnesses and plea of the culprit, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Milawa Singh was not present on the scene of the occurrence in connection with the marriage of D.W.6 Zinda Singhs daughter. His alternative argument is that even if it is held that he was present there, the gun went off accidentally and was not fired intentionally. His further argument is that firing at 8 p.m at the place where the Barat party was staying was improbable, unless the accused desired to be hanged thereafter. In support of his argument he relied upon Shivnath Singh vs. The State(l). His another line of argument is that it is odd that the accused should come to murder Bishen Singh unarmed and would pick up the gun of Kishansingh and then would venture to kill Bishen Singh. He adverted to the observations of this Court reported in Ram Deo vs. State of Rajasthan(2). His last contention was that important and material witnesses, e.g. Balbir Singh, Ram Singh and Dalbir Singh have been purposely withheld by the prosecution. Therefore, presumption under illustration(g) to S. 114, Evidence Act, should be drawn against the prosecution. He cited Habeeb Mohammed vs. State of Hyderabad(3). He also placed reliance upon Stephen Seneviratne vs. The King(4) to strengthen his argument. Learned Deputy Government Advocate supported by and large the judgment of the court below. 4. In this case there are 4 eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.I, who lodged the first information report Ex P 1; Govind Singh, P.W.3; Bishen Singh alias Bicchu Singh. P.W.4; and Kishan Singh, P.W.8. Gurmukh Singh, P.W. 1, has stated that he participated in the marriage ceremony of Zinda Singhs daughter. He was sitting on a cot at about 8 p.m., on June 3, 1966, at the residence of Baryam Singh in village Paijpur, where the marriage party was staying. Joginder Singh and Dalbir Singh were sitting on one cot; whereas Ram Singh and Kishan Singh on the other. He was sitting on a cot at about 8 p.m., on June 3, 1966, at the residence of Baryam Singh in village Paijpur, where the marriage party was staying. Joginder Singh and Dalbir Singh were sitting on one cot; whereas Ram Singh and Kishan Singh on the other. Milawa Singh came there. A gun was lying on the cot, where Kishan Singh kept sitting. The accused lifted that gun. He loaded it with the cartridges which he had taken out from pocket and then aimed the weapon at Bishen Singh. Meanwhile Bishen Singh had to lower his head to lift a drinking glass. Luckily he escaped the aim of the gunfire. The bullet, however, hit Joginder Singh, who was sitting behind Bishen Singh, culminating in his death. The accused made good his escape along with the gun. Ram Singh, Kishan Singh and Bicchu Singh chased the accused, but they could not catch hold of him. He lodged first information Ex. P. 1 at the police station, Kishangarh, Jcginder Singh was, no doubt, the god-brother of the witness, but he is not related to Bishen Singh and Kishan Singh in any manner. He has plainly deposed that there is no quarrel whatever between him and Milawa Singh. The trial court, which recorded the statement of this witness and watched his demeanour, completely relied upon his narration. There is no reason why a contrary view should be taken in the matter. 5. P.W. 3 Govind Singh has testified to the fact that Bicchu Singh alias Bishan Singh, Balbir Singh, Joginder Singh, Dalbir Singh and himself were sitting on one cot in the house of Baryam Singh, where the marriage party was staying. Kishan Singh and Ram Singh were seated on another cot. Kishan Singhs double barrel gun was lying on the cot, occupied by him. Milawa Singh came there. He picked up the gun of Kishen Singh, took out two cartridges from his pocket and after loading the gun he aimed and fired it at Bishen Singh By chance, Bishen Singh put down his head to a drinking glass. He thus providentially escaped the hit. The bullet, however, hit the chest of Joginder Singh, who was sitting behind Bishen Singh. Thereafter accused ran away with the gun. Ram Singh, Kishan Singh and Bicchu Singh pursued the accused, but he could not be apprehended. On their demand Mst. He thus providentially escaped the hit. The bullet, however, hit the chest of Joginder Singh, who was sitting behind Bishen Singh. Thereafter accused ran away with the gun. Ram Singh, Kishan Singh and Bicchu Singh pursued the accused, but he could not be apprehended. On their demand Mst. Matto Bai, D. W. 1, handed over the gun along with some cartridges, to them in the absence of the accused. Despite lengthy cross-examination learned counsel for the accused could not wreck or smash his testimony. The witness is married to the niece of Kishan Singh, but from this it cannot be inferred that he would foist surreptitiously a false crime against the accused. 6. Bishen Singh, P.W. 4, corroborates in material particulars the statements of the aforesaid two witnesses. Besides, he has pointed out that as he had unfolded to the police the names of Resham Singh and Lacchman Singh, brothers of the accused, in a certain theft case and as he had also given out the names of Lacchman Singh, brother of the accused, and Avtar Singh, bis uncle, in a certain murder case, the culprit bore enmity against him. In the Central Jail, Alwar, when he had come along with his father Labh Singh, he had been threatened with his life after his release. He has positively stated in the course of his cross-examination that it is not a fact that the gun went off accidentally. There is no material in his cross-examination, whereby any doubt or suspicion may be cast on his testimony. The witness, besides subscribing to the prosecution version, furnishes evidence for motive for the perpetration of the crime. 7. Kishan Singh, P. W. 8, says that he took part in the marriage ceremony of Zinda Singhs daughter. He came with the bridegroom from Jiwana to Paizpur. He brought a gun with him. He put it on his cot, on which he was sitting and when he was talking to Bishensingh, Milawasingh held up his gun. He took out two cartridges from his pocket and loaded the gun. He fired it towards Bishen Singh. Bishansingh had to bend down his head to lift a glass of water. The bullet passed over his head, but then struck Joginder Singh, who was sitting behind Bishensingh. The bullet struck against the chest of Joginder Singh, who died instantaneously. He took out two cartridges from his pocket and loaded the gun. He fired it towards Bishen Singh. Bishansingh had to bend down his head to lift a glass of water. The bullet passed over his head, but then struck Joginder Singh, who was sitting behind Bishensingh. The bullet struck against the chest of Joginder Singh, who died instantaneously. The witness, Bishen Singh and Ram Singh attempted to capture the accused, but he could not be overtaken. The witness and Govind Singh went to the house of the accused and related the whole incident to Matto Bai, D. W. 1, and demanded the gun from her. She told the witness that the accused Milawa Singh had left the gun there. The witness then took the gun from the mother of the accused along with a live cartridge and an empty cartridge, available in the gun-chamber. The gun Ex. 6 and the cartridges were made over to the Station House Officer. Bishen Singh is the real brother of Kishan Singh, but the witness in the course of his cross-examination has positively asserted that there was no dispute between Milawasingh and his brother Resham Singh, on the one side, and Bishen Singh on the other. At any rate, there is no material in the cross-examination to suggest that Kishan Singh had had any enmity against the accused on the basis of which he would make a false statement. 8. Prom the above evidence it is manifest that this is not a case of accidental firing. From the statement of Bishen Singh it is plain that the accused Milawa Singh had a settled feeling of hatred against him, as the witness had named his brothers and other relations of the accused in a theft case and in a murder charge. The accused might not have been armed with any weapon at the initial stage, but when he saw his deadly foe sitting on a cot at Baryam Singhs residence unarmed, he found it a golden opportunity to wreak vengeance on him, particularly when he was in a position to avail himself of the service of a gun lying nearby. He raised the gun, took out two cartridges from his pocket and after loading the weapon aimed and fired it at Bishen Singh. 9. We have gone through the statements of the defence witnesses. He raised the gun, took out two cartridges from his pocket and after loading the weapon aimed and fired it at Bishen Singh. 9. We have gone through the statements of the defence witnesses. We associate ourselves with the views of the trial court that their testimony pertaining to alibi carries no weight. D. W. 1 Matto Bai, mother of the accused, admits that she attended the marriage of the daughter of Zinda Singh. It is, therefore, not expected of her to say positively whether Milawa Singh was present at her house at the crucial moment. D. W. 2 Hardutta Singh, uncle-in-law of Milawa Singh, says that the persons who attended the marriage party took wine and that he heard a gun fire inside the room. The witness saw Jogindra Singh lying injured. The witness further points out that he did not see Milawa Singh during the day time. He does not furnish any useful material to rebut the prosecution story. Dalmour D. W. 3 testifies that in the month of the last Baisakh the accused was on the thrashing floor, situate just near his thrashing floor. The police arrived at the spot at about 12 in the noon and arrested the accused. His evidence is also not of any consequence whatever. Resham Singh, D. W. 4 says that he cannot specify the month when the accused was taken away by the police from the thrashing ground, nor is he in a position to name the police constable, who arrested the accused. Similarly, Dona Singh, D.W.5, deposes that Kishan Singh pulled the trigger of the gun and the bullet hit Joginder Singh, who breathed his last on the spot and that the accused was not present when the trigger of the gun was pulled by Kishan Singh. It is not the defence of the accused that it was Kishan Singh, who fired at Joginder Singh. Therefore, his evidence is of little consequence. Similarly, Zinda Singh, D. W. 6 says that he was present at the house of Baryam Singh for about 4 or 5 minutes, thereafter he went away. His evidence is of no value whatever. 10. The defence of alibi being put up as the first line of defence inmost criminal cases has fallen into disrepute and is often characterised as a well worn defence. His evidence is of no value whatever. 10. The defence of alibi being put up as the first line of defence inmost criminal cases has fallen into disrepute and is often characterised as a well worn defence. Courts have generally not considered the evidence of an alibi as convincing because of the ease with which the plea of alibi may be constructed. It is essential to the proof of alibi that it should cover the ground for the whole of the time of the transaction in question or at least so much of it as to render it impossible that the prisoner could have committed the imputed act; vide Wills Circumstantial Evidence Page 270-280. Here the evidence discussed above shows that the plea of alibi is unconvincing. 11. The two cases (supra) cited by learned counsel for the appellants are based on different facts and they do not furnish a guiding principle for the purpose of disposal of the case in hand. The accused after resorting to firing ran away from the place of the occurrence. Had the fire been accidental, there was hardly any need for him to take to his heels. His action suggests a guilty mind. The evidence that we have discussed is in complete harmony with the story setup by the prosecution. Under these circumstances, we are not prepared to hold that the prosecution story is not substantiated. 12. It is true that Balbir Singh, Dalbir Singh, and Ram Singh, who were present on the spot, were not produced by the prosecution during the course of the trial. Now the question is whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for the non-production of these witnesses. It is a fact that Balbir Singh, Dalbir Singh and Ram Singh were present on the spot. When a number of other eye-witnesses have been produced, there is no charm in producing and multiplying the number of the witnesses to testify the same fact. There is no obligation compelling the counsel for the prosecution to call for all the witnesses who spell out the same fact, which the prosecution wants to prove. Ultimately, it is a matter for the prosecution. There is no obligation compelling the counsel for the prosecution to call for all the witnesses who spell out the same fact, which the prosecution wants to prove. Ultimately, it is a matter for the prosecution. Though a court ought and, no doubt, will take into consideration the absence of witnesses, whose testimony could be accepted, it has to judge the evidence as a whole and arrive at its conclusion accordingly, taking into consideration the persuasiveness of the testimony given in the light of such circumstances as may be levelled at the absence of possible witnesses. These views are found in the judgments of the Privy Council reported in Adel Muhammed-El-Dabbah vs. Attorney General of Palestine(5), and Malak Khan vs. Emperor(6). There is thus no obligation on the prosecution to tender all the witnesses, who were not called to give evidence. The prosecution has a discretion as to what witnesses should be called and the court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion, unless it can be shown that the prosecution has been influenced by some oblique motive, No such suggestion has been made in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant cited Stephen Seneviratne vs. The King(4). In that case it has been observed by their Lordships of the Privy Council that it is a wrong idea that the prosecution must call witnesses irrespective of considerations of number and reliability or that it should discharge the functions both of prosecution and defence. If it does so, confusion is very apt to result, more specially so when the prosecution calls witnesses and proceeds automatically to discredit them by cross-examination. Witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative, on which the prosecution is based, must, of course, be called by the prosecution, whether in the result the effect of their testimony is for or against the case for the prosecution. This judgment simply says that witnesses to the unfolding of the narrative must be called by the prosecution. But that does not mean that the prosecution is duty bound to call all witnesses, irrespective of the consideration of the number or reliability to prove the same fact. Similarly, Habeeb Mohammed vs. State of Hyderabed(3) does not lay down the law that to prove the same fact witnesses irrespective of their number should be examined by the prosecution. But that does not mean that the prosecution is duty bound to call all witnesses, irrespective of the consideration of the number or reliability to prove the same fact. Similarly, Habeeb Mohammed vs. State of Hyderabed(3) does not lay down the law that to prove the same fact witnesses irrespective of their number should be examined by the prosecution. What their Lordships have pointed out is that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to examine the material witnesses. Habeeb Mohammed, who was Subedar of Warangal, (within the State of Hyderabad), resorted to firing in village Guntur at the orders of Biabani, a top ranking police officer present at the scene. Therefore, Biabani was a material witness in the case, but he was not produced in spite of an application made on behalf of the accused. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, therefore, held that an adverse inference arises against the prosecution case from his non-production as a witness in view of illustration(g) to sec. 114, Evidence Act, Habeeb Mohammed was considerably prejudiced in his defence by this omission on the part of the prosecution. But that is not the case here. Here, as many as four material eye-witnesses have been examined to prove the same fact and, therefore, there was hardly any necessity for examining more witnesses in relation to the same fact. In Bakhshish Singh vs. The State of Punjab(7). it has been laid down that if a witness is not essential to the unfolding of the narratives on which the prosecution is based and if after the examination the result would have been confusion and if no oblique reason for the non-production of a witness is alleged, least of all, proved, there is no legal obligation on the part of the prosecution to examine him. Under the circumstances, the court would not interfere with the discretion of the prosecutor as to what witnesses should be called for the prosecution and no adverse inference under sec. 114, Evidence Act, can be drawn against the State. 13. The trial court, in our opinion, kept in view all aspects of the matter and has rightly applied them to the circumstances of the case. Offence under sec. 302 I.P.C., therefore, stands fully proved against the accused. Since the accused has already been convicted for a major offence under sec. 114, Evidence Act, can be drawn against the State. 13. The trial court, in our opinion, kept in view all aspects of the matter and has rightly applied them to the circumstances of the case. Offence under sec. 302 I.P.C., therefore, stands fully proved against the accused. Since the accused has already been convicted for a major offence under sec. 302, I.P.C., the trial court fell in error in convicting him under secs, 307 and 379, I.P.C., on the same facts. Appellants conviction, therefore, under the last mentioned two sections has to be set aside. 14. In the result, we partly accept this appeal, acquit the accused of the offence under secs. 307 and 379, I. P. G., but maintain his conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life under sec. 302 I.P.C.