JUDGMENT 1. These appeals arise from the judgment dated July 12, 1972, by which the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar convicted the accused Niranjan Singh under section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and convicted him under section 336 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment and also convicted him under section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and directed all the sentences to run concurrently. The appellant filed an appeal from the jail which is No. 689/1972 and another appeal was filed by his counsel which is No. 517/1972. 2. The case of the prosecution which has been substantially stated by the trial court in its judgment briefly is as follows : 3. In the village of Debli Rathan there was one Kishan Singh, Grand father of Gurdev Singh (P. W. 1) and Gambhirsingh (deceased) who were the sons of Nazar Singh (P. W. 2). The accused was the other son of Kishan Singh. Chak No. 17 S. T. C. belonged to Kishan Singh measuring 33 bighas. Out of this land 15 bighas of land was cultivated by Nazar Singh and his sons. Some two years prior to July, 1971, the accused raised a dispute about this land. There was a Panchayat in this behalf and it was settled that the land should be in possession of Nazar Singh. In spite of this panchayat, the accused attempted to dislodge Nazar Singh and his sons from the land. Therefore there was enmity between the accused on the one hand and Nazar Singh and his sons on the other hand. On July 19, 1971 the accused accompanied by Kashiram went to the field of Nazar Singh and attempted to cultivate the same forcibly but he could not succeed. On July 19, 1971, the accused went near the house of Nazar Singh, armed with a gun and fired shots towards the house. Harnam Singh (PW3) who was looking after the harvest of rice of Nazar Singh remonstrated and challenged him whereupon he left the place. Nazar Singh and his son Gurudevsingh went to the house of Lekh Ram (P. W. 6) Sarpanch of the village to inform about the incident. Harnam Singh (PW3) who was looking after the harvest of rice of Nazar Singh remonstrated and challenged him whereupon he left the place. Nazar Singh and his son Gurudevsingh went to the house of Lekh Ram (P. W. 6) Sarpanch of the village to inform about the incident. Lakh Ram was not in the house and therefore these two persons were returning back to their house at about 5 - 5.30 P. M. When they came near the Bus Stand at about 5.00 P. M. they saw accused following Gambhir Singh from behind. Soon thereafter the accused challenged Gambhirsingh, thereupon Gambhirsingh began to run towards the hospital. The accused then fired at Gambhirsingh from the gun (Art. 3) as a result of which Gambhirsingh sustained injuries and fell down and died shortly thereafter. Gurudevsingh and Nazarsingh came to the spot running and by then Lekhram (P. W.6) also came there. They found Gambhirsingh dead. Gurdevsingh went to the police station of Hanumangarh and lodged the complaint (Ex. P 1) at 7.15 P. M. on the same evening. Lalchand (P. W. 7) who was the S. H. O. registered a case against the accused. He came to the spot by about 8,30 P.M. On the spot he found empty catridge (Art. 9) and he seized the same. On the next day he arrested the accused and recovered from his possession the gun (Art. 8) and two live catridges and two empty cartridges. Dr. Roop Singh (P. W. 9) held autopsy of the dead body and found three gun shot injuries. He opined that the death was due to extensive laceration of brain and fracture of skull bones. 4. The prosecution in support of its case mainly relied upon the direct testimony of Gurdevsingh and Nazarsingh and to some extent on the evidence of Lekhram (P. W .6). The evidence of Gurdevsingh and Nazarsingh clearly establishes that it was the accused who shot at Gambhirsingh. Their evidence has been assailed on the ground that they were chance and interested witnesses. We do not find any substance in this contention. It is the evidence of Harnamsingh that shortly before the incident the accused had gone near the house of Nazarsingh and fired at his house. When Harnamsingh remonstrated, the accused went away from there. Their evidence has been assailed on the ground that they were chance and interested witnesses. We do not find any substance in this contention. It is the evidence of Harnamsingh that shortly before the incident the accused had gone near the house of Nazarsingh and fired at his house. When Harnamsingh remonstrated, the accused went away from there. It is thereafter that Gurdevsingh and Nazarsingh who wear inside the house went to the house of Lekhram to inform him about the incident. The evidence of Lekhram shows that at the relevant point of time he was not in the house. These two witnesses were resuming back to the house and on the way they saw the accused firing at Gambhirsingh from the gun (Art. 8). These two witnesses cannot be characterised as chance witnesses. It is no doubt true that these two are interested witnesses. When once their presence is proved satisfactorily, on the mere ground that they are interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be rejected. An examination of the evidence of Lekhram, who was the Sarpanch of the village and an independent witness, clearly establishes that both Gurdevsingh and Nazarsingh were present neat Gambhirsingh who had fallen on the ground due to injuries. His evidence is that he was coming from his field which is nearby to the village and when he came neat the bus stand he heard the sound of the gun shot and when he turned that side, he saw the accused standing near Gambhirsingh who was lying in the road and Gurdevsingh and Nazarsingh standing nearby. It is, therefore, clear that at the time of the incident both Gurdevsingh and Nazarsingh must have been present. Lalchand (P. W. 7) has further stated that he went to the spot and came to know from Gurdevsingh and Nazarsingh that it was the accused that shot at Gambhirsingh. The evidence of these witnesses establishes the complicity of the accused. 5. However, the learned counsel for the accused relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (A. I. R. 1953 S. C. 415) contended that the prosecution have failed to establish that gun (Art. 8) was the one used by the accused for the commission of the offence. 5. However, the learned counsel for the accused relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (A. I. R. 1953 S. C. 415) contended that the prosecution have failed to establish that gun (Art. 8) was the one used by the accused for the commission of the offence. According to him there is no satisfactory evidence that the empty cartridge (Art. 9) which were seized from the spot on the same day were sent to the ballistic expert. The Sub Inspector of Police has no doubt stated that he did not remember whether he or some one else in he police had sent the cartridge to the ballistic expert. From that alone it cannot said that this was not the cartridge that were sent to the ballistic expert received the cartridge in a sealed packet and stated that the seal was intact. In Mohinder Singh's case, the Supreme Court has pointed out that in a case where death was due to injuries or wounds by a lethal weapon, it is always the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with weapon used and the manner in which they were alleged to have been caused. It is elementary that where the prosecution has a definite or positive case, it must prove the whole of the case. 6. In this case the gun was recovered from the possession of the accused on the next day. He had a licence to possess the gun. There is the evidence that the empty cartridge (Art. 9) was lying at the scene of the occurrence and the evidence of the ballistic expert is that the empty cartridge found at the scene of occurrence had been fired by the gun in question. 7. The direct evidence conclusively establishes the complicity of the accused. Therefore we see no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed against the accused. The appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******