K. C. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) AGAINST the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur dated 23-12-76, given in Sessions Trial No. A-35 of 1975, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to life imprisonment, the present appeal has been preferred by Awadh Narain under Section 374, Criminal Procedure Code. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that the accused, Awadh Narain, was the Pattidar of Kedar Singh, deceased. Kedar Singh had a brother Shri Narain Singh who died leaving behind his three sons. Bechan Singh, Surendra Singh (P. W. 2) and Brij Narain (P. W. 4 ). Bechan Singh had one son Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1 ). Kedar Singh had three daughters who had been married. ( 3 ) ON 8-2-1975, at about 3 P. M. Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) and his uncle Surendra Singh (P. W. 2) were sitting on cots in front of their north facing house situated in village Baraini. Along with them Kalloo Upadhaya and Chandra Shekhar belonging to the adjoining villages were also sitting. Kedar Singh (deceased) who was also sitting along with them, went to a short distance from the door in the north to urinate. After urinating, he was coming back to the north where others were sitting when the accused Awadh Narain, whose house was situated to the east of the house of the deceased, suddenly appeared hurling abuses and fired at the deceased from a pistol from a close range, hitting the deceased at his abdomen. On receiving the Ghot, the deceased fell down unconscious and the accused Awadh Narain ran away. Hearing the shot, Brij Narain (P. W. 4), who was in the house and lying at that time, got up and saw the accused Awadh Narain running away. The incident of shooting by Awadh Narain had been witnessed by Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) and Surendra Singh (P. W. 2) as well as Kalloo Upadhyaya and Chandra Shekhar. The deceased was laid on a cot with a view to be taken to the hospital. He however, expired on the way at a short distance from his house. The dead body was, thereafter, taken to the police station Kachhawa. Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) scribed the report of the incident (Ex. Ka-1) and lodged the same at the police station at about 3. He however, expired on the way at a short distance from his house. The dead body was, thereafter, taken to the police station Kachhawa. Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) scribed the report of the incident (Ex. Ka-1) and lodged the same at the police station at about 3. 30 P. M. On the basis of the written report, a chik was prepared by Sheo Ram Singh (P. W. 8) and a case was registered at serial No. 22 of the general diary. ( 4 ) AMBIKA Singh (P. W. 5), S. O. Kachhawa, immediately started the investigation. He prepared the inquest and after sealing the dead body, sent the same for post mortem to the mortuary, Mirzapur. The post mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. D. D. Tripathi (P. W. 3 ). On the post mortem; the following ante mortem injury was found: 1. Seven gun shot wounds of entry present over the left side front of the abdomen in an area of 7. 5 cm. x 7. 5 cm. below the umbilicus (8 cm. above it) and left nipple (7 cm below it) and 2 cm. from mid line. The skin around the wound is blackened. Each individual wound is 1. 25 cm. x 1. 25 cm. in area. ( 5 ) ON internal examination, the doctor found that stomach was full of semi digested rice, potato and Daal. He also found that the bladder was empty. ( 6 ) THE case was investigated by Ambika Singh (P. W. 5 ). He went to the spot at 5 P. M. the same day and collected blood stained and unstained earth and kept them in separate containers. He also recorded a wad (Ex. VI) from the spot. The statements of Brij Narain (P. W. 4) and Chandra Shekhar were taken down under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code by the Investigating Officer. ( 7 ) AFTER completing the investigation, the 1. 0. Ambika Singh (P. W. 5) submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty. He also recorded a wad (Ex. VI) from the spot. The statements of Brij Narain (P. W. 4) and Chandra Shekhar were taken down under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code by the Investigating Officer. ( 7 ) AFTER completing the investigation, the 1. 0. Ambika Singh (P. W. 5) submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty. ( 8 ) AFTER considering the evidence of the prosecution witneses, Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1), Surendra Singh (P. W. 21 and Brij Narain (P. W. 4), the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution brought home the charges against the appellant and, therefore, convicted him, under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. Being aggrieved, the appellant has come to this Court by means of this appeal. ( 9 ) THE first ground that needs to be examined is whether the witnesses of the prosecution are reliable and have established that the country made pistol was shot by accused Awadh Narain on 8th February, 1975 on the deceased Kedar Singh. The witnesses are closely related to the deceased Kedar Singh. These witnesses, as already noted above, were Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1), Surendra Singh (P. W. 2) and Brij Narain (P. W. 4 ). True it is that these witnesses are interested, but that alone will not be sufficient in law to discard their testimony if otherwise their statements inspire confidence and it is found from a reading of their statements that they were present at the time of the occurrence when the country made pistol was shot by Awadh Narain. Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) stated that at about 3 P. M. on 8th February, 1975, he along with Surendra Singh (P. W. 2) and deceased Kedar Singh were sitting in the sun with Chandra Shekhar and Kalloo Upadhyaya. He stated that the deceased Kedar Singh had taken his meals a few hours before the pistol was shot at him. Kedar Singh went to urinate at about 3 P. M. near the Baniyan tree which was at a distance of 10 or 12 steps from the house where these persons were sitting. After the deceased had urinated and was likely to come to the house, he was shot at by the appellate, Awadh Narain. Kedar Singh went to urinate at about 3 P. M. near the Baniyan tree which was at a distance of 10 or 12 steps from the house where these persons were sitting. After the deceased had urinated and was likely to come to the house, he was shot at by the appellate, Awadh Narain. To the same effect is the statement of Surendra Singh (P. W. 2) who was also sitting along with Ramendra Singh at the same place. These two witnesses had been cross examined at length. Nothing could be elicited in their cross examination which could shake their testimony. It has come in their statements that Brij Narain (P. W. 4), the brother of Surendra Singh, was sleeping inside the house when he got up on hearing the sound of the shot. When he came he found the accused appellant, Awadh Narain, running away with the country made pistol with which he had shot. The testimony of this witness Brij Narain also corroborates the statements of the two eye witnesses Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) and Surendra Singh (P. W. 2 ). ( 10 ) THE postmortem report also shows two important facts. The first was that the bladder of the deceased was empty, and the second was that the stomach contained semi digested rice, potato and Daal. The medical report corroborates the testimony of the eye witnesses who had deposed that the deceased had gone to urinate and it was after urinating that the deceased was killed by Awadh Narain. It was precisely for this reason that the bladder was found empty. Further, it was found that the deceased had taken his meals at 12 noon. In the post mortem report, the doctor found that the semi digested food consisting of rice, potato and Daal were found in the stomach of the deceased. The post mortem report testified the statements of Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1), and Surendra Singh (P. W. 2 ). ( 11 ) FROM the ante mortem injury found by Dr. D. D. Tripathi in the postmortem examination, it appears that the injury had been caused by a pistol. Blackening was in existence even though the dimension of the injury was 7. 5 cm. x 7. 5 cm. This shows that it was caused by a pistol, and not by a gun, as stated by the eye witnesses. D. D. Tripathi in the postmortem examination, it appears that the injury had been caused by a pistol. Blackening was in existence even though the dimension of the injury was 7. 5 cm. x 7. 5 cm. This shows that it was caused by a pistol, and not by a gun, as stated by the eye witnesses. The medical report goes in favour of the prosecution and corroborates the statements of the three witnesses. ( 12 ) NOTHING could be pointed out in the cross examination of these witnesses to disbelieve them. They were inmates of the house and were sitting outside the house. Therefore, they were natural witnesses. They could not have falsely implicated the accused appellant, Awadh Narain, if they would have come to know of the real culprit. It appears to us that the real culprit was the appellant and that he had shot Ke ar Singh with the pistol. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that there was no motive for the accused-appellant to kill the deceased and as the prosecution has failed to prove the motive, the learned Sessions Judge should have disbelieved the oral testimony of the aforesaid three witnesses and should have held that the prosecution had failed to establish its case. It is now settled that motive is not necessary to be established and if there is a clear verdict of an eye witness deposing about the involvement of a particular person in a criminal case, the conviction of that person can take place irrespective of the evidence and absence of motive. Motive may not be known to the prosecution. Accordingly, on this ground alone, it is not possible for us to discard the testimony of the eye witnesses Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) and Surendra Singh (P. W. 2 ). ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant pointed out minor contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) and Brij Narain (P. W. 4 ). The discrepancy was that whereas Ramendra Singh stated that he had asked Brij Narain (P. W. 4) to go to the police station for lodging the report, Brij Narain (P. W. 4) denied that he had been asked to do so, In view of this denial of Brij Narain (P. W. 4), it cannot be said that Ramendra Singh had asked the latter to lodge the report. Even if Ramendra Singh had asked Brij Narain to do so, that was of little consequence in the facts of the present case. The case of Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) and Surendra Singh (P. W. 2) was that after Kedar Singh was laid on the cot and was being taken to the hospital, he died on the way. The distance between the place of occurrence and the hospital was 11/2 miles. Admittedly, the hospital was also in the nearby. Nothing much turns on the fact whether Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) had asked Brij Narain (P. W. 4) to lodge the report at the police station or not. The truth of the matter appears to be that as Kedar Singh died on the way, Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) who was carrying the deceased Kedar Singh, himself wrote out the F. I. R. on a paper and, thereafter lodged the same at the police station at 3. 30 p. m. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant next submitted that the inquest report in fact had not been prepared at 4. 10 p. m. as is the case of the prosecution and that after Ambika Singh S. 0. (P. W. 5) had reached the spot and made the necessary enquiries, that a F. I. R. was lodged at the police station in the night and it was, thereafter that the inquest was prepared. For this purpose, reliance had been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the statement of Tulsi Ram Pandey (P. W. 7), who was the constable deputed at the police station. Tulsi Ram Pandey (P. W. 7) stated that he had been given the dead body at 4. 10 p. m. on 8. 2. 75. The learned counsel urged that had the dead body been given to Tulsi Ram Pandey at 4. 10 p. m. , the same should have reached the mortuary earlier to 10-12 in the night, on 8th February, 1975. Tulsi Ram Pandey has given explanation for the same. He stated that with the dead body, Surendra Singh (P. W. 2) and some members of the family of Kedar Singh had accompanied him. Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) and Surendra Singh (P. W. 2) stated clearly that after the 1. 0. Tulsi Ram Pandey has given explanation for the same. He stated that with the dead body, Surendra Singh (P. W. 2) and some members of the family of Kedar Singh had accompanied him. Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) and Surendra Singh (P. W. 2) stated clearly that after the 1. 0. Ambika Singh (P. W. 5) had visited the spot and made the necessary enquiries, they went back to the police station and, thereafter, took the dead body along with Tulsi Ram Pandey to the mortuary. From the statement it appears that the dead body had been taken after 8 or 9 P. M. on 8th February 1975, Accordingly, there appears to be no contradiction in the statements of the two witnesses to find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the F. I. R. had been, in fact, lodged after the 1. 0. Ambika Singh (P. W. 5) had returned after making the preliminary enquiries. ( 16 ) P. W. 5 Ambika Singh, S. 0. stated that the F. I. R. was lodged at the police station at 3. 30 p. m. To the same effect is the statement of Sheo Ram Singh (P. W. 8) who was the head constable posted at the police station. Nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to lead us to the conclusion that their statement to the effect that the F. I. R. was lodged at 3. 30 p m. was incorrect. It appears to us that after the F. I. R. was lodged at 330 p m. and the inquest was prepared, the dead body was given to Tulsi Ram Panday (P. W. 7) for being taken to the mortuary. Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) and Surendra Singh (P. W. 2) after lodging the F. I. R. went to the village for the purpose of enabling Ambika Singh (P. W. 5) 1. 0. to carry out the inspection. After the inspection was over, these persons came back to the police station and with them Tulsi Ram Pandey (P. W. 7) went to the mortuary. 0. to carry out the inspection. After the inspection was over, these persons came back to the police station and with them Tulsi Ram Pandey (P. W. 7) went to the mortuary. It was natural on the part of Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) and Surender Singh (P. W. 2) to have asked Tulsi Ram Pandey to wait for them for going to the mortuary, particularly when for carrying the dead body from the police station up to Ganga which had to be crossed, some persons were required. ( 17 ) RELYING on the statement of Tulsi Ram Pandey (P. W. 7), where he stated that that the dead body was carried before sun set, learned counsel submitted that the dead body, as deposed to by Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) and Surendra Singh (P. W. 2) had not been taken at 8 or 9 P. M. in tee night. Tulsi Ram Pandey (P. W. 7) appears tollave stated that the dead body was taken before sunset due to some confusion. The fact appears to be that after the dead body was handed over to Tulsi Ram Pandey (P. W. 7) the same was kept at the Thana and Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) and Surendra Singh (P. W. 2) and other members of the family of Kedar Singh returned after the preliminary enquiry by Ambika Singh, then the dead body was taken to the mortuary in the night. ( 18 ) AT this place it may also be mentioned that at 5 P. M. when Ambika Singh reached at the spot, he collected the blood stained and unstained earth. This would show that the spot of occurrence was the one which was alleged by the prosecution. From that presence of blood found by Ambika Singh (P. W. 5) the place of occurrence is fixed. It also proves that the witnesses Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) and Surendra Singh (P. W. 2) were natural witnesses and could see the appellant shooting at the deceased. From that presence of blood found by Ambika Singh (P. W. 5) the place of occurrence is fixed. It also proves that the witnesses Ramendra Singh (P. W. 1) and Surendra Singh (P. W. 2) were natural witnesses and could see the appellant shooting at the deceased. ( 19 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant urged that as according to the F. I. R. there were two independent witnesses, Kalloo Upadhyaya and Chandra Shekhar and since the prosecution failed to produce them, it must be held that they were deliberately withheld by the prosecution and a presumption be drawn that the independent witnesses having not been produced, the prosecution case could not be relied upon. True it is that in the F. I. R. these two persons were named as sitting at the time of the occurrence. The statements of these two witnesses had been recorded under Section 461 Criminal Procedure Code. Both of them deposed about the involvement of the appellant in the case. However, it appears from the record that when notices were sent by the Court for their statements to be taken, one of them, namely, Kalloo Upadhyaya filed an affidavit that he had not seen the occurrence. The warrant of arrest of Chandra Shekhar was issued but was returned with the report that he was not traceable. Since Chandra Shekhar could not be traced out, the prosecution became helpless to produce him and. in these circumstances, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on this ground. We have already noted above that merely because the witnesses are interested is no ground for throwing out their evidence. What is necessary is that their statements should be examined with caution and if the Court feels that their statements cannot suffer from any legal infirmity, there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. For applying the rule of caution, no formula can be laid down. It differs from case to case. In this case, we have examined the statements of the eye witnesses from every angle and we find no reason to disbelieve them. ( 20 ) FOR the reasons given above the appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence. .