JUDGMENT P. Dayal, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated May 15, 1978, passed by Shri D.N. Khanna, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Unnao, convicting and sentencing the appellants Deshraj Singh, Ram Asrey Singh and Ram Lakhan Singh, to imprisonment for life, under Section 302, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, has been that Birbal Singh, brother of the appellant, was murdered and the informant Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 and his son the deceased Shatrughan were facing trial for that murder. They were released on bail. On December 10, 1975 at about 3 p.m. they were on the southern Mend of the field of Indrajit Singh P.W. 1 village Behta, within the circle of Police Station Gangaghat, district Unnao that someone fired at Shatrughan from the Arhar held of Arjun Singh which lay in the south of the said land. Shatrughan fell down and immediately thereafter appellants Deshraj Singh, Ram Asrey Singh, armed with SBBL gun, and Ram Lakhan Singh, armed with DBBL gun emerged out from the said Arhar field. Deshraj Singh and Ram Asrey Singh are real brothers and Ram Lakhan Singh is their nephew. Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 and Ganga Charan raised an alarm attracting Indrajit Singh P.W. 1 and Ram Kishan. Appellants Ram Lakhan Singh and Deshraj Singh fired by means of their guns, hitting Shatrughan who fell dead, thereafter the appellants ran away. 3. Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 get the report Ext. Ka-4 written by Chhedi Lal son of Kali Charan and handed over the same on December 10, 1975 in Police Station Gangaghat at 6.20 P.W. at a distance of five miles. On its basis Head Constable Swami Nath Singh P.W. 4 prepared chik F.I.R. F.xt. Ka-7 and made an entry in the G.D. vide copy Ext. Ka-8. 4. Sub-Inspector Shri R.K. Misra P.W. 5 was present at the police station when the case was registered. He started investigation and recorded statement of Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 and Head Constable Swami /Math Singh P.W. 4. He reached the place of occurrence at about 10 P.W. and found the dead body of Shatrughan lying in the wheat field of Ram Dularey, father of Indrajit Singh P.W. 1 in the following morning he prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka-9 diagram Ext. Ka-10 and challan Ext. He reached the place of occurrence at about 10 P.W. and found the dead body of Shatrughan lying in the wheat field of Ram Dularey, father of Indrajit Singh P.W. 1 in the following morning he prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka-9 diagram Ext. Ka-10 and challan Ext. Ka-11 pertaining to the dead body, and kept the dead body in sealed cover which was handed over to constables Gajju Prasad and Krishna Dutt Shukla for being taken to mortuary he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a site-plan Ext. Ka-12. He took up blood stained and plain earth and kept them in two separate sealed containers Ext. 1 and Ext. 2 and prepared its fard Ext. Ka-3 he took empty cartridges Exts. 5 and 5/1 and wad Ext. 6 from the said Arhar field and kept them in a sealed bundle and prepared fard Ext. 2 he recovered Angocha Ext. 3 and a pair or shoes Exts. 4/1 and 4/2 and kept them in sealed cover and prepared a fard Ext. Ka-1. The accused appellants were not traceable. 5. On being produced Dr. S.M. Tripathi P.W. 3 conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Shatrughan on December 12 1975 at 11.30 a.m. and prepared the post-mortem examination report Ext. Ka-5 the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist sent their reports Exts. Ka-14 and 15. 6. The appellants surrendered themselves in Court. On completing the investigation the Investigating Officer Submitted Charge-sheet Ext. Ka-13 on January 7, 1976. 7. The prosecution examined five witnesses. Indrajit Singh P.W. 1 is an eye witness, Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 is an informant eye witness ; Dr. S.M. Tripathi P.W. 3 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body, Head Constables Swami Nath Singh P.W. 4 has been a formal witness and S.I. R.K. Misra P.W. 5 has been the Investigating Officer. 8. The accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to have been falsely implicated due to enmity. They filed in their defence six papers vide Ext. Kha-1 to Kha. 6 Exhibit Kha-1 is the challani report under Section 107/117, Cr. P.C. of State v. Deshraj Singh and others filed on October 14, 1974 Exhibit Kha-2 is another copy of challani report under Section 107/117, Cr. They filed in their defence six papers vide Ext. Kha-1 to Kha. 6 Exhibit Kha-1 is the challani report under Section 107/117, Cr. P.C. of State v. Deshraj Singh and others filed on October 14, 1974 Exhibit Kha-2 is another copy of challani report under Section 107/117, Cr. P.C. of State v. Muneshwar Singh filed on October 14, 1974 Exhibit Kha-3 is another challani report of case Chhedi Lal v. State filed on October 14, 1976 Exhibit Kha-4 is another challani report of case State v. Abhilakh filed on December 14, 1976 Ext. Kha-5 is a copy of a charge-sheet of a case State v. Arjun Singh and others under Sections 323/324/325 and 325 (sic) I.P.C. Exhibit Kha-6 is the copy of the surety bond executed by Ram Dulare as surety of Shatrughan in a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. The learned lower court believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 10. It is not disputed that the appellants Deshraj Singh and Ram Asrey Singh are real brothers, and Ram Lakhan Singh is their nephew. The deceased Shatrughan was the son of the informant Chhedi Lal P.W. 2. Birbal Singh, brother of appellant Deshraj Singh was murdered and Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 and Shatrughan were being prosecuted for his murder. They were on bail on December 10, 1975 Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 was prosecuted for having committed a high-way robbery in which case he was acquitted in the year 1970 and he was facing trial in an excise case on the date of occurrence. Proceedings under Section 107/117, Cr. P.C. had also taken place. The appellants and Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 and the deceased Shatrughan were on inimical terms. The appellants had a strong motive to commit murder of Shatrughan. 11. Of course, enmity is double edged weapon and it can cut both ways. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. But this contention of the appellants does not carry any force because if Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 would have falsely implicated the appellants, he was not expected to have spared Arjun, another brother of the appellants Deshraj Singh and Ram Asrey Singh. 12. It is established that Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 handed over a written report Ext. But this contention of the appellants does not carry any force because if Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 would have falsely implicated the appellants, he was not expected to have spared Arjun, another brother of the appellants Deshraj Singh and Ram Asrey Singh. 12. It is established that Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 handed over a written report Ext. Ka-4 in police Station Gangaghat at a distance of five miles from the place of occurrence on December 10, 1975 on which basis Head Constable Swami Nath Singh P.W. 4 prepared chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-7 and made an entry in the vide Ext. Ka-8 Sub-Inspector R.K. Misra P.W. 5 prepared wards Ext. Ka-1, Ext. Ka-2 and Ext. Ka-3 pertaining to the recovery of articles and plain as well as blood stained earth. He further prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka-9 diagram Ext. Ka-10 and challan Ext. Ka-11, pertaining to dead body. He prepared site-plan Ext. Ka-12 and submitted charge-sheet Ext. Ka. Chemical Examiner and Serologist gave their reports Ext. Ka-14 and Ka-15. Dr. S.M. Tripathi P.W. 3 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Shatrughan on December 12, 1975 and prepared post-mortem examination report Ext. Ka-5. He found the following ante-mortem injuries : - 1. Six lacerated round wounds in an area of 16" x 3/7 on the right side of the chest wall and right side of the abdominal wall extending from the right arm pit to right liac crest, each wound was of the diameter of 1/4" with inverted margins and each wounds was chest and abdominal cavity deep. There was no blackening and tattooing. 2. Four small round lacerated wounds on the right side of head, 2" above the right ear in an area of 1" x 1". The margins of each wound were inverted and they were scalp deep, excepting one which was 1" deep there was no blackening and tattooing. 3. Lacerated wound of oval shape 1" x " abdominal cavity deep on the right side of the back, 1" way from the lower part of the right axilla medially. Its margins were averted. 4. Lacerated wound round shape on the left part of the back, 7" above the ilia crest and it was chest cavity deep with averted margins. 5. Two liner abrasions on the left part of the back above the iliac bone. Its margins were averted. 4. Lacerated wound round shape on the left part of the back, 7" above the ilia crest and it was chest cavity deep with averted margins. 5. Two liner abrasions on the left part of the back above the iliac bone. The death of Shatrughan had occurred due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem injuries. The injuries Nos. 1 to 4 were caused by means of fire-arms, injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were the injuries of entry and injuries 3 and 4 were wounds of exist. Injury No. 5 could be caused by falling down. According to Dr. S.M. Tripathi P.W. 3 the death of Shatrughan could possibly take place on December 10, 1975 at about 3 p.m. on receiving the foresaid injuries. Semi-digested food consisting of potato was found in the stomach at the time of post-mortem examination. Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 claimed that the deceased had taken his meals consisting of potato and bread on December 10, 1975 at about 12 a.m. The vegetable food would completely be digested between 5 to 6 hours so it is certain that Shatrughan was shot at and murdered at about 3 p.m. on December 10, 1975. If the margin in duration is given, according to Dr. S.M. Tripathi P.W. 3, the murder could have taken place latest by 5 or 6 p.m. In view of the sworn testimony of the witnesses, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case, and it is established that Shatrughan was murdered on December 10, 1975 at about 8 p.m. by means of fire-arms. 13. The occurrence had taken place at about 3 p.m. on December 10, 1975 and, according to the prosecution case, the case registered in Police Station Gangaghat at 6.20 p.m., in the same evening. The distance of police station was five miles from the place of occurrence. Head Constable Swami Nath Singh P.W. 4 proved that Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 handed over report Ext. Ka-4 at the police station at 6.20 when the case was registered. Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 claimed to have gone to the police station on foot. He had taken sometime in getting the written report Ext. Ka-4 prepared so it is quite believable that the first information report of this case was lodged without unreasonable delay at 6.20 p.m. on December 10, 1975. 14. Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 claimed to have gone to the police station on foot. He had taken sometime in getting the written report Ext. Ka-4 prepared so it is quite believable that the first information report of this case was lodged without unreasonable delay at 6.20 p.m. on December 10, 1975. 14. The appellants challenged the correctness of the time of registration of the case. They claimed that G.D. of December 10, 1975 had reached the Office of Superintendent of Police, Unnao on December 12, 1975. But the case was registered on December 10, 1975 in the evening at 6.20 p.m. and the C.D. was likely to be sent to the Office of the Superintendent of Police in the morning of December 11, 1975. The G.D. was placed before the C.O. on December 12, 1975 and it is why it claimed to have reached the Office of Superintendent of Police on December 12, 1975. This circumstance does not lead to any inference that the first information report of this case was made ante-time. Another circumstance, referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants, is that the chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-7 did not bear the date beneath the initials of the C.O. on the endorsement made for sending the first information to court. This could be an omission on the part of C.O. by not writing down the date below his initials and this omission does not lead to any presumption. The appellants claimed that Ganga Ram, Ram Bali and Buddhi Lal had also accompanied Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 to the police station when first information was lodged but the Investigating Officer did not record their statements. This could be a mistake on the part of the Investigating Officer and it has no effect on the merits of the case. 15. The appellants claimed that the Investigating Officer Shri R.K. Misra P.W. 5 reached the place of occurrence at 10 a.m. and he conducted the Investigation upto 10.40 p.m. but he did not record statement of any witness during this period and also that it should be believed that the first information report was not ready till then. The Investigating Officer explained that he could not proceed with the investigation in that night for want of sufficient light. 'Therefore, any inference in favour of the appellants cannot be drawn on this basis also. 16. The inquest report Ext. The Investigating Officer explained that he could not proceed with the investigation in that night for want of sufficient light. 'Therefore, any inference in favour of the appellants cannot be drawn on this basis also. 16. The inquest report Ext. Ka-9 shows that the dead body was despatched at 8.45 a.m. on December 11, 1975, in view of the endorsement made on it. Indrajeet Singh P.W. 1 stated that the dead body was despatched after 11 a.m. This circumstance also does not help the accused appellants. There has certainly been an inconsistency in the statement of Indrajeet Singh P.W. 1 with the endorsement occurring on the inquest report Ext. Ka-9, but Indrajeet Singh P.W. 1 was not expected have a correct idea of time. The Investigating Officer made an endorsement of time in the 1 inquest report Ext. Ka-9 when he entrusted that the dead body to the : constables for being taken to mortuary. He did not make an endorsement of the actual despatch of the dead body. The constables who held the charge of the dead body might have delayed in removing the dead body from the place of occurrence. 17. The prosecution examined two eye witnesses, namely, Indrajeet , Singh P.W. 1 and Chhedi Lal P.W. 2. None of them can be said to be an independent witness because the father of Indrajeet Singh P.W. 1 had stood a surety for the deceased Shatrughan in the murder case of Birbal while Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 had been claimed to be the brother of deceased and was a rank enemy of the appellants. But on that basis their statements cannot be discarded. However, their statements have to be considered with 1 caution. 18. The Investigating Officer found the dead body of Shatrughan in the field of the father of Indrajeet Singh P.W. 1. Blood stained earth was found there along with Angochha and other articles of the deceased. Indrajeet Singh P.W. 1 stated that he was weeding grass in his field when he heard alarm and witnessed the occurrence. The Investigating Officer corroborated his testimony regarding the weeding of grass in his field. He was not cross-examined on the point that he was doing some other work in addition to the weeding of grass. The Investigating Officer ought to have shown his field in the site-plan Ext. Ka-12, but he was not questioned on this point. The Investigating Officer corroborated his testimony regarding the weeding of grass in his field. He was not cross-examined on the point that he was doing some other work in addition to the weeding of grass. The Investigating Officer ought to have shown his field in the site-plan Ext. Ka-12, but he was not questioned on this point. This Indrajeet Singh P.W. 1 was a natural witness who had witnessed the occurrence. The presence of Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 at the scene of occurrence is also established by the fact and circumstances of this case. Both of them have consistently stated that one round was fired at Shatrughan from Arhar field which made him fall down and thereafter the appellants emerged out from the field and fired at Shatrughan. They were not expected to have counted the number of rounds fired at Shatrughan. So there is no reason no disbelieve their testimony regarding the occurrence in question which had taken place in broad-day-light. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 being the father of deceased Shatrughan should also have been the target of the appellants. But this argument is based on conjectures and it is not sufficient to make believe that the prosecution case against the appellants has failed. The mental state of the criminals at the time of the occurrence cannot be judged without there being any evidence of any overt act on their part. Moreover, Indrajeet P.W. 1 stated that the deceased Shatrughan was a little ahead of Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 who was going with Ganga Prasad. The appellants had certainly a sense of guilt in their mind that they were going to commit a heinous offence and in that state of mind they were not expected to have discriminated between the father and the son. They found Shatrughan at close range and aimed at him. 19. Lastly, it was argued on behalf of the appellants that Chhedi Lal P.W. 2, after his return from the police station, was expected to remain near the dead body instead of going and living at his house during that night. They found Shatrughan at close range and aimed at him. 19. Lastly, it was argued on behalf of the appellants that Chhedi Lal P.W. 2, after his return from the police station, was expected to remain near the dead body instead of going and living at his house during that night. Apparently, this conduct of Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 appears to be against the normal human behaviour but Chhedi Lal P.W. 2 explained for it that he had gone to this house in order to console his wailing family members, and he was not asked in cross-examination about this conduct. 20. Thus the prosecution evidence in this case has stood all the test of credibility. It is established that the appellants had a strong motive to commit the murder of Shatrughan and they committed his murder on December 10, 1975 at about 3 p.m. in the field of Indrajeet P.W. 1, situated in village, Behta, within the circle of Police Station Gangaghat, district Unnao. The first information report was lodged without undue delay and it corroborated the prosecution evidence. The prosecution case further finds corroboration from the medical evidence. Hence the appellants were rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned lower court and this appeal fails. 21. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order dated May 15, 1978, passed by the learned lower court, are confirmed. The appellants are in jail and they shall serve out the sentence, passed against them. In case they are on bail their bail bonds are cancelled and they should be taken into custody. C.J.M., Unnao to send compliance report within six weeks.