VERANDA KUMAR, J. These are an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 11-5-1982 passed by Sessions Judge, Unnao convicting each of the two appellants Chandra Bhal and Ramesh under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and sentencing them to imprisonment for life. 2. Informant Mangal (P. W. 1) has two sons Mool Chand and Sheo Prasad (P. W. 3) besides the third son Mahadeo (deceased ). Prosecution case is state a briefly. On 25-12-1979 that is, about 2 years before the incident in question Shanker, the brother of accused Chandra Bhal was murdered. Mangal and all his three sons were prosecuted for the murder but they were acquitted into month the sawan, that is, about 3-4 months before the occurrence in question. Hence, relation between Mangal and his sons on the one hand and the accused Chandra Bhal on the other, were strained and it was the motive for commission of the murder of Mahadeo by Chandra. Bhal and his friend and associate Ramesh, On 3-11- 1981 in the early morning Mangai and his three sons had gone to the field of Ambey Lala which was taken by them on Batati. The field of Ambey Lala situated towards the east of the village Abadi. Adjoining the field there existed another field of Ambey Lala towards the east which was under culivation of Hori Lal. Towards the South of that field of Ambey Lala which was with Mangal on batai, situated the field of Babu and on the intervening mend there existed shrubs, bushes, Khajoor and Babool tree. Mangal and his two sons vlool Chand and Sheo Prasad were collecting kheries (dried roots of the previous crop) and Mahadeo was ploughing the field at about 7 A. M. while Mahadeo reached near the southern mena in connection with ploughing, both the accused Chandra Bhal and Ramesh came out from the bushes and shrubs which were on the southern Mend. They were armed with guns. They threw a challenge and fired at Mahadeo with the guns. Mahadeo got hit by the shots and fled towards North. On reaching a few steps he fell down in his field. The bullocks yoke used in the ploughing was also hit by pillets of the shots. Both the accused reached near Mahadeo who had fallen down and again fired one shot each on him from close range. Mahadeo got hit by the shots and fled towards North. On reaching a few steps he fell down in his field. The bullocks yoke used in the ploughing was also hit by pillets of the shots. Both the accused reached near Mahadeo who had fallen down and again fired one shot each on him from close range. Hari Lal was also ploughing the eastern field belonging to Ambey Lala. He, as well as a number of other persons, namely, Sarjoo, Budhai, Prithi Pal who happened to reach there through Galiyara, witnesses the incident. Both the accused fled away West on being challenged by the witness. Galiyara situated towards the West adjoining the plot in which occurrence took place, Mahadeo died instantaneously due to fire-arm injuries. 3. First Information Report Ext. Ka-1 was dictated by one Chandra Bhushan and was lodged at the police station Achalganj at 9. 30 A. M. On its basis case was registered in the General Diary. Sub-Inspector R D. Chuddar (P. W. 6) investigate the case. He prepared the inquest report in respect of the dead body of Mahadeo at the site, challis lash, diagram, letter to the Medical Officer for post mortem examination. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination. Blood stained and plain earth as well as used cartridges and Tikli, were also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer who prepared the memos in respect of the same. Site plan was also prepared by him on his inspection of the place of occurrence. 4. Both the accused denied the charges and alleged that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. According to the appellant Ramesh he was on inimical terms with the co-accused Chandra Bhal hence there was little possibility of his joining hands with Chandra Bhal in committing the murder. In this connection copy of the decree passed by the Revenue Court has been field to show litigation between the father of the accused Ramesh and Chandra Bhal. 5. Prosecution side has examined, six witnesses including 3 eye-witnesses, namely, Mangal, Sarjoo and Sheo Prasad. Other witnesses are formal. 6. Post mortem examination in respect of the dead body of Mahadeo was conducted by Dr. A. Senghi (P. W. 4) on 4-11-1981 at about 12-40 P. M. He prepared the postmortem examination report. 5. Prosecution side has examined, six witnesses including 3 eye-witnesses, namely, Mangal, Sarjoo and Sheo Prasad. Other witnesses are formal. 6. Post mortem examination in respect of the dead body of Mahadeo was conducted by Dr. A. Senghi (P. W. 4) on 4-11-1981 at about 12-40 P. M. He prepared the postmortem examination report. Doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased : (1) Gun shot wound of entry 2"xl"xbone deep ellipitical shaped over left side fore-head just lateral to outer angle of left eye-brow. Scorching in an area of half inch around the would was present. Hair were signed. Margins were inverted. The direction of the wound was forward and medically. Under lying frontal bone of left side and orbital bone of left side were fractured. The injury was communicating with injuries Nos. 2 and 3. (2) Gun shot wound of exit 1/2" X1" over left eye-ball. The eye-ball was out of soacket. The margins were averted. (3) Gunshot wound of exit 2"xl"xbone deep over right side face just lateral to nose. Underlying Zygomatic and mandibular bones were fractured. (4) Give gun shot wounds of entry over right arm just below to shoulder joint front aspect. Size about 0. 3" each. Margins, inverted. No scorching or tattooing present. The injury was bone deep and underlying homers bone was found fractured. Five small pellets embedded under the muscle were recovered. (5) Twenty gun shot wounds of entry over right side chest anterior auxiliary line extending from 4th to 7th rib vertically and interior to mid-ancillary and auxiliary line horizontally. Size about 0. 2" circular each. No scorching or tattooing. Depth, few superficial and rest cavity deep. On opening the underlying was found ruptured at many places. 13 small pellets were recovered from pleural cavity and lung. (6) Six gun shot wounds of entry over right thigh in an area of 5" x 3"on front and middle aspect. Margins inverted. Depth muscle deep. Direction backwards. Size 0. 2" circular each communi cating to injury No. 7. (7) Six gun shot wounds of exit in an area of 8"x5" over back of right thigh, margins inverted. Size 0. 4" circular each. (8) One gun shot wound of entry in an area of l" x 1"x abdominal cavity deep over left side back at the level of lumber and vertebrae just adjacent to vertebral column. Direction upwards and forwards. Size 0. 4" circular each. (8) One gun shot wound of entry in an area of l" x 1"x abdominal cavity deep over left side back at the level of lumber and vertebrae just adjacent to vertebral column. Direction upwards and forwards. Scorching in an area of 1/4" around the wound present. Hari signed. 7. On internal examination the left frontal and orbital bones were found fractured. The pleura and lung on the right side was lacerated. Peritoneum was also lacerated and one piece of wadding and 32 small shots were recovered from to abdominal cavity and the liver. The stomach was empty. The small intestines contained gasses and faucal matter and were lacerated at places. The liver was also lacerated at several places. In the opinion of the Doctor death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injuries. 8. The gun-shot injuries caused to the bullock by pellets were examined by Dr. S. C. Sharma (P. W. 5) on 4-11-1981. He found the following injuries : (1) Gun-shot wound just below the left knee. Internally 2 millimeter in size and 4 millimeter deep. (2) Gun shot wound 1 below the left knee post-medically 21 1/2 millimeter in size and 2 millimeter in depth. Both the injuries were reported to have been caused by fire and were about 24 hours old. 9. Mangal (P. W. 1) has affirmed that he had taken the field of Ambey lal from him on Batai and that field situated by the side of the western Galiyara. he further stated that adjoining to the field in question, another field of Ambey Lala situated towards the East. It was being ploughed by Hari Lal. He deposed that towards South of Ambey Lalas field which was with him on Batai, situated the field of Babu and there was intervenings Mend. The fields, Galiyara and Mend are shown in the site plan Ext. Ka. 10. Mangal (P. W. 1) further sworn that on the intervening Mend existed shrubs, bushes. Khojoor and Babool ties, the heights of which were equal to man. He could not tell the khasra number of the field in question (said to have been taken on Batai) but he has given its area and dimensions. P. W. 3 Sheo Prasad has also affirmed that field in which Mahadeo was murdered was taken by them (which means he, his father and. He could not tell the khasra number of the field in question (said to have been taken on Batai) but he has given its area and dimensions. P. W. 3 Sheo Prasad has also affirmed that field in which Mahadeo was murdered was taken by them (which means he, his father and. brothers) on Batai from Ambey Lala. In his First Information Report which was lodged by Mangal very shortly after the occurrence in question, he has mentioned that he had taken the field on Batai from Ambey Lala on which work of removing the Kheris and ploughing was being carried on by him and his sons, in the site plan Ext. Ka-10 which was prepared by the Investigating Officer on inspection of the same field on the date of incident (shortly after the occurrence) he has mentioned the place of the removal of Kheris as well as the place where the dead body of Mahadeo was found. These places exist in the same field for which the testimony of the eye-witnesses is available to the effect that it was taken on Batai by Mangal and his sons from Ambey Lala. According to the counsel for State, the presence of the deceased with his father and two brothers in the same field the morning goes in favour of their version that they were in possession of it as Bataidars. 10. The testimony of P. W. 2 Sarjoo is to the effect that in the year in which occurrence took place, the field in question of Ambey Lala was in posses sion of Mool Chand son of Mangal (on Batai) and prior to it was given by Ambey Lala to Satya Narain He has clearly stated that every year Bataidar is changed. This goes to explain why no document exists on the point of taking the land by Mangal and his sons on Batai from Ambey Lala, and also why Ambey Lala has not come into the witness box. It is well established practice, though it may not be a legally recognised way of letting, that tenure holders, for reasons of their own, let out to other persons (who are called Bataidars) their agricultural plots on Batai basis which means taking by them a part of the produce of those plots so long as it remains in actual possession and cultiva tion of Bataidars. In order to avoid any possibility of adverse effect on their possessory right and other title to their holdings the concerned tenure-holders are, understandably, the last persons to execute any writing in favour of Bataidar or to admit the latters possession formally. For the same reason Bataidars are changed frequently, say, after every year or so. It is evident that Ambey Lala was adopting the same practice with regard to the field in question while giving its possession for purpose of cultivation by others on Batai. 11. Mangal (P. W. I) who is informant as well as father of the deceased deposed that at about 7 P. M. (on 3-11-1981) he and his sons Mool Chand and Shiv Prasad (P. W. 3) were picking up Kheris (that is dried roots of the previous crop) from the plot which was taken on Batai and his third son Mahadeo (deceased) was carrying on the work of ploughing with the bi Hocks in the same field. When Mahadeo reached in the southern side of the field during the course of ploughing, accused Chandra Bhal and Ramesh armed with guns emerged from behind the bushes, which existed towards the South -West of the field. Both the accused challenged and fired at Mahadeo. Mahadeo was struck by the shots. He,; further stated, that Mahadeo ran towards the North in the (same) field and fell down after about 10 steps. He further deposed that after his fall both the accused again fired at Mahadeo from close range. According to him, at that time Hari Lal was ploughing adjoining field on the eastern side which also belonged to Ambey Lala. Deen Dayal was also ploughing his field at a short distance. He further stated that Sarjoo, Buddhi Lal and Prithi Lal were also coming from the side of the village. Oil challenge from the side of the witnesses both the accused escaped towards west. On reaching near Mahadeo it was found that he had expired and a lot of blood had also fallen at the same place. He affirmed that bullocks had also received bullet injuries due to the firing. Thereafter, he proceeded to lodge the First Information Report at the Police Station Achalganj, before that he dictated the report about the occurrence to Chandra Bhushan. The written report was lodged at the Police Station. 12. He affirmed that bullocks had also received bullet injuries due to the firing. Thereafter, he proceeded to lodge the First Information Report at the Police Station Achalganj, before that he dictated the report about the occurrence to Chandra Bhushan. The written report was lodged at the Police Station. 12. In cross-examination he admitted that a case under Section 307, I. P. C. for assaulting Narain Brahmin proceeded against him, Sarjoo and few others. It has not come on the record as to what happened in that case. He further stated that he along with his sons was falsely implicated in the case of murder of Shanker, the brother of Chandra Bhal appellant. The case ended in acquittal. He stated that ploughing had started about 10 minutes before the firing. He affirmed that three persons, that is he and his sons Mool Chand and Sheo Prasad (P. W. 3) had picked up the kheries from an area offal Biswa and the kheries as well as the ploughed portion of the field were shown to the Investigating Officer. According to him, the field of Babu was not visible from his field due to the intervening bushes. About the arrival of the accused, Mangal (P. W. 1) mentioned that he did not see them while they arrived but he is definite that they emerged from the western side (from behind the bushes) and challenged before firing at Mahadeo from a distance of about 7-8 steps. He looked at them on their throwing the challenge. He affirmed that the first fire struck at the Garth of Mahadeo by which he seems to mean the region of knee, and it was shot from the back side of Mahadeo. Then, bullocks were a head of Mahadeo. He had categorically stated that in all four shots were fired. He stated that he remained in his field for about 10 minutes after the occurrence and thereafter went to lodge the report. In the meantime he did not talk to the witnesses. According to him, they had arrived at the scene of occurrence. He could not say whether the blood had fallen at the place where the first round of two shots were fired at Mahadeo but from that place the latter had atone run towards North. In the meantime he did not talk to the witnesses. According to him, they had arrived at the scene of occurrence. He could not say whether the blood had fallen at the place where the first round of two shots were fired at Mahadeo but from that place the latter had atone run towards North. He stated with certainty that blood had fallen down at the place in the field were Mahadeo had fallen and collapsed and blood was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer from the same place. He could not say by which side Mahadeo had fallen but when he reached up to Mahadeo after the accused escaped, he found that Mahadeo was lying with his right side touching the ground. According to him, due to firing by the accused he also became scared. He stated he had mentioned about the injuries of the bullock due to the firing while he was dictating his first information to Chandra Bhal as well as giving his statement to the Investigating Officer. He further stated that he could not explain why the omissions in this regard exist in the report as, well as in his statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. 13. The testimony of Mangal (P. W. 1) gets corroboration from the F. I. R. Ext. Ka-1 in respect of the material particulars of the prosecution version. This is apart from the omission about the alleged causing of injuries to the bullock by the firing. According to the medical evidence the said injuries were extremely superficial. The first information report was lodged with out delay. It was prompt having been lodged within about 2j hours of the occurrence at the police station situated at 6 Kms. from the place of occurrence. Informant Mangal (P. W. 1) has sworn that in the meantime he had dictated upoit to the scribe whose shop situated at a distance of 1j furlongs from the Police Station. The F. I. R. is also to the effect that at about 7a. M. when tie informant Mangal and his two sons Mool Chand and Sheo Prasad were removing kheris from the field which was -taken on Batai from Ambey Lala and the third son Mahadeo was ploughing the portion of the southern side of the field, both the accused emerged from behind the bushes of the southern side. M. when tie informant Mangal and his two sons Mool Chand and Sheo Prasad were removing kheris from the field which was -taken on Batai from Ambey Lala and the third son Mahadeo was ploughing the portion of the southern side of the field, both the accused emerged from behind the bushes of the southern side. Both were armed with gun and they challenged and fired at Mahadeo who could run for a short distance but fell down and he was again fired by both the accused. Name of a few persons as witnesses including Sarjoo (P. W. 2) which find place in the deposition of Mangal, have been mentioned in the F. I. R. also as having seen the occurrence. 14. Testimony of Mangal (P. W. 1) which stands corroborated by the F. I. R. stood the test of cross- examination. He |has given a vivid account of the occurrence. The medical evidence consisting of the testimony of Dr. A. Sanghi (P. W. 4) coupled with the post-mortem examination report corroborates his testimony about the occurrence of causing injuries to Mahadeo resulting his death This aspect is discussed in detail herein after. 15. Sarjoo (P. W, 2) and Sheo Prasad (P. W. 3) have also supported the prosecution version of the occurrence Sarjoo (P. W. 2) deposed that his field situated at a distance of four fields from the field of Ambey Lala and at about 7 P. M. (on March 3, 1981) he was proceeding from his house to his field for the purpose of collecting fodder. Sarjoo P. W. 2 deposed that when Mahadeo was ploughing towards southern side there was firing. He has frankly stated that he did not see first round of firing but on hearing its noise and the alarm raised he saw that both the accused armed with guns arrived in the field of Ambey Lala from the Mend of the field of Baboo (situated towards South ). He further deposed that Mahadeo running with unsteady steps fell down in the middle of the field. Then each of the two accused fired once at Mahadeo. He stated that Prithi Pal and Buddhi Lal were also with him and on being challenged the accused escaped towards West. On reaching near Mahadeo he was found dead and blood was also lying there. Then each of the two accused fired once at Mahadeo. He stated that Prithi Pal and Buddhi Lal were also with him and on being challenged the accused escaped towards West. On reaching near Mahadeo he was found dead and blood was also lying there. From the testimony of Mangal (P. W. 1) it is evident that Jagan nath, the brother of Mangal is Mamalpi Sarjoo (P. W. 2) who has incorrectly denied the relationship in his cross- examination. But the relationship of Sarjoo with Mangal and his sons is quite distant. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the testimony of Sarjoo (P. W. 2) stands discredited on this score, cannot be accepted. The Courts in India do not apply the principle of Falsest in Undo Falsest in Omnibus. In his cross-examination he stated that Mahadeo on his fall (on the ground) was turning his sides. He denied that there was any conslutation or talk about the occurrence during the period he remained at the scene of occurrence. The question which was put to him in this regard in the cross-examination, was quite vague, general and of sweeping nature. What type of talk or consultations was meant by means of the question put, remains quite unclear. He has denied that he was prosecuted in a case under Section 60 of Excise Act. He denied that his brother Kanhai was a witness in a case under Section 25, Arms Act against the father of accused Ramesh. In this connection a paper Ext. Kha-1 has been filed from the side of the accused Ramesh which shows that Kanhai, the brother of Sarjoo (P. W. 2) was a witness named in the recovery list with respect to the crime under Sec tion 25, Arms Act. In the first place it is difficult to say that Sarjoo would be knowing this fact. His answer that his brother was not a witness in that case could be a bond fide statement on his part. Secondly, Sarjoo was not asked whether his brother Kanhai was a witness to the recovery in connection with the Crime under Section 25, Arms Act. His answer that his brother was not a witness in that case could be a bond fide statement on his part. Secondly, Sarjoo was not asked whether his brother Kanhai was a witness to the recovery in connection with the Crime under Section 25, Arms Act. What he seems to have denied, is that his brother Kanhai was not a witness in that case and this quite possible that Kanhai might have not been included in the list of the witnesses submitted to the court in that case or and would not have been examined as a witness in that case. He could not give number of his agriculture plot but he could tell the crops which were standing on his fields and the growth of these crops. 16. Sheo Prasad (P. W. 3) son of Mangal fully supported the testimony of Mangal (P. W. 1 ). He has sworn, that while Mahadeo was ploughing southern portion of the field with bullocks, both the accused armed with guns emerged from behind the bushes of the; southern side and challenged. Then they fired at Mahadeo who could run with unsteady steps up to the middle of the same field and fell down whereupon both the accused came nearer to Mahadeo and again fired at him. On being challenged by the witnesses they escaped towards West. Sheo Prasad (P. W. 3) has stated in cross-examination that as soon as the accused emerged from being the bushes and challenged, he had seen them. He also stated that at the time of first round of firing Mahadeo was at a distance of about 7-8 steps from the southern Mend and when the subsequent two fire were shot at him by the accused persons the latter were at the distance of 1-4 steps from the deceased. He stated that he could not say as to on which portion of body the subsequent shots struck. He also denied that there was any consultation amongst the witnesses after the escape of the accused. He stated in cross-examination that the bullock was also injured by the pellets and the Investigation Officer had seen it. 17. It is, thus, evident that both these witnesses Sarjoo and Sheo Prasad have stood the test of cross- examination. 18. In this case the place of occurrence is fixed and made certain from the oral and circumstantial evidence. He stated in cross-examination that the bullock was also injured by the pellets and the Investigation Officer had seen it. 17. It is, thus, evident that both these witnesses Sarjoo and Sheo Prasad have stood the test of cross- examination. 18. In this case the place of occurrence is fixed and made certain from the oral and circumstantial evidence. In addition to the testimony of first three prosecution witnesses and corroboration witnesses and corroboration from the First Information Report showing the place of occurrence in the plot of Ambey Lala in which the Kheri was being removed and plugging was being, carried on, the testimony of Investigating Officer R. D. Chaudhary (P. W. 6) coupled with the memos for collection of blood stained earth and cartridges also show that there was found blood and remaneuts due to firing in the same field (at its middle) where the dead body of Mahadeo was found. The inquest report also goes to indicate the same place. Thus, there is convincing evidence to fix and make out the place of occurrence as given by prosecution side. Non-production of the witnesses to the memos does not matter. The omission pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the blood stained earth taken by the Investigating Officer was not sent for the purpose of obtaining experts report to find out whether it was human blood or Kheries were taken by the Investigating Officer into his possession when he inspected the field as a scene of occurrence nor there was shown in the site plan existence of bushes, shrubs, etc. on the southern Mend of the field concerned will not matter much. They go signify that the Investigation Officer did not carry out the investigation quite efficiently and it can be said to be slip-shod to some extent but on that score entire case of the State cannot be thrown out as discredited one. la the case of Naranjan Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Alert. They go signify that the Investigation Officer did not carry out the investigation quite efficiently and it can be said to be slip-shod to some extent but on that score entire case of the State cannot be thrown out as discredited one. la the case of Naranjan Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Alert. (957 SC 142, the Supreme Court while considering the mistakes or omissions in conduc tion of investigation and the effect of the same on the result of the case, observed : The decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee reported in Pulukuri Kottayya v. Emperor, 74 Ind App 65 : AIR 1947 PC 67 (A) and Zahiruddin v. Emperor, 74 Ind App 80 : AIR 1947 PC 75 (B) lay down that a breach of Sections 162 and 172 of the Code does not amount to an illegality. It therefore such an omission could not vitiate a trial, it is all the more reasonable that u failure to confirm to a rule of conduct prescribed by the State Government on Police Officers cannot in any way interfere with the legality of a trial. The failure to investigate an offence does not necessarily prejudice an accused and therefore, any mistake or omission in conducting investigation cannot vitiate a trial has been laid down in ;afiz Mohammad v. Emperor, AIR 1v31 Pat 150 (C ). At page 152, Adami, J. observes as follows: "there can be no doubt that the Sub-Inspector in his procedure dis obeyed certain provisions of the law, and for that he could be punished, if the authorities deemed it fit, but I cannot find that his failure was to the prejudice of the petitioners. Nor can I see how failure properly to conduct an investigation into an offence can vitiate a trial which was started on the final report after the investi gation. We are in agreement with these observations. " 19. It is also evident from the oral and medical evidence that the time of the occurrence was about 7 A. M. The First Information Report also corrobo rates the same. The doctor has no doubt opined that there could be a variation of 4 to 6 hours on either side in the probable time of death, which in his opinion could have taken place in the morning of 3-11-1988. 20. The doctor has no doubt opined that there could be a variation of 4 to 6 hours on either side in the probable time of death, which in his opinion could have taken place in the morning of 3-11-1988. 20. Important and noteworthy piece of corroborative evidence in this case is the medical evidence consisting of the testimony of Dr. A Sanghi (P. W. 4) coupled with post-mortem examination report, Ext. Ka-2. Medical evidence fully corroborates and conforms with the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses. The oral evidence (discussed above) is to the effect that two shots which struck Mahadeo, were fired from a distance of about 8 steps when he was plugging the fields towards its southern end and the remaining two shots which struck him were fired at him from a distance of about 2 to 4 steps after he had fallen down more or less in the middle of plot, having run up to that distance from the southern side of the field. Ali the injuries found on the person of Mahadeo were gun-shot injuries. Nature of the injuries and the condition around them (as found by the Doctor at the time of post-mortem examination) are consistent with and support the oral evidence. 21. The testimony of the doctor A. Sanghi (P. W. 5) shows that the gun shot wounds (injury Nos. 4 and 5) could result from one shot. Gun-shot wounds (injury Nos. 6 and 7) could also result from another (Single gun-shot a these two are the wounds of entry and exit and the Doctor has found that the entry wound communicated to the exit wound. Thus, injury Nos. 4 to 7 resulted from two gun-shots and they were caused from a distance of more than 2-3 steps for the reason that there was found no scorching, tattooing, blackening or singeing of hair at or around the place of those injuries. This conforms to and thus, lends support to the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses that the first two shots were fired (one by each accused) from a distance of about 8 steps. Mahadeo was then ploughing the field at its southern side. (Mangal P. W. I) stated that first shot struck at knee (Ganth) of Mahadeo. Gun-shot injury Nos. o and 7 were on the thigh which is near knee. Mahadeo was then ploughing the field at its southern side. (Mangal P. W. I) stated that first shot struck at knee (Ganth) of Mahadeo. Gun-shot injury Nos. o and 7 were on the thigh which is near knee. Injury No. 6 (v. e. gun-shot wound of entry) was found "over right in an area of 5"x3" on front and middle aspect" while injury No. 7 was its exit wound on the back of the right thigh. Mangal (P. W. I) has also stated that first fire was shot from the back side of the Mahadeo which was the same struck at his knee. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants con tended that on finding from back side there could not have resulted injury Nos. 6 and 7 because injury No. 6 was found on front and middle aspect of thigh and not on the back hence medical evidence goes to make the manner of assault suspicious. The contention has no force. It is important to note that Mahadeo was actually ploughing his field with the help of bullocks when the first two shots struck him. He was then, obviously, in constant motion. His body was not stationary in any direction or position. The statement of Mangal (P. W. 1) that first fire was shot at Mahadeo from behind is not to the construed to mean that the accused who shot was exactly behind the deceased who was ; moving with the bullocks. On being questioned in cross-examination Dr. A. Sanghi (P. W. 4) stated that injury No. 6 might be caused from the front but the Doctor has not at all mentioned nor was asked whether injury No. 6 could he caused on being fired from back side of the victim who happened to be in movement while carry ing on plugging. 22. According to the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses examined, last two shots were fired at Mahadeo from a close range. On his fall on the ground both the accused persons approached him and then fired at him. Both the gun-shots struck him. The medical evidence goes to show that the resultant injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were from one gun-shot and injury No. 8 resulted from the other gun shot. About injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 medical evidence shows that the injury No : was communicating with the injuries Nos. 2 and 3. Both the gun-shots struck him. The medical evidence goes to show that the resultant injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were from one gun-shot and injury No. 8 resulted from the other gun shot. About injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 medical evidence shows that the injury No : was communicating with the injuries Nos. 2 and 3. These injuries included the wounds of entry and exist and were in the region of for-head, eye and nose. Injury No. 8 seems to have been caused by another gun-shot causing the wound of entry in abdominal cavity. These gun-shots injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 8 had the necessary symptoms like scorching, singeing of hair making it evident that they were caused by two shots fired from a close range. Sheo Prasad (P. W. 3) has affirmed that the two shots were fired from a distance of about 2 to 4 steps. 23. Further, stomach was found empty on post-mortem examination. Testimony of Sheo Prasad (P. W. 3) goes to show that in the morning when he, his brothers and father reached the plot for work shortly before the murder, they had not taken any drink or food. Emptiness of the stomach corroborates it. 24. From the side of the appellants it is urged that death of Mahadeo took place in darkness before dawn of day. In support of it reference is made to the contents of small intestine and large intestine. There were found gasses and faucal matter in them. In this connection, it is important to note that the small and large intestines were not found to be "full" of gasses and or faucal matter. Some gasses and faucal matter found present could quite probably be present in the morning when Mahadeo went from his house for working in his field. Hence, the contents of the two intestines as they were, do not go to signify that Mahadeo was probably murdered in darkness and not about 7. 08 O Clock in the morning. 25. From the side of the appellants it is contended that the First Informa tion Report is ante-timed, the reason being that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is given as 6 Kms. in the First Information Report and 8 Kms. in the inquest report. The argument has no force. 25. From the side of the appellants it is contended that the First Informa tion Report is ante-timed, the reason being that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is given as 6 Kms. in the First Information Report and 8 Kms. in the inquest report. The argument has no force. The Investigating Officer R. O. Chaudhary (P. W. 6) when confronted with this diffe rence, mentioned that on going to police station by shorter route (Cachucha road; from the place of occurrence the distance comes to 6 Kms. but on going through the other route, the distance comes to 8 Kms. Apart from this explanation, having regard to short difference into distance noted in the Fist Information Report and Inquest Report the former cannot be held ante-timed. In the F. I. R. the exact date of murder of the brother of Chandra Bhal appellant is noted. On this point the informant Mangal (P. W. 1) has made it clear that he had taken the copy of the judgment of the murder case with him when he was going to lodge F. I. R at the police station. There is nothing surprising in it. He was keen from the beginning in asserting that it was the judgment of acquittal in that murder case which led to the murder of his ion Mahadeo by way of revenge. 26. As regards motive there is reliable evidence brought on the record through the testimony of Mangal (P. W. 1) and Sheo Prasad (P. W. 3 ). They have affirmed that in the murder of the brother of Chandra Bhal accused, Mahadeo (deceased), Mangal, Sheo Prasad and Mool Chandra were prosecuted but they were acquitted about 3-4 months before the occurrence in question. This, understandably, created ill- will on the part of Chandra Bhal against the deceased and his father and brothers. In fact, both the accused persons in their statements when questioned about this enmity on their part due to the result of that murder case, have admitted it to be correct. Thus, there existed a strong motive, which was not remote, for the murder of Mahadeo from the side of the accused. 27. In fact, both the accused persons in their statements when questioned about this enmity on their part due to the result of that murder case, have admitted it to be correct. Thus, there existed a strong motive, which was not remote, for the murder of Mahadeo from the side of the accused. 27. From the side of the appellants it is contended that the accused-appel lant Ramesh would not have joined Chandra Bhal in committing the offence because enmity is proved between them on account of the earlier litigation. In this connection a copy of the decree of the Revenue Court Ext. Kha-2 has been filed in order to substantiate it. That copy of the Revenue Court goes to show that in the year 1961 there was a case filed by the mother of the accused Chandra Bhal as next friend of Chandra Bhal under Section 229 of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against Gaon Samaj through Badri Prasad father of Ramesh-appellant who was the Chairman of the Gaon Samaj. it is too mush to say on the basis of this document relating to a revenue case which, was in fact, against Gaon Samaj and fought in 1961 when Chandra Bhal was a minor, that there existed enmity between the two appellants and the same was subsisting up to the relevant date 80 as to deter the appellants to join hands in committing the offence is 1981. Appellants version of subsisting enmity between them inter se does not seem to be correct, 28. The appellants contention is that had the accused been assailants they would not have spared the father and brothers of Mahadeo who according to the prosecution case, were present in the field along with Mahadeo. The contention is devoid of force. Mahadeo was near the accused persons. His father and brothers were at a distance in the same field. It is asserted that witnesses had come on firing at Mahadeo. One relative, that is, the brother of Chandra Bhal appellant was murdered for which Mahadeo, his father and brothers were consi dered as real assailants but the Court did not accept this view held by Chandra Bhal and acquitted them. So the accused could have very well felt satisfied by murdering one of the family members who were considered as assailants instead of killing other members also of the same family. 29. So the accused could have very well felt satisfied by murdering one of the family members who were considered as assailants instead of killing other members also of the same family. 29. According to the prosecution version that during the course of the incident fire-arm injuries were caused to the bullock with which Mahadeo was plugging his field at the time of firing of shots at him. In support of this version oral evidence of P. Ws. Mangal and Sheo Prasad as well as the medical evidence consisting of the testimony of Dr. S. C. Sharma (P. W. 5) at the injury report have been brought on the record. Appellants have challenged the version on the ground that the same is after-thought and unreliable. In fact, this version of the prosecution side does not inspire confidence. There is absolutely no mention of causing of injuries to the bullock by fire-arm either in the first infor mation report or in the statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. recorded on interrogation of the eye-witnesses examined in this case. It is asserted that the bullock was sent on 4-11-1981 (for medical examination) by the Investigating Officer along with the letter issued by the Investigating Agency. But no such letter has been filed in this case despite the fact that medical examination of the bullock on 4-114-1981 at the instance of (he Investigating Agency was seriously challenged from the side of the appellants. The doctor, who prepared the injury report did not mention the time of examination of the injuries. He has admitted that the injuries were quite superficial. The injury report seams to have been received at the police station concerned after about a week from 4-11-1981 and no satis factory explanation is coming from the side of the State from this unusual delay in sending the injury report. 30. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no independent witness has been examined in the case. It is case in which the presence of Mangal, Saruj and Sheo Prasad as eye-witnesses to the occurrence, seems to be quite natural and probable as the scene of the occurrence. Their testimony which has remained unshaken is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the injuries. It is case in which the presence of Mangal, Saruj and Sheo Prasad as eye-witnesses to the occurrence, seems to be quite natural and probable as the scene of the occurrence. Their testimony which has remained unshaken is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the injuries. Hence, on the ground that eye-witnesses are related to the deceased, their testi mony cannot be discredited, nor absence of production of other witnesses nor rotated to the deceased and the Informant, would make the prosecution case suspicious or unworthy of reliance. In the case of Angnoo and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 296 , Supreme Court has observed; Puttu Lal is no, doubt, the brother of deceased Mahadeo, but this very circumstance would, in our opinion, add to the value of has evidence, because he would be interested in ensuring that the real culprits responsible for the murder of Mahadeo are punished and no innocent persons. " 31. It is, therefore, held that the prosecution case of murder of Mahadeo by appellants is established beyond doubt. Having committed the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. read with Section 34, I. P. C. they have rightly been con victed and sentenced for imprisonment of life. 32. The appeals have no force. They are dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .