( 1 ) RAM Singh has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. to life imprisonment, passed by Sri O. P. Jain, V Addl. Sessions Judge, Mainpuri on 19-4-1984. ( 2 ) THE appellant Ram Singh, co-accused Gajendra Singh as well as deceased Ram Swaroop were residents of Village Sultanpur, P. S. Bewar, District Mainpuri. According to the prosecution a month prior to the occurrence Ram Singh - appellant and his nephew Gajendra Singh had taken forcibly water of the tube-well in their field through the field of Ram Swaroop, the deceased, and on latters protests they had threatened him with dire consequences. The occurrence in question had taken place on 23-12-1982 at about 7 p. m. when the deceased had already finished his evening meals, while his wife Smt. Margsri (P. W. 2) was serving meals to the two sons of the deceased. A kerosene Dibbi was burning nearby. Ram Singh appellant along with co-accused Gajendra Singh and two others arrived there. Ram Singh had a gun while Gajendra Singh had a country made pistol with him. The other two were also arrived Gajendra Singh exhorted his uncle Ram Singh "chacha KYA DEKHTE HO, MARO SAALE KO GOLI AUR PANI NA NIKALNE KA MAZA CHAKHA DO". Thereupon both the assailants fired with their arms in spite of all prostrations by Smt. Margsri and her sons. Ram Swaroop died on the spot. After hearing the alarm, witnesses from the nearby houses arrived. The assailants, however, managed to make good their escape. Both the assailants had been clearly recognised in the light of the kerosene Dibbi. Written Report (Ex. Ka 3) of the occurrence was submitted at P. S. Bewar on the following day at 8 a. m. on the basis of which case was registered and investigation followed. Post-mortem on the dead body was conducted on 25-12-1982 at 2. 35 p. m. by Dr. A. K. Upadhyaya (P. W. 5) and noted as follows, vide post-mortem report (Ex. Ka 15 ). Deceased was aged about 40 years. Rigor mortis was present on both lower and upper extremities. No sign of decomposition was present. Ante Mortem injuries1. Fire arm wound of entry 1. 5 cm. x 1. 35 p. m. by Dr. A. K. Upadhyaya (P. W. 5) and noted as follows, vide post-mortem report (Ex. Ka 15 ). Deceased was aged about 40 years. Rigor mortis was present on both lower and upper extremities. No sign of decomposition was present. Ante Mortem injuries1. Fire arm wound of entry 1. 5 cm. x 1. 5 cm x cavity deep on the left side chest front 8 c. m. above and medial to left nipple at 10 Oclock present. Margins everted. No blackening and scorching and tattooing present. 2. Abrasion 2 cm. x 1. 5 cm on the outer and back of left fore-arm 6 cm above left wrist. 3. Abrasion 1. 5 cm. x 0. 5 cm on the front of left leg 9 cm above left lateral malleus. 4. Multiple abrasion in an area of 10 cm x 6 cm on the outer aspect of right thigh 17 cm below right iliac crest. On internal examination left pleura, lung and heart were found lacerated. Semi digested food material was found and five big metallic pellets were recovered from abdominal cavity. Stomach contained food material. In the opinion of the Doctor death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of the aforesaid injuries which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 3 ) BOTH Ram Singh and Gajendra Singh were charged and tried under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. to which they pleaded not guilty. To prove its case the prosecution in all examined five witnesses of whom P. W. 1 Ram Ladete Singh is the son and P. W. 2 Smt. Margsri is the wife of the deceased who gave an eye-witness account of the occurrence and fully corroborated the prosecution story stated above. P. W. 3 Head Constable Narendra Singh had received the written resort and prepared the chick report and registered the case in the General Diary. P. W. 4 S. O. , A. P. Singh, the Investigating Officer deposed about the various steps taken by him in the course of investigation. He had found blood at the scene of the occurrence. Lastly P. W. 5 Dr. A. K. Upadhyaya proved the post-mortem report and its contents as stated above. P. W. 4 S. O. , A. P. Singh, the Investigating Officer deposed about the various steps taken by him in the course of investigation. He had found blood at the scene of the occurrence. Lastly P. W. 5 Dr. A. K. Upadhyaya proved the post-mortem report and its contents as stated above. ( 4 ) THE version of the appellant Ram Singh has been that he had moved an application against the deceased and others; that he had no plot near the field of Ram Swaroop, deceased; that Ram Swaroop was also prosecuted in a dacoity case and remained in jail for two months; that Pradhan of the village has got him falsely implicated; that the murder had taken place some time late in the night and not at 7 p. m. as alleged. ( 5 ) D. W. 1 Brijendra Singh, Assistant Jailer, District Jail, Mainpuri was examined and he had appeared with Jail Register No. 12 of the under trials of the year 1975 and proved that Rani Swaroop was admitted in the Jail on 25-3-1975 and filed Ex. Kha 1 true copy of that entry in the Jail Register. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, however, believed the prosecution evidence and disbelieved the defence version, but he gave benefit of doubt to Gajendra Singh, hence acquitted him, but convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. to life imprisonment. ( 7 ) ON behalf of the appellant it was urged that the F. I. R. was not lodged at the time as shown by the prosecution; that the occurrence had not taken place at 7 p. m. and that there was no sufficient light wherein the assailants of the deceased could be identified and lastly, if the evidence for finding guilt of Gajendra Singh, co-accused was insufficient, the appellant also should not have been convicted on the same evidence of highly interested witnesses. ( 8 ) THE F. 1. R. was submitted by P. W. 1 Ram Ladete Singh, son of the deceased. He has deposed that he had taken report to the police station in the morning getting it described from one Jagdish. ( 8 ) THE F. 1. R. was submitted by P. W. 1 Ram Ladete Singh, son of the deceased. He has deposed that he had taken report to the police station in the morning getting it described from one Jagdish. P. W. 3 Head Constable Narendra Singh has deposed that he was posted as Head Muharrir at P. S. Bewar on 24-12-1982; that he had registered the case in the General Diary and proved its copy Ex. Ka 2. Surprisingly, it was not asked from him nor it was stated that the chick F. I. R. was prepared by him. However, P. W. 4, S. O. , A. P. Singh, the Investigating Officer has deposed that the chick F. I. R. was prepared by Head Moharrir Narendra Singh and that part of his statement stands undisputed. Thus, it appears that there has been a slip by the learned State Counsel when the testimony of Head Moharrir, Narendra Singh was recorded in not getting the chick F. I. R. also proved by Head Moharrir, Narendra Singh (P. W. 3 ). In his cross-examination Head Moharrir Narendra Singh (P. W. 3) had stated that the copy of the chick report of the case was sent to the District on the following day, i. e. , on 25-12-1982, while the report was received there on 27-12-1982. He denied the defence suggestion that till 26-12-1982 the F. I. R. was not recorded, but it was subsequently recorded. Prima facie, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the F. I. R. was not recorded on 24-12-1982 but was recorded some time on 26-12-1982 be- cause the post mortem on the dead body was conducted on 25-12-1982 at 2. 35 p. m. The inquest report also specifically contains that the copy of the F. I. R. was also sent along with the other papers with the dead body for post mortem. Dr. 35 p. m. The inquest report also specifically contains that the copy of the F. I. R. was also sent along with the other papers with the dead body for post mortem. Dr. A. K. Upadbyaya, who had done the autopsy, was not cross-examined on the point and it was not suggested to him that the inquest report and other papers which were sent for post-mortem of the dead body did not contain a copy of the F. I. R. ( 9 ) THE main criticism on behalf of the appellant had been that the evidence of eye-witnesses was not worthy of credence as it was of highly interested persons and that there was no sufficient light wherein they could recognise the assailants of the deceased. It is no doubt true that the two eye-witnesses, namely, P. W. 1 Rain Ladete Singh is the son and P. W. 2 Smt. Margsri is the widow of the deceased, hence their testimony has to be closely scrutinised. They were the natural witnesses of the crime as it was done in their presence when food was being served by Smt Margsri to her two sons at about 7 p. m. It was the month of December and, therefore, at that time there must be some light at that place when the food was being served. Both P. W. 1 Ram Ladete Singh as well as P. W. 2 Smt. Margsri have deposed that there was light of the kerosene Dibbi and that the deceased had already taken his meal and he was sitting and warming himself. P, W. 1 Ram, Ladete has further stated that the deceased had taken his meal about half an hour prior to the occurrence. The fact that the deceased had already taken his meals stands corroborated by the postmortem report which shows that food material was present in the stomach and semi-digested food material was found in the abdomen cavity. Besides the testimony of these two witnesses that food was being served it is also in the testimony of P. W. 4, Station Officer, A. P. Singh, the Investigating Officer. In his cross-examination that on the spot he found food burnt wood and "juthe BARTAN" (uncleaned utensils wherein meal was taken ). Besides the testimony of these two witnesses that food was being served it is also in the testimony of P. W. 4, Station Officer, A. P. Singh, the Investigating Officer. In his cross-examination that on the spot he found food burnt wood and "juthe BARTAN" (uncleaned utensils wherein meal was taken ). He, however, admitted that he did not show them in his inspection note and that he had not taken them in his custody as he did not consider it necessary. He, however, denied that there was no food or juthe BARTAN on the spot. This statement of the Investigating officer has been in his cross-examination and, therefore, it cannot be said that it is hit by Section 162, Cr. P. C. If the witness had so stated in his examination-in-chief then of course reference of the same was necessary in the case diary. ( 10 ) THE presence of kerosene Dibbi at that time was disputed on the ground that the same was not taken possession of by the Investigation Officer on the day he reached the scene of occurrence, but he took it in his custody after three days of the occurrence and he has also admitted in paragraph 10 of his cross-examination that on the spot he had not seen the kerosene Dibbi on the spot. He had gone at the scene of occurrence in the morning after 8 a. m. when the report was lodged and so naturally the kerosene Dibbi must have been kept away from there and could not be there. It was also pointed out that the Investigating Officer has admitted in his cross-examination that the same was also not shown to h m when he remained in the night. It is not there in his statement that he had stayed in the night at the house of the deceased. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in believing the prosecution evidence of Ram Ladete Singh (P. W. 1) the son and Smt. Margsri (P. W. 2) wife of the deceased who were most natural witnesses being inmates of the house that at about 7 p. m. a kerosene Dibbi was burning. ( 11 ) ON behalf of the appellant it was strongly urged that the occurrence had taken place late in the night when the deceased and the inmates of the house had gone to sleep. ( 11 ) ON behalf of the appellant it was strongly urged that the occurrence had taken place late in the night when the deceased and the inmates of the house had gone to sleep. The F. I. R. was lodged next Morning. However, if the deceased had been murdered while he was sleeping, then his dead-body would not have been found at the place where the food was being served on the ground. His dead-body could have been in any of the living rooms as it was the month of December and it could not have been lying without a cot and bedding in a varandah. ( 12 ) THE Investigating Officer had found blood, pellets and empty cartridges in the Varandah near the dead-body of the deceased which wholly corroborate the evidence of those two eye-witnesses. ( 13 ) ON behalf of the defence it was also contended that there was no evidence to prove how the three abrasion injuries found on the dead-body were caused. The following, three abrasion injuries were noted on the dead-body by the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem. 2. Abrasion 2 cm x 1. 5 cm on the outer and back of left forearm 6 cm above left wrist. 3. Abrasion 1. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm on the front of left leg 9 cm above left lateral malleus. 4. Multiple abrasions in an area of 10 cm x 6 cm on the outer aspect of right thigh 17 cm below right iliac crest. ( 14 ) THESE abrasion injuries appear to have been caused by pellets. The entire pellets had not entered the body through the gun shot wound of entry of 1. 5 cm x 1. 5 cm vide injury No. 1 on the dead body but only five pellets had entered the body through wound No. 1 which were recovered at the time of the postmortem. The investigating Officer had also recovered an empty cartridge, tiklies and pellets from neat the dead body. The distance from where the assailant had fired the shot as shown in the site map was about 3 steps. That also corroborates the cause for the dispersal of shots and not en-mass entry of the entire shot in the wound. The investigating Officer had also recovered an empty cartridge, tiklies and pellets from neat the dead body. The distance from where the assailant had fired the shot as shown in the site map was about 3 steps. That also corroborates the cause for the dispersal of shots and not en-mass entry of the entire shot in the wound. That apart, one or two such minor abrasions could have also taken place when the deceased had fallen down on receipt of the gun shot and writhed with agony on the ground for howsoever short duration it might be. Thus all the circumstances fully corroborate the eye witness testimony of P. W. 1 Ram Ladete Singh, and P. W. 2 Smt. Margari, the son and widow of the deceased, respectively, whose presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted and there is indeed a ring of truth around their testimony, even after its close scrutiny. It was also contended that their testimony has been disbelieved by the trial Court against co-accused Gajendra Singh and, therefore, the same should not be relied upon against the appellant. It is not so. The learned trial Judge has not disbelieved the testimony of these two eye witnesses even against Gajendra Singh but as a matter of extreme precaution has given him the benefit of doubt as he had not caused any injury to the deceased. ( 15 ) NO other point was passed in this appeal. ( 16 ) THE conclusion, therefore, is that the appeal has no force and is here-by dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under S. 308, I. P. C. to life imprisonment is hereby confirmed. He is on bail. He shall surrender and be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out his sentence, His bail bond is cancelled. Appeal dismissed. .