Judgment 1. Appellants 1 and 2, Yadu Yadav and Gandhi Yadav, have been convicted under S. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant No. 3 Antu Yadav has been convicted u/ S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Two of the accused Bairam Yadav and Prahlad Yadav have already been acquitted by the trial court. 2. The case of the prosecution appears to be that on 2-4-1987 at about 6-30 p.m. while deceased Bishwanath Yadav along with his wife Lalita Devi (P. W. 1), the informant, were returning home after purchasing some cloth from the market in connection with the marriage of their daughter and when they reached a bit ahead of Coolipara by the side of railway line, all of a sudden, Antu Yadav armed with countrymade pistol came and fired one shot at the back of Bishwanath, the victim, and then ran away along with the appellants Yadu Yadav and Gandhi Yadav. Bishwanath Yadav fell down on sustaining injuries. The informant began weeping. The wife of the victim tied the wound of the victim by the cloth of her peticoat. There were 2-3 persons at some distance whom the informant could not identify. Thereafter people collected there and her husband was taken to Manihari State Dispensary where he died,. S. K. Brahmchari, A.S.I., on receiving O.D. slip reached the Manihari Hospital, where he recorded the Fardbeyan of Lalita Devi at about 8-30 p. m. which forms basis of the FIR which was registered at 9-20. The Investigating Officer, after recording Fardbeyan, started investigation. He prepared the inquest report of the dead, body. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination, which was done by Dr. Indra Prasad Bhagat on 3-4-1987 at about 9-00 a.m., at the Purnea Sadar Hospital. After completing investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the three appellants along with two other acquitted accused. According to prosecution, the occurrence took place due to some enmity. No witness in defence has been examined. 3. Prosecution in support of the case, produced seven witnesses. P.W. 1 Lalita Devi is the wife of the deceased and the informant of this case. She is an eye witness, P.W. 2 Harihar Yadav, the brother of the deceased, came to the place of occurrence and raised alarm. P.W. 3 has been tendered for cross examination. 3. Prosecution in support of the case, produced seven witnesses. P.W. 1 Lalita Devi is the wife of the deceased and the informant of this case. She is an eye witness, P.W. 2 Harihar Yadav, the brother of the deceased, came to the place of occurrence and raised alarm. P.W. 3 has been tendered for cross examination. P.W. 4 Naresh Yadav also came on the spot after the occurrence. P.W. 5 is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination. P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer in this case, who submitted charge- sheet after investigation. P.W. 7 is the Circle Officer who has proved the confessional statement (Exhibit-6 of Antu Yadav said to have been recorded by the Anchal Adhikari. 4. Learned trial court after considering the entire material on record, has convicted the appellants as stated above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the order of conviction of the appellants on the ground that the order is bad as the same has been passed on the sole testimony of P.W. 1. Further it was stated that there was no motive to commit the offence. It has also been held that the medical evidence and the post mortem report do not support the version of P.W. 1. It was also stated that the order of conviction of the appellants Yadu Yadav and Gandhi Yadav u/ S. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law for the reasons that no overt act has been assigned to them. To appreciate these contentions the evidence adduced on the record will have to be examined with care and caution. 6. P.W. 1 has said that her father-in-law had two brothers namely Jatadhari Yadav and Bijadhari Yadav. Her husband had two brothers namely P.Ws. 2 and 3 and they were sons of Jatadhari Yadav, Bijadhari Yadav has got no male issue and he has got only daughters and whose sons are Yadu Yadav and Antu Yadav. There was a property of theirs. She has said that the land of Bairam Yadav was purchased at the rate of Rs. 2,000/ - per bigha but no Kewala had been executed. Parahlad Yadav is the Mama of Balram Yadav and also father of Yadu Yadav. Her husband had been asked to leave the land as there was no Kewala. Antu and Yadu Yadav were in collusion with him. 2,000/ - per bigha but no Kewala had been executed. Parahlad Yadav is the Mama of Balram Yadav and also father of Yadu Yadav. Her husband had been asked to leave the land as there was no Kewala. Antu and Yadu Yadav were in collusion with him. On the day of occurrence, she along with husband went to Manihari Bazar for purchasing cloth on account of marriage of their daughter which was going to be performed soon. After purchasing, when they were returning at about 5-00 p.m. and they wore near Gandhitola and Baghmara, which is a lonely place, appellant Antu Yadav came and shot at her husband in his back, upon which he fell down. She ran to catch hold of him but by that time her husband had already fallen down. Antu Yaday ran away. Gandhi Yadav and Yadu Yadav also ran away towards east. Then she tied the wound of her husband by the cloth of her petticoat. People came on the spot and the victim was taken to the hospital where he died. A.S.I. came and recorded the Fardbeyan. This is what she has already stated in the Fardbeyan. In her cross-examination, she has fully supported her evidence about the occurrence. Nothing has come out from her evidence on account of which her statement has not been worthy of credence. She admitted that she was a Mami of Antu Yadav. There was quarrel about land. He used to come some time back but since two years stopped coming there. In her statement she has not given any specific role of Yadu Yadav and Gandhi Yadav. 7. P. W. 2 is the brother of the victim. He has also said about the land dispute. He stated that when he was returning from his field, at that time he heard Hulla that the victim was fired by the appellants and fell down. Then the victim was taken to hospital where he was declared dead. 8. P.W. 3 has also said about the alarm raised by P.W. 1 and he went there. This is a direct evidence. Post mortem report had been sent by the doctor who has said in the court that he had medically examined the victim and found the blood injury. Thus her statement about the shooting by a pistol is not controverted by any witness. This is a direct evidence. Post mortem report had been sent by the doctor who has said in the court that he had medically examined the victim and found the blood injury. Thus her statement about the shooting by a pistol is not controverted by any witness. There is nothing in the statement of the single testimony of the witness on acount of which it may be said that he was confused. She has been fully supported by the P.W. 2 as well as the medical evidence. As such her evidence is complete. She has definitely not said about any overt act so far as the appellants Yadu Yadav and Gandhi Yadav are concerned. Only this much has been said that they went there. Simply going there may not be sufficient overt act and cannot be said to establish that they shared common object, under S. 34 of the I.P.C. It did not amount to an overt act by way of participation on the part of the appellants Yadu Yadav and Gandhi Yadav. As regards, Antu Yadav, his participation has been well established by the abovementioned evidence. As such his conviction appears to be justified. 9. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. Appellants Yadu Vadav and Gandhi Yadav are entitled to acquittal and the conviction and sentence of appellant Antu Yadav u/ S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code are maintained. 10. This appeal is accordingly, dismissed as against the appellant Antu Yadav. He is in Jail. He will serve out the sentence. Appeal partly allowed.