JUDGMENT P.Basu, J. - This Criminal appeal has been filed by Jai Ram against his conviction under Section 302/34 I.P.C. recorded by II Addl. Sessions Judge, Mainpuri on 23.10.78 in S.T.No. 164 of 1978. 2. It may be remembered that along with appellant Jai Ram one Nathu was also charge sheeted but as he was absconding only the appellant was the sole accused coming up for trial in the instant case. 3. According to the prosecution story an incident happened at about 4 P.M. on 14.2.77 on the Chak Road near the Tubewell of Kalika when the deceased accompanied by the informant and three others including Tej Singh had reached near Kathal fruit grove the two accused came and started firing at the deceased Kalika alias Kali Charan. Kalika fell down at which the appellant went close to him and fired from his pistol from a close range on his back. The two accused thereafter fled away whereupon the informant and the witnesses took the deceased first to the village hospital and then to the District Hospital where he was reoorted dead. A first information Report was ore pared by the informant and taken to the Police Station Kotwali but they refused to taken down the said report on various pretests one of them being that the case related to the P.S. Bhongaon and, therefore, the F.I.R. if any, should be lodged there. An attempt was made to lodge the F.I.R. on 15.2.77 at P.S. Bhongaon but that also failed because one Subedar Singh, M.L.A. of the locality who was interested and related with the accused, was seen in the Police Station and. therefore, ultimately a written First Information Report in the nature of a complaint was forwarded by Het Ram alias Met Singh to the S.D.M. who endorsed its copy to the Police Station whereupon a case was registered. 4. To complete the chronology of the incident, a memo was sent by the District Hospital to P.S. Kotwali at 8.15 P.M. whereupon general diary entry was recorded at Entry No. 47 on 14.2.78 (Ex.Ka15) and ultimately the postmortem examination of the dead body of Kalika alias Kali Charan was performed on 15.2.77 at 3.30 P.M. by Dr.N.D. Baghia (since dead). The postmortem report and the memo sent from the Hospital have been proved by P.W.6 Rameshwar Prasad. 5. The postmortem report and the memo sent from the Hospital have been proved by P.W.6 Rameshwar Prasad. 5. In order to prove the prosecution case the informant Het Ram alias Het Singh was examined as P.W.2 whereas Tej Singh, who was mentioned in the F.I.R. as accompanying the deceased and the informant, has been examined as P.W.1 All other witnesses are formal in nature who have proved, inter alia the lodging of the First Information Report at the behest of an order of the S.D.M. registration of the case at the P.S.Bhogaon, investigation and various stages thereof, absconding of both the accused, then filing the chargesheet against the two accusedone the appellant and other absconding accused Nathu. 6. The appellant in his statement under section I.P.C.has denied the orosecution allegations and has attributted his false implication due to enmity and has further asserted that the eyewitnesses had reason to depose falsely and, therefore, they are implicating the appellant on account of existing animosity. 7. The learned trial court placing implicit reliance on the witnesses having ample corroboration by the circumstances, material and documents, has recorded the conviction and sentence as stated above. Hence this appeal. 8. Sri. G.S. Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Sri. Ramesh Sinha, Advocate, has placed the entire record and has argued the case with ability. Sri. S.N.Singh, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has been heard on behalf of the State. 9. The main argument of the learned counsel was, however, on the question of lodging of the F.I.R. with delay. It was said that there was no justifiable reason for accepting the prosecution version that there was good explanation for lodging the F.I.R. on 18.2.77 at P.S. Bhonqaon even though the incident had taken place on 14.2.77 In this connection it was argued that Het Ram alias Het Singh would have had other opportunities like sending a telegram and getting a report lodged through some one else if he was present at the incident and since no lodging of F.I.R. or sending a telegram or intimating the authorities has been done at his behest, his presence is also rendered doubtful. 10. This argument on the face of it though attractive has to be rejected as rightly done by the learned Trial Judge. 10. This argument on the face of it though attractive has to be rejected as rightly done by the learned Trial Judge. It may be noticed that the consistent case of the informant as well as that of the other eye witness Jai Singh had been that they along with the deceased were going and passing through the village when suddenly the two accused came out and started firing. It may be remembered that Inquest Report (Panchnama) was prepared on 14.2.77 which bears the signature of Het Ram as well as the left thumb impression of two other witnesses namely Rameshwar Prasadand Malkhan. Similarly signature of Nawab Singh and Ehsan Ali are there ultimately ending with the signature of Rameshwar Prasad P.W.6 who had prepared the said panchanama. It has been stated by him that as soon as the intimation of the death of Kali Charan had reached the P.S. Kotwali where he was posted as a SubInspector, he was deputed to prepare the Panchnama in the Hospital. The signature of Het Ram on the Panchnama along with the other witnesses lent more than sufficient corroboration of his statement that he was accompanying the deceased. In this connection the learned Addl. Govt Advocate rightly emohasised that the deceased had two injuries which fully corroborate eye witness account as set out in the First Information Report and consistently deposed by the two eye witnesses. It may now be relevant to quote here the two injuries as noted in the post mortem report. "(1) Firearm wound 3 cm x 21/2 cm x abdominal cavity deep over the back lumber region left side 1 Cm. away from mid verteberal line and 5 cm below left costal margin with margins invested. (2) Firearm wound 3 cm x 2 cm x muscles and tissue deep over the front of right leg on outer side 5 cm below right knee with margins invested. No blackening, tatooing or scorching seen. The wound is directed from below upwards, outward and backward extending upto middle of right thigh where an elongated pallet is palpable." 11. The injury sustained by the deceased on the leg appears to be serious enought so much so that it had caused fracture of the right femur bone there by supporting the prosecution case that the deceased fell down on receiving the first injury. This has been noted as injury no. The injury sustained by the deceased on the leg appears to be serious enought so much so that it had caused fracture of the right femur bone there by supporting the prosecution case that the deceased fell down on receiving the first injury. This has been noted as injury no. 2 in the postmortem report quoted above. the order injury attributed to the appellant goes to corroborate beyond doubt the testimony of eye witnesses that after Kalika had fallen, the appellant went near him and fired from his country made pistol while he was lying with the chest on the ground. There is blackening and charring against, injury No. 1 which may safely be attributed to the act of assault as assigned to the appellant by the eye witnesses. It may be noted from abdominal region seven large size pellets, one card board and one card board diswere extracted. An extensive internal damage was caused to the abdomen. This injury is, therefore, fully fitting with the story narrated in the F.I.R. and as deposed to in the court by the two eye witnesses. An attempt was made to indicate that as if injury no.2 may not have been the result of a firing from equi height as the injury has tedency to travel upwards from downwards. It may be noted that the legs are moving limbs of the body and one does not know the exact condition of the leg when the bullet or pellet had hit the location of the injury so as to give the injury an unexpected direction or angle. The learned trial judge has taken a note of the statement of the eye witnesses that there was some height at the place where the deceased was when the accused had started firing. So the first argument of the learned counsel that there was delay in the F.I.R. suggesting thereby absence of the informant Het Ram alias Het Singh is negatived by all the circumstances. 12. The second argument was usual one that there was enough preexisting enmity and therefore, no reliance should be placed on the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2. It may be noted that just as enmity may be the reason of falsa implication it may be equally the reason for attacking the deceased. 12. The second argument was usual one that there was enough preexisting enmity and therefore, no reliance should be placed on the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2. It may be noted that just as enmity may be the reason of falsa implication it may be equally the reason for attacking the deceased. From a persual of the statement of the witnesses it appears that enmity existed between accused and Phool Singh on one hand and Kali Char an and his brother, Subedar Sabhu and others on the other Phool Singh was murdered for which Kalika deceased had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in which case he was bailed out by this Court and was enjoying the liberty when this incident took place. There was a dacoity in the house of Gabdu, brother of Kalika deceased in which Jai Ram and Phool Singh were accused. It Is more then apparent that under such circumstances, the accused appellants were having equal amount of motive for committing the crime. The eye witnesses testimony which has been minutely weighed and judged and which gets sufficient corroboration from the circumstances noted above can be safely relied upon and the trial judge has rightly placed implicit confidence on their testimony whose presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. 13. No other point was argued. The result, therefore, is that this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentences of the appellant are upheld. The appellant is on bail who will surrender to his bail borids to serve out the sentence awarded.