JUDGMENT G.K. Mathur, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th January, 1979 passed by Sri B. K. Misra, II Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Session Trial No. 501 of 1978 by which the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and 324 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and each of them has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 320 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and for 18 months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. The sentences were made to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, has been that on 2nd August, 1978 at about 10.00 p.m. three appellants alongwith one unknown person forced their entry into the house of Ram Swarup by coming on the northern thatch of Ram Swarup's house through the roof of adjacent house of appellant Ram Pal. After jumping into the house of Ram Swarup situate in village Udiyapur within the circle of police Station Sehramau south, district Shahjahanpur. According to the prosecution, a lantern and Dibia were glowing in the house and (P.W. 6) Smt. Kalawati was massaging the body of her husband Ram Swarup who was lying on a cot under the thatch situate to the south of the court-yard and her son (P.W. 4) Ram Chandra was lying on another cot and they all on seeing the intruders got up and came to the 'Angan' and raised alarm but the intruders out of outstanding enmity started beating them and on the exhortation of Ram Pal, Lachhaman fired two shots from his pistol at Ram Swarup who fell down on the ground. It is alleged that Faqire appellant was armed with Lathi, Ram Pal appellant was armed with a spear and the unknown accomplice was armed with Kanta while Lachhaman was armed with pistol and all the four persons went away after breaking open the 'Sankal of the southern door. It is alleged that Faqire appellant was armed with Lathi, Ram Pal appellant was armed with a spear and the unknown accomplice was armed with Kanta while Lachhaman was armed with pistol and all the four persons went away after breaking open the 'Sankal of the southern door. It is alleged that several persons of the neighbourhood, including (P.W. 5) Jodha had come out side of the House of Ram Swarup on hearing the hue and cry made by Smt. Kalawati and her son Ram Chandra and happened to see in the light of their torches the three appellants and their accomplice going out from the southern door of the house of Ram Swarup and they went away towards east with their arms. Ram Swarup was then placed on the cot but soon after it he breathed his last. 3. P.W. 4 Ram Chandra Lodged a written report of the incident in question at 8.25 a.m. on 3rd August, 1978 at the police station situate at a distance of 16 miles from the village in question. Head Constable Kripal Singh (P.W.-2) prepared the check report and made entry of the substance in the general diary. Bhanwar Singh Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.-7) made the investigation of the case, sent the dead body of Ram Swarup for post mortem examination after getting the inquest report prepared made local inspection and prepared site plan, took in possession two empty cartridges, sample of blood stained and plain earth from the 'Angan'. He also took in possession the lantern, Dibia and torch of Jodha and gave them back in the supurdagi of owners. 4. P. W. I Dr. Madan Mohan Lal Superintendent of Police Hospital, Shahjahapur made the post mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Swarup on 4th August, 1978 at 3.00 A.M. The probable age of the deceased was 40 years and the time since death was about two days and the deceased had a stout body. He found the following ante mortem injuries on the body of Ram Swarup deceased : 1. A large lacerated wound 7 cm x 5 cm on the back of right elbow with fracture of lower end of right humorous and upper and of right ulna. Margins of the wound were lacerated, inverted, scorched and the was full of unburnt gun-power. 2. A large lacerated wound 7 cm x 5 cm on the back of right elbow with fracture of lower end of right humorous and upper and of right ulna. Margins of the wound were lacerated, inverted, scorched and the was full of unburnt gun-power. 2. A large lacerated wound with margins lacerated and scorched 6 cm x 3 cm on the right iliac fossa just below rib margins, stomach and intestimes protruding through the wound. 3. A contusion 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the right side face close to the ear. 4. A contusion 3.8 cm x 1.5 cm on the right fore head close to midline. 5. A contusion 1.5 cm. x 1.5 cm on the outer part and front of the left shoulder. 6. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.4 cm. slanting across the back and outer part of the left fore-arm, 6 cm above the wrist directed from out to within. 7. A scratch 3 cm. Long slantingly across the back of the left fore arm in middle. 8. Three contusions in an area of 4 cm x 3 cm on the back and outer part of the left hand. 9. A contused wound 1.5 cm. x 0.6 cm. x 0.2 cm. on the back of the tip of left middle finger, outer half of the nail was broken. 10. A scratch 7 cm long on the back and lower part of the left arm running from the middle of arm slantingly upto the outer part of left elbow. 11. An incised wound 1.2 cm x 0.4 cm x skin deep on the back and outer part of the right below close to injury No. 1 It was obliquely across and was directed from within outwards. 12. Multiple contusions (3 in number) in an area 8 cm x 5 cm on the back and outer part of left leg almost in the middle. 13. A scratch 5 cm long on the outer part and middle of left thigh running obliquely. 14. An incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.4 cm. x skin deep on the back and inner part of right fore-arm in middle running across from within outwards. 15. A contusion 6 cm x 1.5 cm obliquely along the outer part of left ankle. 5. 14. An incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.4 cm. x skin deep on the back and inner part of right fore-arm in middle running across from within outwards. 15. A contusion 6 cm x 1.5 cm obliquely along the outer part of left ankle. 5. On internal examination the doctor found abdominal cavity full of clotted blood, stomach empty, small lacerations all over in mesentry and small intestine. The outer and lower part of the liver was found badly lacerated and right kidney was also found lacerated. In his opinion the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury No. 2. 6. He recovered in all 25 pellets and one cap from the abdomen wall, pleura, liver, small intestine and bladder. 7. P. W. 8 Dr. Satyapal, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Shahjahanpur made the medical examination of Smt. Kalawati at 3.30 P.M. on 3rd August, 1978 and found the following injuries on her person : 1. Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 0.2 x skin deep, midline scalp, 11 cm above occipital protuberance. 2. Lacerated wound 1.5. cm x 0.2 x bone midline scalp 5 cm. above occipital protuberance. 3. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 x bone left side scalp 7 cm left to injury No. 1. 4. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.2 x bone on scalp 11 cm. above middle of left eye brow. 5. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.4 cm x skin back right hand 5 cm proximal to web between index finger and thumb. 6. Penetrating wound 0.5 cm x 0.4 cm x 3 cm clear margin and web between 4th and 5th lobs right foot. 8. At 3.40 p.m. the same day he examined Ram Chandra and found the following injury on his person : 1. Softly scabbed abrasion 1 cm x 0.6 cm over right tibial tuberosity. 9. The prosecution in all examined eight witnesses. A mention of all of them has come in the narration of the prosecution case. 10. The accused pleaded not guilty. 11. The accused persons in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. admitted that Faquire and Lachhaman accused are real brothers and have got another real brother, namely, Jodha on whose complaint the deceased Ram Swarup and P.W. 4 Ram Chandra were convicted and their appeal against -the conviction was pending at the time of incident in question. 11. The accused persons in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. admitted that Faquire and Lachhaman accused are real brothers and have got another real brother, namely, Jodha on whose complaint the deceased Ram Swarup and P.W. 4 Ram Chandra were convicted and their appeal against -the conviction was pending at the time of incident in question. The other allegations made against them by the prosecution have been specifically denied by them. They stated that the witnesses have deposed against them out of enmity. They stated that P.W. 5 Jodha happened to be the Mausa and cousin of Ram Swarup deceased and was inimical to them. They further stated that a dacoity was committed in the house of Ram Swarup deceased. They claimed that the wife of Ram Swarup deceased was not a good lady. 12. The accused persons did not examine any witness in defence. 13. The learned trial Court found the case proved against the appellants and convicted and sentenced them as indicated at the opening of the judgment. 14. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned trial Court the appellants have preferred this appeal 15. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional public prosecutor and perused the record. 16. The incident in question had taken place inside the house of Ram Swarup in which Ram Swarup was murdered and the injuries were caused to P. W. 1 Ram Chandra and his mother P. W. 6 Smt. Kalawati. There is the evidence to the effect that the dead body of Ram Swarup was found inside the house and the blood was found there. As a matter of fact the date, time and place of the incident is not disputed by the appellants and their suggestion is that the dacoity was committed at the house of Ram Swarup and out of enmity they have been falsely implicated in the case. 17. There existed enmity of the appellants and their brother Jodha with Rain Swarup. Ram Swarup and P. W. 4 Ram Chandra have been convicted in a case started at the report of Jodha, the brother of the appellants Faquire and Lachhman and the appeal against that conviction was pending at the time of trial of the case in question. 17. There existed enmity of the appellants and their brother Jodha with Rain Swarup. Ram Swarup and P. W. 4 Ram Chandra have been convicted in a case started at the report of Jodha, the brother of the appellants Faquire and Lachhman and the appeal against that conviction was pending at the time of trial of the case in question. Ram Swarup, the deceased had lodged the report against the appellant Lachhman and his brother Jodha for cutting the rope of his thatch. The statement of P.W. 4 Ram Chandra to this effect has not been challenged in cross-examination. Similarly the Statement of Ram Chandra to the effect that Ram Pal appellant happens to be the friend of other appellants, namely, Lachhman and Faquire, went unchallenged in the cross-examination, though the appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had denied this fact of friendship. However, Ram Pal appellant in his Statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded his implication in the case due to enmity. 18. Enmity cuts both ways and can be a reason for false implication and also can be a motive to commit the crime in question. 19. We, therefore, proceed to examine the evidence on merits. 20. P. W. 4 Ram Chandra and his mother P.W. 6 Kalawati the inmates of the house have received injuries at the hands of the assailants in the incident in question. They have stated on oath that the assailants forced their entry into their house through the roof of the adjacent house of the appellant Ram Pal. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimony on the point that the assailants came into the house through the house of the appellant Ram Pal 21. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 4 Ram Chandra and Smt. Kalawati (PW 6) that Ram Swarup was not feeling well that day and had not taken food and Smt. Kalawati was massaging his body and that a lantern and a "Dibia' were glowing inside the house at that time. No food was found in the stomach of Ram Swarup deceased in the post mortem examination. This circumstance supports the contention of these witnesses that Ram Swarup was not feeling well and had not taken his meals that evening. No food was found in the stomach of Ram Swarup deceased in the post mortem examination. This circumstance supports the contention of these witnesses that Ram Swarup was not feeling well and had not taken his meals that evening. It was, therefore, quite probable that lit lantern and "Dibia' were there in the house at the time of incident in question. 22. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution has improved upon the case by leading the evidence to the effect that Lachhaman fired two shots from the pistol. It is true that in the first information report, it has not been specifically disclosed as to how many shots were, in fact, fired by Lachhaman. However, from the careful reading of the first information report it is made out that more than one fire was made. The relevant sentence is being reproduced here : "MERE PITA KE OPPER TAMANCHON SE FIRE KIYE" Two empty cartridges were found at the spot. There were two gunshot wounds on the person of Ram Swarup. It is in evidence that Ram Swarup received the shots of the fire arm while standing in the 'Angan' and that after hitting of the shots he fell down in the 'Angan'. P.W. 1 Dr.Madan Mohan Lal who made the post mortem examination, stated that the injuries No. 1 and 2 of Ram Swarup could be caused by a single fire arm shot only in the case the victim was lying on the cot with folding below otherwise they were the result of two fire arm shots. There is nothing on record to show that the fire arm shots hit Ram Swarup while he was lying on the cot on the other hand, the evidence is to the effect that as soon as the intruders jumped into the Angan all the inmates including Ram Swarup (deceased) came to the Court-yard where the fire arm injuries were caused to Ram Swarup. We, therefore, find no force in the above argument-of the learned counsel for the defence that the prosecution has improved its case in evidence. 23. Learned Counsel for the appellants referred to the statement of P.W. 4 Ram Chandra wherein he has stated that his father did not receive 'Lathi', 'Kanta' or 'Bhala' blows. We, therefore, find no force in the above argument-of the learned counsel for the defence that the prosecution has improved its case in evidence. 23. Learned Counsel for the appellants referred to the statement of P.W. 4 Ram Chandra wherein he has stated that his father did not receive 'Lathi', 'Kanta' or 'Bhala' blows. He submitted that from the ante mortem injuries found on the person of Ram Swarup, it is made out that Ram Swarup had been given blows from these weapons as well. The learned counsel for the appellants by referring to this evidence, tried to show that P.W. 4 Ram Chandra did not see the incident in question at all. It appears that a lasting impression had been made in the mind of Ram Chandra of the fatal injuries caused by fire arm shots to Ram Swarup and, therefore, he made lapse in stating that Ram Swarup did not get injuries by 'Lathi' and spear. The criticism of the learned counsel for the appellants on this point about the statement of Ram Chandra in the circumstances of the case, does not deserve any merit. 24. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the first information was delayed by about ten hours, has no merits. The incident in question had taken place at about 10.00 P.M. in the night. The distance of the police station from the place of incident is 16 miles. Obviously it could be lodged the next day and it was lodged at the police station the next day at 8.25 A.M. There is nothing on record to show that the report was lodged after consultation and deliberation. 25. The testimony of P.W. 4 Ram Chandra and P. W. 6 Smt. Kalawati finds corroboration from the statement of P.W. 5 Jodha, Jodha has his house in the neighbourhood and has stated that he had come from his house on hearing the alarm and saw the appellants and their accomplice coming out from the southern door of the house of Ram Swarup. He has denied that he is in any way -related to deceased Ram Swarup. There is nothing on record to show that P.W. 5 Jodha had any enmity with the appellants. 26. For the reasons given above and keeping in view the entire evidence on record we hold that the appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 27. There is nothing on record to show that P.W. 5 Jodha had any enmity with the appellants. 26. For the reasons given above and keeping in view the entire evidence on record we hold that the appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 27. The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are on bail. They may be taken i to custody forthwith to serve out their sentence.