JUDGMENT P.S. Gupta and K. Narayan, JJ. - A first information report was lodged at P.S. Jaitipur, District Shahjahanpur at about 12.15 p.m. on 23.4.78, conveying the murder of one Ram Kumar in the field of Pyare Lal in village Anandour Saroda by Hari Om, the accused appellant. At about 9.30 a.m. first information report was lodged by Kedar, who was shown to he a brother of the brother in law (SABOO) of the father of the deceased. The prosecution story was in the form of that Ram Kumar has sold all his property and has been living with Hari Om, for the last about two years. Ram Kumar had borrowed Rs. 2,200/- from Hari Om. A day before the incident i.e. 22.4.78, the report also conveyed, Kedar had gone to see Ram Kumar on getting an information about his indisposition. In the evening of 22.4.78 Ram Kumar had shown his moved to leave the house of Hari Om and to move and live with Kedar or his brother Balak Ram (Mausa) in village Gogapur. There was some demand by Hari Om for payment of his loan, but Ram Kumar declined to pay the same as he had nothing. For the date of occurrence it was contended that Kedar and Ram Kumar left for their house in village Gogapur from Jora Shuld and when they reached near the field of Pyare at about 9.30 Hari Om came from behind with his double barrel gun and asked Ram Kumar to stop. Ram Kumar complied and on reaching near Hari Om again made a demand of his money, saying that he would not let him go without paying the same. The matters picked up heat and ultimately Hari Om fired at Ram Kumar. He declared that he would not let him go alive without making payment. The fire hit Ram Kumar in the right side of his belly. whereupon he fell down and died instantaneously. According to the first information report, the dead body was left under-the watch of Dwarika Kachhi, Shopi Kachhi and Daya Ram Pandit, who had come to the spot on the alarm raised by Kedar Nath. Kedar Nath went to lodge the report. 2. whereupon he fell down and died instantaneously. According to the first information report, the dead body was left under-the watch of Dwarika Kachhi, Shopi Kachhi and Daya Ram Pandit, who had come to the spot on the alarm raised by Kedar Nath. Kedar Nath went to lodge the report. 2. The investigation proceeded and the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.7 Kunwar Pal Singh Conducted inquest and prepared other necessary papers and sent the body for post mortem examination on the same day, i.e. 23.4.78 He also took blood stained and plain earth from the spot. A memorandum prepared in this behalf in Ex. Ka. 10 post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. R.S. Pandey on 25.4.78. He had found a lacerated fire arm wound about 1"x 1" circular on the right side of the abdomen below right nipple and above the umbilicus. The intestine were coming out of it and there was also blackening around the whole wound. He had also recovered wads and 22 pellets from the lower me sentry and intestines. Abdominal cavity also contain some 3 points of blood. The trial court framed 3 points charge under Section 302 I.P.C. and prosecution examined P.W.1 Dwarika P.W.2 Kedar, P.W.3 - Daya Ram, P.W. 4 Shopi, P.W.5 Hardwari, P.W.6 Sonpal Singh and P.W.7 Kunwar pal Singh had investigated the case. The Medical Officer who had conducted the post mortem examination and other formal evidence, relating to the carrying of the corpes to the District Head Quarter was not led as the genuineness of all those papers was admitted by the defence. 3. Out of the above said witnesses, P.W.1 Dwarika, P.W.3 Daya Ram, P.W. 4 Shopi were declared hostile and some leading questions were put to them, as they did not state to have seen the accused firing at the deceased. They were confronted with their statements said to have been recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and they denied, that in any case could not amount to, a proof to connect the accused with the murder. In fact, according to the first information report itself, these witnesses had only come after the occurrence. It could be that they might have recognised the assailant when he was running away but that is not a mist. In fact, according to the first information report itself, these witnesses had only come after the occurrence. It could be that they might have recognised the assailant when he was running away but that is not a mist. A failure to recognise even a known person at a particular moment would not disprove his presence and the position would remain only to the effect that their statements would not prove the presence of the accused. One thing certain from the statement of these P.W. 1 witnesses is that the murder took place at about 9.00 or 9.30 in the morning and Owarika had reached there soon after. P.W. 1 Owarika had also stated that one more person was raising alarm there and he did not know him. Naturally Kedar is not a resident of that village and there is no wonder if he was not known to Dwarika. The other aspect of the prosecution case was made out in the cross-examination of this witness on behalf of the accused himself and it was in the form that Ram Kumar had sold all of his land and was living alone with Hari Om. It was also shown in his cross-examination that Ram Kumar was a distant cousin (might be an agnate) of Hardwari, the other witnesses, whose evidence shall be considered below. It was suggested to this witness that there was bad blood between Hardwari and Hari Om. Though this witness had denied them, even if it was there could it in any way assure for the benefit of Hari Om in the matter of murder of Ram Kumar. The answer can only be simple No. P.W. 3 Daya Ram was another witness. He had also stated that Ram Kumar was murdered by fire in the morning at about 9.00 a.m. on the next day of POORNMAST. He had also proved the relationship of Rarer Kumar and Kedar Nath, as mentioned above. He had also stated that he had not seen Kedar there, but that can be either a matter of Commission to mark, something or an interested statement to save this accused, who belongs to his village. He had denied the defence suggestion that Ram Kumar was murdered in the early morning. P.W. 4 Shopi had stated that he had seen a person running towards north after hearing the gun fire and he could not recognise him. He had denied the defence suggestion that Ram Kumar was murdered in the early morning. P.W. 4 Shopi had stated that he had seen a person running towards north after hearing the gun fire and he could not recognise him. It is also remarkable that according to the first information report itself, the assailant had made good his escape towards north east. His statement that he had not seen anybody else there, naturally would not inspite confidence, as Kedar Nath could not have known this fact unless he was present at the spot at the time of the occurrence. 4. In so far as the evidence which could directly connect the accused with the crime, we have come to the evidence of P.W. 2 Kedar Nath and partly to the evidence of P.W. 5 Hardwari. P.W. 5 Hardwari had stated that a day before the occurrence he was requested by Ram Kumar to inform his Mausa that he was suffering from could catoshr etc. He had conveyed the same to Kedar and when he came back in the evening he saw Kedar Nath at the house of Hari Om. It may be mentioned here that the distance between Jorapur, the residence of Hari Om and Jaitipur, the resident of Kedar is hardly four miles. For the date of the occurrence the statement of P.W. 5 Hardwari was that he reached the field of Pyare Lal on hearing the alarm and found Kedar Nath there. He had also stated that Hari Om had told him earlier that his Rs.2,200/- was payable by Ram Kumar. This witness also does not connect the accused with the crime, but corroborates the basis on which the dispute had commenced with the loan of Rs. 2,200/- and the fact that Kedar Nath had come to village a day before and was with Ram Kumar. His testimony was challenged by the defence on the ground of an Omissions that he had not told the Investigating Officer to have gone to Kedar Nath with the information about the indisposition of Ram Kumar and the same has been relied upon here in order to discredit the witness. The question is whether it would be an Commission of a material fact. The question is whether it would be an Commission of a material fact. Commissions do some times amount to contradiction and the law in this behalf has now been contained in an explanation to Section 162, Cr.P.C. which reads as under: "An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to a contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omissions occur and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact." 5. In the instant case, the fact in issue was if the murder was committed by Hari Om, the relevant and material fact for the purpose of proof was if Kedar Nath was present at the time or not. The fact whether Kedar Nath was called a day before or was not irrelevant, but it could not be said to be a material fact. Even it there was no information sent by Ram Kumar and Kedar Nath had come of his own it would not undo this evidence. In the matters of investigation a witness generally answers the querry, of the Investigating Officer and if he failed to enquire about a remote fact, the witness is not to be discarded for it. 6. The other evidence was that of P.W. 2, Kedar Nath. We have least hesitation in agreeing with the learned counsel for the appellant in so far as his contention about the fact of his testimony being sole is concerned. Yet a sole testimony is not to be thrown out as the evidence is not to be counted but weighed. There does not seem any reason do disbelieve in the cross-examination of this witness, who had fully stated about the above aid, facts in his cross-examination also. The deceased was in the capacity of a nephew for him and there was no wonder if he had come to see him. The deceased seems to have been a person who had been disposing of all his property. There is nothing in his cross-examination to shake his credit except the contention of the learned counsel that he had happened to be a chance witness. A chance witness is not be thrown away in every case and it is to be seen if he is stating the truth or not. There is nothing in his cross-examination to shake his credit except the contention of the learned counsel that he had happened to be a chance witness. A chance witness is not be thrown away in every case and it is to be seen if he is stating the truth or not. If an unconcerned person was present at the time of the occurrence and is stating about it, why he should not be believed. The position might be different in case where there are adverse interests and the witness also happens to be there by chance. Here there are no adverse interests between Hari Om and Kedar Nath. 7. It was also urged on behalf of the appellant that in this case there has been some bungling in the matter in sending the body for post mortem examination. After having carefully examined Ext. Ka-99 Challannah. We find ourselves unable to agree with this contention also. As already said above, the defence had admitted the genuineness of these papers and thus closed the doors for himself to elucidate any further facts. The endorsement on Ext. Ka - 9 by Medical Officer are to the effect that the body was received at 10.40 a.m. on 25.4.78 and the papers were received at 5.40 p.m. on 24.4.78. The post mortem examination was held at 10.30 a.m. on 25.4.78. Though there is some over writing in the time and date. but we have tried to read whatever could be in the better interest of the accused appellant. The original endorsement and receiving body seems to have been of 24.4.78 and that all papers at 5.30 p.m. on 24.4.78. Be it whatever it may. The endorsement do show that the papers were received at 5.50 p.m. on 24.4.78 and that would not be too much, when the inquest was completed in the evening of 23.4.78. The receipt of the body was no doubt delayed, but that does not make much difference because if there is any bungling to be done in the papers. The papers are withheld and not the body. The difficulties that the Investigating Officer has to face these days in getting conveyance and escort for the dead bodies are not unknown. 8. The receipt of the body was no doubt delayed, but that does not make much difference because if there is any bungling to be done in the papers. The papers are withheld and not the body. The difficulties that the Investigating Officer has to face these days in getting conveyance and escort for the dead bodies are not unknown. 8. In the last it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the conviction could he recorded at the best under Section 304 I.P.C. as the heat arguments might have resulted in the incident. Even if it was so, we are unable to appreciate it. The accused/appellant had come to the place with a gun and was insisting for payment of loan, which the debtor was unable to pay and the murder was committed just to satisfy a whim. Though obviously the accused/appellant could not get shall towards the payment of his loan by committing the murder. 9. In the above circumstances we see no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. recorded by the trial court are hereby confirmed. The accused appellant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail and shall serve out the sentence according to law.