U. K. VARMA, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order of Sri R. K. Saxena, II Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur dated 23/11/1977 convicting Asghar Ali under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) IT has not been quite assailed that the deceased who was related to Puttu Lal informant P. W. 1 had been living with him from six to seven years before the incident which took place on 3/9/1976 and was murdered in his Baggar, situate by the side of the Baggar of Yashpal Singh, the brother of Iqbal Singh. The autopsy on the dead body of Mool Chand had been conducted by Dr. S. K. Mehrotra P. W. 4 at 2. 30 P. M. on 4/9/1976 and he had found the following ante-mortem injury on his person: One gun shot wound of entry 1. 5 cm x 1. 5 cm x on chest cavity deep on front of middle of chest slightly to the left side in the 5th left intercostal space adjacent to sternum. Blackening present over front of chest around wound. ( 3 ) DR. Mehrotras notes in respect of his internal examinations reveal that there was laceration of the walls, ribs and cartilages under the above injury. There was laceration also of the pleura on the left side, left lung, peridardium, heart and the large vessels. ( 4 ) TWENTY seven small shots - seven from the heart and twenty from the left lung and pleural cavity had been recovered. ( 5 ) THE prosecution case briefly stated is that Asghar Ali, the appellant, who had been in the employment of Puttu Lal P. W. 1 had been removed, by him on being conveyed this information by the deceased Mool Chand that he had developed illicit relationship with his wife. Asghar Ali had a row with Mool Chand in this regard. He, therefore, began serving Yashpal Singh alongwith the coaccused Mauj Ali, his father and Sakat Ali, his uncle who have been acquitted by the Court below. Yashpal Singh did not feel satisfied with their work and dismissed them. He engaged Mool Chand. This further enraged the accused who five days before the incident had surrounded and abused him. He, therefore, began serving Yashpal Singh alongwith the coaccused Mauj Ali, his father and Sakat Ali, his uncle who have been acquitted by the Court below. Yashpal Singh did not feel satisfied with their work and dismissed them. He engaged Mool Chand. This further enraged the accused who five days before the incident had surrounded and abused him. It was only due to the intervention of Ram Bilas and Babu Ram that he was saved from being assaulted by them. The accused, however, had threatened him with dire consequences. On 3/9/1976 at 5. 30 A. M. while Mool Chand was still sleeping, Asghar Ali shot at Mool Chand with his gun. The co-accused Sakat Ali at that time was carrying a fire arm and Mauj Ali had a lathi and they had exhorted Asghar Ali to kill Mool Chand. The actual firing had been witnessed by Puttu Lal who at that time was going to feed his cattle. Puttu Lal raised alarm which attracted Gurmeet Singh P. W. 2 and Raj Bahadur Singh P. W. 3. They gave a chase to the accused but they managed to make good their escape giving the threat that they would be killed if they would go near them. The report of the incident which had taken place at 5. 30 A. M. was lodged on the same day at 9. 15 A. M. ( 6 ) THE prosecution had examined Puttu Lal P. W. 1 informant who had seen the incident. Gurmeet Singh and Raj Bahadur testified to the circumstances that the appellant, soon after the incident, had been seen running away with gun from the place of occurrence. The motive alleged has been substantiated by Puttu Lal P. W. 1, Yash pal Singh P. W. 5 and Ram Bilas P. W. 7. It may not be out of place to point out here that Sakat Ali co-accused in his statement had given out that Asghar Ali had developed some connection with the wife of Puttu Lal. The fact that Mool Chand deceased was employed by Yashpal had been admitted by Asghar Ali appellant himself. Yashpal Singh P. W. 5 corroborated the allegations of Puttu Lal that Asghar Ali and the other co-accused had been turned out. The fact that Mool Chand deceased was employed by Yashpal had been admitted by Asghar Ali appellant himself. Yashpal Singh P. W. 5 corroborated the allegations of Puttu Lal that Asghar Ali and the other co-accused had been turned out. Ram Bilas P. W. 6 deposed that he had seen the accused abusing and surrounding the accused with a view to assault him three days before the incident. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment has justifiably after an elaborate discussion, arrived at the finding that the motive for the crime had not only been proved by the evidence adduced by the prosecution but also from certain facts admitted by the accused. ( 7 ) WE next proceed to examine whether his findings about the appellant having shot dead Mool Chand in the manner alleged can safely be upheld. Puttu Lal in his cross examination had given out that he had himself called Mool Chand deceased as he had no son and only two daughters aged 14 years and 10 years besides his wife and he needed his presence. Mool Chand had always been sleeping in the baggar wherein he was shot dead. He himself had gone to sleep there because the husband of his elder daughter had come. He denied the wild suggestion for which there appears to be no basis that his wife had intimacy with Mool Chand on account of which he had himself done him to death. He stated that he had seen Asghar Ali shooting Mool Chand from a close range and had raised alarm. His statement has been to an extent corroborated by Raj Bahadur P. W. 2 and Gurmeet Singh P. W. 3. Raj Bahadur affirmed that he had heard Puttu Lal P. W. 1 shouting Pakro Asghar Ali ne fire Kiyat while he was going to attend to the call of nature. The distance of his house from the scene of occurrence was pointed by him to be 200 paces. Gurrneet Singh P. W. 3 who lived in the adjoining baggar as admitted by Asghar Ali pointed that he had seen Asghar Ali appellant and the other accused coming out of the Tbaggart of Puttu Pandit. Asghar Ali at that time had a gun in his hand. Gurrneet Singh P. W. 3 who lived in the adjoining baggar as admitted by Asghar Ali pointed that he had seen Asghar Ali appellant and the other accused coming out of the Tbaggart of Puttu Pandit. Asghar Ali at that time had a gun in his hand. Sakat Ali had a country-made pistol and Mauj Ali had a lalhi and Puttu Pandit had been seen following them crying aloud that they should be apprehended for having shot Mool Chand. He also corroborated the prosecution case about the presence of Raj Bahadur at that time. The appellant Asghar, Ali, he further narrated, had given the threat that they should not check the accused or else they too would be shot. The learned counsel for the appellant could not show from the record that Raj Bahadur Singh P. W. 2 and Gurmeet Singh P. W. 3 were ill disposed towards the appellant or his father and uncle and had motive to falsely Implicate them. Simply because in the statement of Raj Bahadur under section 101, Cr. P. C. there is no mention of this fact that he had heard Puttu Lal P. W. 1 shouting by name that Asghar Ali had shot Mool Chand, the inference would not be justifiable that he was a highly interested witness who could go any length to improve the prosecution case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in para fifteen of his judgment has made it clear that there is no inconsistency between the oral and medical evidence and we feel that it would serve no purpose repeating those very facts when we were not even addressed on that point. The question as to whether there was delay or not in lodging the report has also been dealt with. The slight delay, if it is there, has been pointed by the Additional Sessions Judge to be on account of the swollen river intervening the house of the informant and the police station, and the time lost in going to the scribe of the F. I. R. which was natural in the circumstances of the case. The slight delay, if it is there, has been pointed by the Additional Sessions Judge to be on account of the swollen river intervening the house of the informant and the police station, and the time lost in going to the scribe of the F. I. R. which was natural in the circumstances of the case. We have carefully gone through the evidence on record and examined all the relevant aspects of the case and see no reason to interfere with the findings of the Additional Sessions Judge that Asghar Ali appellant had shot at Mool Chand with the intention to cause his death and that the injury inflicted by him was sufficient there for. ( 8 ) THE appeal, as such, fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction of Asghar Ali under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him are maintained. Asghar Ali is on bail. He should surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the sentence. .