JAIN, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated April 21, 1987 by which he has convicted the accused-appellant Gurdeep Singh under Section 302, I.P.C. and Section 27, Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and two years rigorous imprisonment respectively and the accused-appellant Mithu Singh under Section 302, read with Section 34 and 114, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, for committing the murder of Bohar Singh. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. (2) On March 2, 1986 at 1.05 A.M. Amar Singh P.W.1 lodged F.I.R. Ex.p/1 in the Police Station, Sadul Shahar (Sri Ganganagar). The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. (2) On March 2, 1986 at 1.05 A.M. Amar Singh P.W.1 lodged F.I.R. Ex.p/1 in the Police Station, Sadul Shahar (Sri Ganganagar). It runs as under : — ^^vkt esjs yM+ds cyoUr flgaa dh kknh gksdj ckjkr okil kke dks vk xbZ FkhA ^^,** jkr dks esjs yM+ds o esjs HkkbZ dkykflga dk yM+dk cksgM+flga esgekuksa dks bUnzflga ds ?kj esa [kkuk f[kyk jgs FksA esjs ?kj ls lCth jksVh vkfn lkeku ys tk jgs Fks fd djhc 11 cts jkr xqjnhi flga] feBwflga] filjku vorkjflga tVfl[kku lduk;s [kkV rtokj nksuksa HkkbZ bUnzflgaa ds ?kj ds lkeus okyh xyh esa vk;sA ^^ch** vkSj esjs yM+ds xqjtUrflga ds lkFk >xM+k djus yxsA jksyk lqudj eSa Hkh ?kj ls ckgj fudyk rks ns[kk fd xqjnhi flga ds gkFk esa 12 cksj fiLrksy FkhA feBwflga ds ikl xUMklk FkkA fiLrksy ns[kdj esjk yM+dk xqjtUrflga djusy flga jkexf<+;k fl[k ds njokts dh vksV esa gks x;k vkSj cksgM+flga tks jksyk lqudj esjs ?kj ls esjs ls dqN igys fudyk us dgk fd D;k djrk gS rc feBw flga us vius HkkbZ xqjnhi flga dks dgk fd ns[krk D;k gS nqeu vk x;k xksyh ekj lkys ds ftLe ij xqjnhiflga us esjs Hkrhts cksgM+flga ds fiLrksy dk Qk;j tkus ls ekjus ds fy, ekjk ftl ij cksgM+flga FkksM+h gh nwj esjs edku dh rjQ py dj fxj x;kA ml le; ekSds ij xqjtUrflga esjk yM+dk] cksxkkflga iq= vjtu flga ok xqjrstflga iq= e?kjflga ekStwn FksA ge mudh rjQ Hkkxs rks eqyfteku vius ?kj dh rjQ Hkkx x;s fQj geusa cksgM+flga dks laHkkyk rks cksgM+flga ds Nkrh esa ckbZ rjQ ok isV o gkFk ij NjsZ yx dj ekewyh [kwu fudyk gqvk Fkk vkSj csgksk Fkk ftldks gekjs VªsDVj esa pkj ikbZ ij Mky dj lknqy kgj vLirky ljdkjh esa yk;s rks MkWDVj lkc us cksgM+flga dks ejk gqvk crk;k ftl ij ykk dks gksLihVy esa NksM+ dj bRryk nsus vk;k gwWA gekjh vkil esa [kkyk dks ysdj iqjkuh eqdnesa ckth py jgh gS mlh jaftk ds dkj.k bu nksuks Hkkb;ksa us esjs Hkrhts cksgM+flga dk dRy dj fn;k bRryk nsrk gwW dkjokbZ dh tkosA It was registered under Sections 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and 27, Arms Act. The Investigating Officer Budha Ram P.W. 8 prepared site plan Ex.P/2, site inspection memo Ex. The Investigating Officer Budha Ram P.W. 8 prepared site plan Ex.P/2, site inspection memo Ex. P/2A, memo of the dead body of Bohar Singh Ex.P/3A and Panchayatnama Ex.P/4A, cloths of the deceased were taken through recovery memo Ex.P/6, the post-mortem examination was got conducted and the report Ex.P/5 was obtained. On March 3, 1986, the accused-appellants Mithu Singh and Gurdeep Singh were arrested, they gave information Ex.P/10 and P/ll respectively for the recovery of Gandasa Article 3 and Pistol Article 1 and same were recovered through recovery memoes Exs. P/12 and P/13 respectively. Blood stained cloths, pistol and cartridge were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur and their reports Ex. P/15, P/16 and P/17 were received. Challan was filed in the court of the Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar against the accused-appellants who committed them to the court of Sessions. (3) The prosecution examined the informant Amar Singh P.W.I, his son Gurjant Singh P.W. 2 and Boga Singh P.W. 4 as eye witnesses, Dr. Som Prakash Jakhar P.W.3 who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Bohar Singh, the attesting witness, (of the recoveries of Pistol Art.l and Gandasa Art. 3), Karnail Singh P.W. 5, Incharge Malkhana Parmeshwar Lal P.W. 6, Police Constable Richpal Singh P.W. 7 and the investigating officers Budh Ram P.W. 8 and Tara Chand P.W. 9. (4) The accused-appellants admit in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that they had a dispute with Amar Singh P.W. 1 over a water course and they were arrested by the police. The remaining prosecution evidence has either been denied or ignorance has been pleaded by them. They have further stated that the joint land was being cultivated by Amar Singh P.W. 1 and his sons only and not by the deceased Bohar Singh as he was residing in Punjab. The accused-appellant Gurdeep Singh has also stated that Amar Singh P.W. 1 got forged thumb impression of his father on the application for the change of water course, he filed a complaint against him and ziledar, it is still pending, Boga Singh P.W. 5 inflicted injuries to him on October 15,1984 and report Ex. D/4 was lodged against him in the police station, father of Karnail Singh P.W. 5 contested the election of Sarpanch and he opposed him and as such he has falsely been implicated in this case. D/4 was lodged against him in the police station, father of Karnail Singh P.W. 5 contested the election of Sarpanch and he opposed him and as such he has falsely been implicated in this case. The accused persons examined Hanuman Chakkiwala DW/1 in their defence. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused-appellants, the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as said above. (5) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused- appellants that the learned trial court has seriously erred in not properly and correctly appreciating the evidence on record, it is replete with material contradictions, inconsistencies and discrepancies, there was no motive to murder Bohar Singh, statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. after great delay, neither blood nor a pallet was found there and the occurrence did not take place where it is alleged by the prosecution. He further contended that the evidence of extortion is of very weak type, if the accused-appellant Mithu Singh was present at the place of occurrence he would have used his are in the ordinary course of nature and admittedly deceased Bohar Singh did not receive an injury of nature caused by an axe. He lastly contended that due to enmity the accused-appellants have falsely been implicated. He relied upon Hakumat Rai vs. State of Rajasthan, (1), Bir Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (2), Nihal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (3), Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another vs. State of Maharashtra (4) and Lala Ram and others vs. State of U.P. (5). (6) The learned public prosecutor duly supported the conviction and sentence under challenge. He contended that the FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged within two hours and 5 minutes of the occurrence when the Police Station was at a distance of six miles therefrom, it was duly received by the concerned Magistrate the same day and the names of both the accused-appellants and the said prosecution witnesses find mention in it. He further contended that the motive to do away Bohar Singh is well proved from the evidence on record and also admitted by the accused-appellants that litigation was going on in between the informant Amar Singh P.W. 1 and the accused-appellants over certain water course. He further contended that the motive to do away Bohar Singh is well proved from the evidence on record and also admitted by the accused-appellants that litigation was going on in between the informant Amar Singh P.W. 1 and the accused-appellants over certain water course. He also contended that there had not been any delay in recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and they were promptly recorded. He further contended that much blood did not come out from the dead body of deceased Bohar Singh, there was sand at the place of occurrence, a good number of persons had moved over the place of occurrence and as such blood could not be seen there. He also contended that the site plan Ex.P/2A which was promptly prepared duly shows two lamp posts near the place of occurrence. He lastly contended that there is no material contradiction, discrepancies and inconsistencies in between the statements of the various prosecution witnesses and the minor discrepancies appearing therein go to show that the witnesses have given correct version of the prosecution case. He relied upon Nachhittar Singh vs. The State of Punjab (6), Chatar Singh and another vs. State of Haryana (7), Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of Gujarat (8), Shrishail Nageshi Pare vs. State of Maharashtra, Ram Prasad vs. State of U.P.(9) and Jagdish vs. State of M.P. (10). (7) The first question for consideration in this case is whether there was light at the place of occurrence at the time of the occurrence. It is correct that the FIR Ex.P/1 is silent on this point. Site Plan Ex.P/2 and site inspection memo Ex. P/2A were prepared in the morning of March 2, 1986. They show two light posts near the place of occurrence. Amar Singh P.W.I Gurjant Singh P.W. 2 and Boga Singh P.W. 4 have deposed that there was light near the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. The accused appellants do-not say that these light-posts have wrongly been shown in the site plan Ex.P/2. There is also no suggestion in the cross-examination of these eye witnesses on this point. In defence, Hanuman D.W.I has been produced. He has deposed that during these days he was running a wheat grinding machine with electricity and during the night intervening 1st and 2.03.1986, there was no electricity. There is also no suggestion in the cross-examination of these eye witnesses on this point. In defence, Hanuman D.W.I has been produced. He has deposed that during these days he was running a wheat grinding machine with electricity and during the night intervening 1st and 2.03.1986, there was no electricity. Sri Parekh Junior Engineer was also called in defence to prove this fact but he was not examined despite his appearance before the trial on the date for which he was summoned. (8) There is yet another aspect of the matter. The site plan Ex.P/2 shows the house of the accused-appellants quite near the place of occurrence. It is the admitted case of the parties that the informant Amar Singh P.W. 1, his Son Gurjant Singh P.W. 2 and Boga Singh P.W. 4 were knowing the accused-appellants prior to the occurrence. As such there could not have been any mistake in their identity. (9) The second question is about the effect of the absence of blood and pallets from the place of occurrence on the prosecution story. It is correct that in the site inspection memo Ex.P/2 and site inspection note Ex.P/2A, blood has not been shown at or near the place of occurrence. The site inspection memo Ex.P/2A mentions that the place of occurrence was sandy and foot prints of a large number of persons were visible there when it was inspected. Amar Singh P.W.I has deposed that very little blood came out from the injuries of the deceased Bohar Singh. This fact is also mentioned in the FIR Ex.P/1, site inspection memo Ex.P/2A, and recovery memoes of the cloths Ex.P/6. The post mortem report Ex.-P/5 shows that thoracic and alid cavities were full of blood. Dr. Som Prakash Jakhar P.W. 3 who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased Bohar Singh has deposed that much blood would not have come out as heart was damaged and most of the blood went to the thoracic cavity. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the occurrence did not take place at the place shown by A in the site plan Ex.P/2. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the occurrence did not take place at the place shown by A in the site plan Ex.P/2. (10) There is also no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that no reliance should be placed on the testimony of Amar Singh P.W.1, Gurjant Singh P.W. 2 and Boga Singh P.W. 4 as their statements were not recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C, 1973 immediately after the occurrence. It is clear from their police statements Ex. D/l, D/2 and D/3 that they were recorded the same day on which the FIR Ex.P/1 was spontaneously and promptly lodged at 1.05 A.M. on March 2, 1986. It is correct that the investigating officer Budh Ram P.W. 8 has admitted in his statement on oath that he immediately went to the place of occurrence in the night and had preliminary investigation, he again went there the following morning and then he recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Admittedly, Amar Singh P.W. 1 lodged F.I.R Ex.P/1 and the names of Gurjant Singh P.W. 2 and Boga Singh P.W. 4 find mention in it. In the night, the investigating officer remained busy in seeing the dead body of the deceased Bohar Singh in the Primary Health Centre, in safeguarding the place of occurrence and in doing other work. It has been observed even in G.B. Patel vs. State of Maharashtra (11) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, as follows: — "Delay of a few hours, simpliciter, in recording the statements of eye-witnesses may not, by itself, amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. But it may assume such a character if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye- witnesses to be introduced. A catena of circumstances which led such significance to this delay, exists in the instant case." Under these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. with delay and it goes to create doubt in the prosecution case. (11) Admittedly, dispute was going on in between the informant Amar Singh P.W. 1 and the accused-appellants over a water course when the said occurrence took place. (11) Admittedly, dispute was going on in between the informant Amar Singh P.W. 1 and the accused-appellants over a water course when the said occurrence took place. The deceased Bohar Singh was the nephew of the informant Amar Singh P.W. 1. The case of the accused-appellant is that the deceased Bohar Singh was residing in Punjab, he was not looking after the agricultural land situated in the village Khatsajwar and it was being cultivated by informant Amar Singh P.W. 1 and his sons. It is well proved on record that the deceased Bohar Singh was the nephew (brothers son) of Amar Singh P.W.I. He has deposed that he has three brothers, joint land situated in village Khatsajwar is cultivated by him, his sons and Bohar Singh and the joint land situated in Punjab was being cultivated by his brothers. The accused-appellant Gurdeep Singh has disclosed in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that he has obtained stay against the order passed in favour of Amar Singh PW 1 regarding the disputed water course. Thus the relation in between the parties were strained when the occurrence took place. It provided motive to the accused-appellants to commit the murder of Bohar Singh. (12) No specific material contradiction, discrepancy or inconsistency appearing in the prosecution evidence could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants. Moreover, it is common experience that discrepancies do occur in the statements of perfectly honest witnesses which are really due to differences in individual faculties with regard to observation, recollection and recital of details and unless there is good ground to think that they are due to deliberate attempt to suppress or depart from the truth, it is unfair to discard the direct testimony of witnesses merely on account of such discrepancies when there is general agreement as to material circumstances. (13) It is well proved from the evidence on record that the deceased Bohar Singh died during the night intervening 1st and 2.03.1986 due to the injuries caused by some fire arm. The question is who caused these fire-arm injuries. Eye witnesses Amar Singh P.W.I, Gurjant Singh P.W. 2 and Boga Singh P.W. 4 have deposed that the accused-appellant Gurdeep Singh had a pistol and he fired it towards the deceased. Amar Singh P.W. 1 promptly lodged the F.I.R. Ex.P/1 mentioning the names of both these witnesses and accused persons. The question is who caused these fire-arm injuries. Eye witnesses Amar Singh P.W.I, Gurjant Singh P.W. 2 and Boga Singh P.W. 4 have deposed that the accused-appellant Gurdeep Singh had a pistol and he fired it towards the deceased. Amar Singh P.W. 1 promptly lodged the F.I.R. Ex.P/1 mentioning the names of both these witnesses and accused persons. Their testimony finds corroboration from the post-mortem report Ex. P/5 and other facts and circumstances of the case. After through and proper examination, the learned trial court has rightly placed reliance on their testimony. There is no good reason to discard their testimony. (14). It is correct that evidence of extortion is of very weak nature. But in the instant case, there are various factors which go to prove beyond doubt that the accused Mithu Singh exhorted the accused Gurdeep Singh to fire shot from his pistol towards the deceased Bohar Singh. The learned trial court has throughly and properly examined the evidence on this point also. We find no good reason to differ from its findings. (15) In Nihal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), there was profuse bleeding, blood, wads and pallet marks were found inside the house of the accused Nihal Singh and not in the lance outside the house of the complainant as was the case of the prosecution. In the instant case, it is not the case of either party that blood was seen at any other place. (16). Para 76 of the decision given in Narayan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (12), runs as under : — "76. To sum up we find that in this case the principal prosecution witnesses Smt. Jhammo and Manju, who claim to have seen the incident are not very reliable. Firstly, then did not narrate the fact that appellant Narayanlal had fired at Amritlal which goes to create a doubt if they had seen Narayanlal firing the gun on Amritlal. Secondly, both of them have tried to improve upon their previous version and have tried to come out with a new the that while shooting at the deceased appellant Narayanlal had partly entered the room with one step in the room and the other outside. Thirdly, statements of these witnesses were not recorded immediately but were recorded after a good deal of delay for which these is no cogent and proper explanation. Thirdly, statements of these witnesses were not recorded immediately but were recorded after a good deal of delay for which these is no cogent and proper explanation. The FIR in this case does not appear to be spontaneous and the discrepancy in the presentation of Ex.P/11 and the time mentioned in Ex.P/17 regarding lodging of the written report create a doubt about the varacity of the prosecution. The alleged dying declaration is not free from doubt. The time of the death of the deceased has not been established satisfactorily. The investigation in this case was perfunctory and not very meticulous. The eye-witnesses and the other witnesses who claims to have seen the accused persons come to the house of the deceased or claim to have seen them running away are all partisan witnesses. In view of these facts, there remains a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused persons." The facts and circumstances of the instant case are quite different and such are not the findings in it. (17) In Bir Singh vs. State of U.P.(supra), the evidence of the doctor was that blood must have been ozing out, independent witnesses named in the F.I.R. were not examined, witnesses produced by the prosecution were highly interested in the complainant and were enimically deposed on towards the accused persons, it was not proved that the concerned Magistrate received the F.I.R. without delay, it was established from evidence that F.I.R. was antedated and there were overwritings and interpolation in the general diary. (18) In Lala Ram vs. State of U.P.(supra), prosecution case was that all ten accused were armed with fire arms, all used them, total shot injuries were nine only and no prosecution witness particularise accused person with any particular injury, other persons sitting in close proximity of the deceased persons did not receive any shot injury and the version of the prosecution witnesses regarding the taking of meals by the deceased persons did not telly with the presence of semi digested food in the stomach of the deceased. (19) Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the appellant Gurdeep Singh under Section 302, I.P.C. and 27, Arms Act and of the accused-appellant Mithu Singh under Section 302 read with section 34 and 114, I.P.C. is confirmed. Sentences awarded to them by the trial court are also maintained.