Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment for committing murder of Sarvesh Kumar. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6.5.1983 at about 7.15 p.m. the informant, Ganesh Thakur, P.W. 7, was sitting on the chatt of his Dalan situate at village Thanabigha. His nephew, Sarvesh Kumar, the deceased, was sleeping on the Chatt and his another nephew, Satish Kumar, P.W. 6, was reading at the Darwaja of the room on the chatt. In the meantime, the appellant, Rajdeo Paswan, armed with pistol climbed upon the chatt with the help of a bamboo ladder and no sooner he had stepped on the chatt, the informant, P.W. 7, questioned him as to what was the matter "Ka Hai Ho." Upon this the appellant fired his pistol aiming at the informant but the same hit Sarvesh Kumar (deceased) who died instantaneously. After that the appellant got down through the ladder and fled away. The informant, P.W. 7 and his nephew, Satish Kumar, P.W: 6 saw the appellant running away along with Ramanuj Paswan, Nothun Paswan and Jhulan Paswan armed with Pistol, lathi and garasa respectively. The informant identified them in the light of lantern burning at the chatt. On hulla raised, Binay Mistry and Dileshwar Mistry and several others arrived there. The informant, thereafter, took the dead body of his nephew to the police camp at Jaikishun Bigha and on the next morning he went to the Ghoshi police station where he lodged the fardbeyan and, thereafter, the F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was drawn up. 3. On the basis of the First Information Report, the investigation in this case proceeded and the police, after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant, Nothun Paswan, Jhulan Paswan and Ramanuj Paswan and consequently they were put on trial where this appellant was convicted under Sec. 302 of the Penal Code and the other accused persons were acquitted of the charges leveled against them. 4. The defence of the appellant is denial of the allegation and that he has been falsely implicated in this case since there was land dispute in between the parties. 4. The defence of the appellant is denial of the allegation and that he has been falsely implicated in this case since there was land dispute in between the parties. His further case is that it was Satish Kumar, D.W. 6 who had fired accidently which hit Sarvesh Kumar (the deceased) and just to save Satish Kumar from the police case, the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as II witnesses in support of its case of which P.W. 1, is Binay Thakur, the father of the deceased, Sarvesh Kumar, P.W. 2 is Surgriv Yadav, a formal witness was a witness of seizure P.W. 3 is Dilawar Mistry, P.W. 4 is Jagroop Thakur and P.W.5 is Ramawarath Prasad who have been declared hostile. P.W. 6 is Satish Kumar, the brother of the deceased who is the eye witness of the occurrence and P.W. 7 is the informant, Ganesh Thakur, the uncle of the deceased, who is also an eye-witness of the occurrence P.W. 8, Sonpurwa Devi is the mother of the deceased who came subsequently and saw her dead son on the chatt. P.W. 9 is Dewanti Devi who has been tendered. P.W. 10 is the Dr. R.P. Singh who held autopsy P.W. 11 is Ram Niwas Choubey, the investing officer of this case. 6. The defence has also examined three D.Ws. in support of its case, namely, Rajendra Prasad, Kameshwar Prasad and Binod Mistry. 7. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated a in this case as there was land dispute between the parties and he has committed no offence. He has further contended that since, as per the prosecution case, the appellant had aimed at P.W. 7 though it did not hit him, sec. 301 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted in this case and, as such, the appellant could not have been convicted u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has further contended that it is a case of mistaken identity as the prosecution had no occasion to identify the appellant as the occurrence had taken place in the darkness. 301 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted in this case and, as such, the appellant could not have been convicted u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has further contended that it is a case of mistaken identity as the prosecution had no occasion to identify the appellant as the occurrence had taken place in the darkness. He further contended that the police at the camp where the informant had gone in the night, have not been examined and since they were independent witnesses, the prosecution case becomes doubtful. Mr. Prasad has further contended that there was undue delay in the receipt of the First Information Report inasmuch as that the occurrence had taken place in the evening of 6.5.1983 whereas the First Information Report was received in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 10.5.1983 and in view of the decision reported in Ishwar Singh V/s. State of Punjab, the prosecution version of the case should have been disbelieved and benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellant. Mr. Prasad has lastly contended that the injuries which were found on the accused, do not go to suggest that he was fired at from a close range and as per the Modi Medical jurisprudence, no such injury could have been caused on the deceased and, as such, the whole prosecution case becomes doubtful. 8. In this case the material witnesses are P.Ws. 6 and 7 who are the eye witnesses of the occurrence P.W. 6, Satish Kumar has categorically stated in his evidence that on the date of occurrence he had seen the appellant, Rajdeo paswan who fired at his uncle, P.W. 7 but the same hit his younger brother, Sarvesh Kumar who died in the spot. He has further stated that at the time of occurrence which took place on 6.5.1983 at 7.15 P.M. lantern was burning on the chatt where he was studying and his younger brother (the deceased) was sleeping in front of him and by his side his uncle was sitting and he had identified the appellant as there was sufficient light on the chatt where a lantern was burning. However, there is nothing in his cross examination to discredit his testimony and I find no inconsistency or contradiction in his evidence. 9. However, there is nothing in his cross examination to discredit his testimony and I find no inconsistency or contradiction in his evidence. 9. P.W. 7, Ganesh Thakur, the informant of this case, is the another eye witnesses of the occurrence who has also categorically stated that no sooner the appellant stepped upon the chatt through a bamboo ladder which was kept there, he questioned him as to what was the matter and immediately, thereafter, the appellant fired at him which hit his nephew, Sarvesh Kumar. He has also stated that since a lantern was burning on the chatt, he identified the appellant as there was sufficient light on the chatt. He has further stated that this appellant had aimed at him but since he had bent towards other side, the bullet hit his nephew, Sarvesh Kumar who died on the spot. This witnesses has further stated that while the appellant was on the ladder, he identified him and that is why when he slopped on the chatt, he questioned him as to what was the matter. He has further stated that the appellant was holding pistol in his hand from which he fired. P.W. 7 has further stated in his evidence that there was land dispute in between him and Jhulan Paswan, the uncle of the appellant and his brother and he had succeeded in the land dispute and the appellant and his father and uncle were trying to forcibly capture the land in question. In his evidence I find that there is nothing to discredit his testimony as he has consistently deposed against the appellant and there is no contradiction. Whatsoever, in his evidence. 10. From the evidence of P.W. 6 it appears that the defence in support of his case, has put a suggestion to him in his cross examination that it was he who had accidently fired at his brother (the deceased) P.W. 6, in his cross examination, has emphatically denied this suggestion. P.W. 1, the father of the deceased who was a teacher in some other village, has stated that on 7.5.1983 at 4 Oclock in the morning, Binod Mistry who has been examined as D.W. 3 in this case, went to him and informed him about the occurrence. P.W. 1, the father of the deceased who was a teacher in some other village, has stated that on 7.5.1983 at 4 Oclock in the morning, Binod Mistry who has been examined as D.W. 3 in this case, went to him and informed him about the occurrence. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 1 that he was informed by this Binod Mistry who told him that Rajdeo Paswan had shot at his son, Sarvesh Kumar as a result of which he died. Thereafter, P.W. 1 came to his house and there he found his son dead and he came to know about this occurrence from his brother, P.W. 7. The evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 10, the doctor who had held post mortem on the deceased and found the following injuries which all were found to be antimortem: "(1) Lacerated injury ragged margin having blackening and fringing around the wound and margin. Size of the wound was 1-1/2"x 3/4" x chest cavity on the left side of the chest, 1/2" below and medial into left nipple. (2) Lacerated injury ragged fringed and blackening edged 2" x I" x chest cavity on the right side of the chest 1/2" above the right nipple. (3) Lacerated injury 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" on front of right arm about its middle." 11. In the opinion of the doctor injuries 1 and 2 were caused by fire arm whereas injury No. 3 was caused by hard and blunt, substance. The evidence of the doctor corroborates the prosecution case in its entirety. 12. P.W. 12, the Investigating officer of this case, has proved the First Information Report, Ext. 2, which was recorded by Sri D.S. Pandey, the officer incharge of Ghoshi police station. This P.W. has stated in his evidence that he had gone to the place of occurrence and had prepared the inqurest report, Ext. 4 and he found fire arm injuries on the person of the deceased and there he came to know from P.Ws. 6 and 7 the name of the appellant. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 11 that he found a ladder kept near the roof where the occurrence had token place. At the place of occurrence he had also found blood spread over a chadar which was spread there on the chatt. 6 and 7 the name of the appellant. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 11 that he found a ladder kept near the roof where the occurrence had token place. At the place of occurrence he had also found blood spread over a chadar which was spread there on the chatt. He also found there some books and a lantern. This Statement of P.W. 11 corroborates the Statements of P.Ws. 6 and 7 that a lantern was also burning at the place of occurrence and P.W. 6, at the relevant time, was reading there and in front of him the deceased was sleeping who was subsequently fired at by the appellant. From the evidence of P.W. 11 it further appears that the dimension of the chhatt where the deceased was killed, was 10 x 6 and this also corroborates the version of P.W. 7. 13. In this case the defence has examined three D.Ws. in support of its case where an attempt has been made to establish that it was P.W. 6, Satish Kumar who had fired at Sarvesh Kumar; the deceased and no occurrence, as alleged, had token place. D.W. 1 has stated in his evidence that after one year of the occurrence a panchayati was held in the village where P.W. 6, Satish Kumar, P.W. 7, Ganesh Thakur and P.W. 1, Bijay Thakur had participated and there in the panchayati P.W. 6 had confessed that he had fired by mistake which had hit his brother, Sarvesh Kumar. It appears from the evidence of D.W. 1 that this panchayati was held where the punches were Shyam Bihari Singh, Nothu Mahlo, Ram Jalan Mochi, Beni Bind, Raj Kumar Mochi, Ramnandan Machi and Bijay Prasad. 14. D.W. 2 has stated in his evidence that on hulla he went to the house of the informant. There he came to know from P.W. 6 that by mistake the bullet had hit his brother, the deceased. D.W. 3, Binod Mistry, has stated that he, on hearing hulla, went to the place of occurrence early in the morning and there he came to know about the occurrence and he also came to know from P.W. 6 that there had been a firing. 15. From the Statement of D.W. 1 it appears that he was neither a panch in the panchayati nor he had participated there in his individual capacity. 15. From the Statement of D.W. 1 it appears that he was neither a panch in the panchayati nor he had participated there in his individual capacity. In this case, the peculiar thing is that neither of the panches has been examined as D.W. in support of the defence case who could have alone said about the panchayati held in the village after one year of the occurrence and as to whether P.W. 6 had confessed before them or not that actually he had fired at his brother, Sarvesh Kumar and, as such, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.W. 1 and accordingly, his evidence is not worth consideration. There is nothing in the evidence of D.Ws. 2 and 3 to corroborate this statement of D.W. l. As I have noticed above that P.W. 1 the father of the deceased was informed by this D.W. 3 where he had stated before him that the appellant, Rajdeo Paswan had fired at his son, Sarvesh, as a result of which he died. 16. On a dose scrutiny of the evidence of the D.W s. I find that a mere attempt has been made to nullify the prosecution version of the Case but the same has not been established beyond all reasonable doubts and in that view of the matter, the evidence of the D.Ws. must be discarded. 17. I have found from the evidence of P. W s. 6 and 7 that the Chhatt in question where these two witnesses along with the deceased were sitting, is of a small diametre i.e. 10 x 6. I have further found from the evidence that the moment the appellant stepped on the chhatt, they had the occasion to see him and at the same time the appellant had also seen P.Ws. 6 and 7 and the deceased who were there on the roof and it was within his knowledge that if the fire arm is aimed at P.W. 7, it may hit other persons also who were sitting by the side of P.W. 7. Since the deceased was also within the visibility of the appellant, the case of the appellant comes within the purview of sec. 301 of the Indian Penal Code and, as such, the submission of Mr. Prasad that sec. Since the deceased was also within the visibility of the appellant, the case of the appellant comes within the purview of sec. 301 of the Indian Penal Code and, as such, the submission of Mr. Prasad that sec. 301 of the Indian Penal Code is not - attracted in this case, has no leg to stand as this submission is unfounded. I 18. It has come in the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7 who are the eye witnesses of this occurrence that in the evening at about 7.15 p.m. a lamp was burning on the chhatt and they had identified this appellant when he fired at the deceased. P.W. 7 has also stated that no sooner the appellant had stepped on the chhatt, he identified him and questioned him as to what was the matter. Since it was evening hours, in the month of May and a lamp was burning on the chhatt, there was sufficient light to identify the appellant and so it is not a case of mistaken identify. 19. Now coming to the next question of Mr. Prasad that the police who were at the camp where the informant, P.W. 7 had gone in the night of 6.7.1983, have not been examined, the prosecution case becomes doubtful. In this regard the law is well settled that the prosecution is not bound to examine one witness or the other as its witnesses and this is not the law that any omission to examine any or every witness even on a minor point, would undoubtedly lead to rejection of the prosecution case or drawing of an adverse inference against the prosecution. The law is well settled that the prosecution is bound to produce only such witnesses as are essential for unfolding of the prosecution narrative. In other words, before an adverse inference against the prosecution could be drawn, it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the witnesses who have been withheld, were the eye witnesses who had actually seen the occurrence and were, therefore, material to prove the case. It is not necessary for the prosecution to multiply the witnesses after witnesses on the same point. It is the quality rather than the quantity of the evidence that matters. It is not necessary for the prosecution to multiply the witnesses after witnesses on the same point. It is the quality rather than the quantity of the evidence that matters. In this view of the matter, it is immaterial as to whether the police at camp were examined or not and, as such, there is no substance in the submission of Mr. Prasad in this context. 20. Much stress has been laid by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was delay in receipt of the First Information Report in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is manifest from the evidence on record that the First Information Report was drawn up on 7.5.1983 which was Saturday and 8.5.1983 being Sunday, the same was despatched from the police station on 9.5.1983 and as the court was at a far off place from the police station, the same was received in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 10.5.1983. In the month of May lower courts are s held as morning courts. Therefore, the F.I.R. 7 might have been received in the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate late on 9.5.1983 and the same? was acknowledged by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 10.5.1983 he Court of the Chief Judicial a Magistrate is the busiest court and merely because the F.I.R. was received by him on 10.5.1983, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on this ground alone. 21. This matter was considered by the Supreme Court in case of Pala Singh V/s. State of Punjab, where the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "But when we find in this case that the F.I.R. was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started on the basis of that F.I.R. and there is no other infirmity brought to our notice, then, however, improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the magistrate concerned it cannot be itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution in supportable." 22. The ratio laid down in the case of Pala Singh V/s. State of Punjab (supra) aptly apply to the facts of the present case as discussed above. In these circumstances, I hold that there is no ground for rejecting the prosecution version of the case only on the ground of delay in despatch or receipt of the F.I.R. in the peculiary circumstances, of this case. In these circumstances, I hold that there is no ground for rejecting the prosecution version of the case only on the ground of delay in despatch or receipt of the F.I.R. in the peculiary circumstances, of this case. This aspect of the matter has again been dealt with in case of Sarwan Singh V/s. State of Pubjab, and it has been held that merely on the ground of delay in despatch and receipt of the F.I.R. the prosecution case cannot be thrown out. 23. In the instant case I find that no suggestion whatever has been put by the accused to P.W. 11 to the effect that he fabricated or manufactured the F.I.R. There is also no suggestion put to this witness by the accused as to why the F.I.R. was despatched after a few days. In the absence of such suggestion, the accused cannot take the plea that since there had been delay in despatch and receipt of the F.I.R., the prosecution becomes doubtful. 24. Having considered the ratio laid down in case of Pala Singh V/s. State of Punjab and Sarwan Singh V/s. State of Punjab (supra), it must be held that there had not been deliberate delay in the despatch of the F.I.R and there has been sufficient compliance of the provisions of sec. 157 of the code of Criminal Procedure and, as such; in view of the ratio laid down in Sarwan Singhs case. (supra) there is no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution case should be thrown out since there had been delay in receipt of the F.I.R. 25. From the evidence discussed above, I am satisfied that the appellant had aimed at P.W. 7 but the same hit the deceased and the same was fired from the close range as the diametre of the roof was only 10 x 6 and the injuries which have been found in the post mortem report, Ext. 3, also go to suggest that the same were caused from a close range. 26. 3, also go to suggest that the same were caused from a close range. 26. In this case I find that the fire arm used was not a standard fire arm and the injuries caused by the country made fire arm cannot necessarily stand the test laid down in the Medical Jurisprudence and in that view of the matter the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the injuries found on the deceased could not have been caused by the fire arm, is repelled. 27. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and having examined the evidence on record carefully I find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court against the appellant warrants no interference by this court. 28. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant is affirmed. The bail bond furnished by the appellant is hereby cancelled and the appellant is directed to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.