JUDGMENT Mr. G.D. Dube, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of third Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit convicting and sentencing the appellants Narendra Singh under Section 302 of I.P.C. simplicitor and Surendra Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. According to the statement of Smt. Gargi Devi, P.W. 1 Raghubir and Malkhan were real brothers. The appellants are son of Malkhan. The deceased is son of Raghubir. Raghubir has also a brother named Dinesh. Gargi P.W. 1 is the wife of Rameshwar. Kumari Minakshi Chauhan P.W. 2 is the daughter of Rameshwar. 3. According to the prosecution there was a long standing enmity between the accused and the deceased. At about 8.30 a.m. on 13.4.1977 Narendra Singh armed with a pistol and Surendra Singh with a Danda came to the house of Rameshwar. There two appellants challenged Rameshwar and said that they will see as to how escapes death. Narendra Singh fired towards Rameshwar, shot hit the door. Rameshwar tried to close the door of his house and thus prevented the assailants from entering into his house, but he was not able to close his door. He took out his licenced sword and came out of his house defending himself. Surendra Singh gave several blows of Danda. Rameshwar warded off these Danda blows on his sword. Consequently Danda in the hand of Surendra Singh was cut into two pieces. By that time Rameshwar had decended from the stairs connecting his house with road. At that time, two unknown persons standing on the road exhorted Narendra alias Nandu saying that he should fire towards Rameshwar and kill him. Nandu fired towards Rameshwar. Shot hit him in the chest and he fell down near the drain and died. It has been alleged that on the alarm raised by Smt. Gargi and Km. Minakchhi the accused ran away towards West. 4. After the occurrence report was lodged by Smt. Gargi in the Police Station Kotwali district Pilibhit at 9.10. a.m. same day. Police Station was situated at a distance of six furlong west from the place of occurrence i.e. Mohalla Puma Inayat Ganj district Pilibhit. 5. After the lodging of the report the investigation was taken up by K.P.S. Rathore, P.W. 6. Hari Shanker, Sub-Inspector, P.W. 4 had also gone with them. a.m. same day. Police Station was situated at a distance of six furlong west from the place of occurrence i.e. Mohalla Puma Inayat Ganj district Pilibhit. 5. After the lodging of the report the investigation was taken up by K.P.S. Rathore, P.W. 6. Hari Shanker, Sub-Inspector, P.W. 4 had also gone with them. Hari Shankar P.W. 4 had conducted the inquest proceedings and sent the dead body in a sealed cover to the mortuary for post-mortem. Dr. V.P. Agarwal had conducted the post-mortem at 10.15 a.m. on 14.4.1977. He found the following ante-mortem injury on the person of deceased. 6. Gunshot wound of entry 0.5cm. X 0.5cm. with lacerated and inverted margins in the middle of front of chest 8cm. below the supra sternal notch. Blackening, Scorchiry and tatooing absent. On exploration the upper part of the body of sternum 1cm. below, the Angle of Lover was fractured in several pieces. The Laryinx and trachea ruptured. The upper lobs of Right Lung was ruptured and torn in Medical surface and clotted and fluid blood present on further exploration the shot was recovered between V and VI ribs along the transverse process of VII vertebrae embedded in the Muscle Mass of Right Erector Spinee muscular in the corresponding part behind and below the transverse process. 7. On internal examination the doctor found that the Right Pleura torn and lacerated on the upper part, upper lobe of right lung was ruptured. The stomach was empty. Small amount of faecal matter was sticking to the walls of small and large intestine. There was about 50 c.c. of clear urine in the bladder. Doctor opined that deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injury. 8. After completing the other investigation the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-appellants. 9. The accused had pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution had examined Gargi Devi and Km. Minakchhi Chauhan as eye-witnesses. Besides the other formal witnesses mentioned above one Khalik Ahamad was also examined who had carried the dead body from the place of occurrence to the mortuary. The accused had not examined any witness in the defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the prosecution story and found the appellant guilty as stated above. 10. Minakchhi Chauhan as eye-witnesses. Besides the other formal witnesses mentioned above one Khalik Ahamad was also examined who had carried the dead body from the place of occurrence to the mortuary. The accused had not examined any witness in the defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the prosecution story and found the appellant guilty as stated above. 10. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the manner of occurrence as stated by the prosecution was not at all probable. Narendra Singh was armed with a pistol, hence one more shot would have killed Rameshwar. It was not at all probable that Rameshwar would have been able to take out his sword and defend himself. It was alleged that all the acts of Rameshwar right from the first fire to the second fire are only after thought and product of some imagination. It has been alleged that some unknown person had killed Rameshwar in darkness and the appellants had been falsely implicated. The presence of Kumari Minakchhi Chauhan, P.W. 2 at spot was also doubted by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Our attention was drawn to the statement of P.W. 1 Smt. Gargi Devi, para 15 of cross-examination that Rameshwar had eased and brushed his teeth. Thereafter he had gone to fetch milk and was thereafter sitting in the house when the occurrence took place. It was alleged that Smt. Gargi Devi had admitted that when her husband returned from the dairy the girl Km. Minakchhi Devi had gone to her school. 11. It was also argued that sword was handed over to the Investigating Officer by Smt. Gargi Devi. If the prosecution story was correct then this sword should have been found lying near the dead body. Cut piece of Danda of Surendra was also not found on the spot. The absence of these evidence cast shadow of doubt on all the prosecution story. It was urged that if statement of Km. Minakchhi is ignored then there remains solitary evidence of Smt. Gargi Devi. The statement of Smt. Gargi Devi is not of wholly reliable character and therefore, can not entail the conviction of appellant. 12. We have heard the learned Counsel for State and a private Counsel appearing for the complainant. It was urged that if statement of Km. Minakchhi is ignored then there remains solitary evidence of Smt. Gargi Devi. The statement of Smt. Gargi Devi is not of wholly reliable character and therefore, can not entail the conviction of appellant. 12. We have heard the learned Counsel for State and a private Counsel appearing for the complainant. These two learned Counsel argued that Smt. Gargi Devi had stated in her further cross-examination that by the time of occurrence Km. Minakchhi had returned from her school. It was also pointed out that Km. Minakchhi was a girl of 12 years on the date of her statement. She had a full mature understanding. She had stated that she had returned from her school as there was examination of cooking of 7th classes in her school. It was urged that all these statements make it clear that Km. Mitakchhi was present in her house when the occurrence took place. It was also pointed out that in her statement Smt. Gargi Devi had stated that when the Investigating Officer arrived at the spot large number of persons had assembled at the spot hence somebody was meddled the spot and removed the cut pieces of stick and award too might have been removed last, it may not be taken away by some interested person. 13. The contents of the stomach and the urinary bladder indicate beyond doubt that the deceased had eased before the occurrence. He had also urinated. According to Smt. Gargi Devi her husband used to get up at about 6 a.m. He had also got up at 6 a.m. on the day of occurrence also. Thus after getting up deceased must have urinated. About 2 hours had alarmed between urination and murder. During this period collection of 50 c.c. of urine in the bladder was probable. Faecal matter were stitching only on the walls of small and large intestine. These two facts indicate that by the time of occurrence the deceased had evacuated his bowel. There circumstances lend support to the prosecution story that the occurrence had taken place at 8.20 a.m. and not in darkness as alleged by the defence. No suggestion was given to Dr. V.P. Agrawal that the murder could have been caused in the night as suggested to Smt. Gargi Devi in para 29 of her cross-examination. There circumstances lend support to the prosecution story that the occurrence had taken place at 8.20 a.m. and not in darkness as alleged by the defence. No suggestion was given to Dr. V.P. Agrawal that the murder could have been caused in the night as suggested to Smt. Gargi Devi in para 29 of her cross-examination. All these facts therefore, go to show that Ramesh war was killed in the day at 8.10 a.m. as alleged by the prosecution. 14. Km. Minakchhi and Smt. Gargi Devi had stated that child witness Minakchhi P.W. 2 was present at the time of occurrence. The statement of the witnesses has to be read as whole. No conclusion can be drawn by picking out a solitary sentence from the statement of witness. On a reading of statement of Smt. Gargi and Km. Minakchhi it is apparent that Km. Minakchhi had returned from her school. The month of occurrence was of April. These days the school run in the morning. In the month of April examinations are also conducted in the school. Hence returning of Km. Minakchhi earlier from school was probable. The case of return of Minakchhi from school is also quite reasonable. It is noteworthy that the report was lodged in the Police Station at 9.10 a.m. No circumstance had been brought on record to indicate that the report was in any way anti-time or not lodged at the alleged time in the police station. Narration in the First Information Report is quite brief. There is a categorical mention of Km. Minakchhi as a eye witness in the report. The circumstance discussed above lend support to the prosecution version that Km. Minakchhi had returned from school and witness the whole occurrence. 15. The learned Counsel for the State had cited Shivjee Cenu Mehato v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55 , in support of the contention that the statement of a teenagar witness has to be scrutinised with care and caution. On a close scrutiny of the statement of Km. Minakchhi we find that she is stating correct fact. She stated in her cross-examination that soon after the occurrence the persons of the locality had arrived and Smt. Gargi had narrated all the facts to her. She also admitted that her mother had not cooked any brake-fast. On a close scrutiny of the statement of Km. Minakchhi we find that she is stating correct fact. She stated in her cross-examination that soon after the occurrence the persons of the locality had arrived and Smt. Gargi had narrated all the facts to her. She also admitted that her mother had not cooked any brake-fast. She had stated that her mother had told her that she will take milk after returning from the school. She stated categorically that Narendra Singh had tried to enter into the house. Rameshwar Singh had closed the door but could not put latch. She also stated that Narendra Singh had not fired inside the house. In paragraph 19 of her cross-examination this witness stated that the pistol was single barrel. She could not see as to when this pistol was loaded second time with a cartridge. 16. The sequence of event stated by Smt. Gargi and Km. Minakchhi appears to be quite natural. After the first fire had hit the door of the house of Rameshwar the appellant Narendra Singh might not have been able to get opportunity to load second time his pistol. The main door had a hole. It is alleged that this hole was caused by the first fire. It was alleged that pellet of bullet was not recovered from inside the house. The site plan Ext. Ka-6 indicate that after the main door there is a big Sehan inside the house. Hence it is probable that after passing through the main door the bullet might have strayed some where and the Investigating Officer might not have been able to trace it. The manner in which the occurrence had taken place would not have taken more than one or two minutes. The other appellant Surendra Singh was already engaged in attacking Rameshwar. 17. There is evidence of eye witness that when Rameshwar Singh was descending to the step of his house Narendra Singh came out of the western door and jumped on the door and thus came in front of the deceased. The whole manner of occurrence as stated by two eye-witnesses has been clearly stated in the First Information Report. There is no unnaturality in the prosecution story. 18. The two eye-witness are close relative of the deceased. The presence of both of them at the spot is established from their evidence. The whole manner of occurrence as stated by two eye-witnesses has been clearly stated in the First Information Report. There is no unnaturality in the prosecution story. 18. The two eye-witness are close relative of the deceased. The presence of both of them at the spot is established from their evidence. It is not probable that these two close relative would spare the real assailant and implicate accused falsely. 19. There was a clear motive for the murder. There was enmity between the two parties. The appellants were demanding the share in that big house. Whereas Smt. Gargi and her husband claimed that the property was purchased in an auction from the money of Rameshwar. 20. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence in quite detail. He has rightly held the appellant Narendra Singh guilty of offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. injuries caused by the deceased was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause his death. 21. Not recovery of cut portion of Danda is of no consequence to the defence. It is probable that out of cite person collected at the spot some sympathiser of appellant might have removed the cut piece of Danda. 22. There is no force in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed? The appellants shall surrender to serve out their sentences.