JUDGMENT A.N. Gupta, J. - Uma Shankar and Rajender have filed this appeal against their conviction recorded by Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra on 30-8-1979. Appellant Uma Shankar was sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302, IPC whereas appellant Rajender was sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and further under section 323, IPC to three months rigorous imprisonment. Two other accused namely Shri Narain and Vishewshwar were acquitted of the charges by the same order. 2. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 30-5-1978 at about 6.30 p.m. in village Kukapur, police station Jaitpur, District Agra in front of the house of Maya Ram deceased. It is said that Sural Ram, who is brother of informant Ram Avtar and deceased Maya Ram had given three bighas of land on Batai to Shri Narain, which yielded 40 bundles of wheat crop. This wheat crop as well as wheat crop of other fields of Surat Ram and complainant etc. was got thrashed with the help of a thrasher taken on rent of Rs. 100/-. Since Shri Narain was Bataidar, the deceased and his brothers asked him to contribute Rs. 20/- towards the rent charges of the thrasher but Shri Narain was agreeable to pay Rs. 10 only. At that time Rajendra, Uma Shankar appellants and Bisheshwar also reached there. P.W. 3 Suresh Chandra Awashti, complainant Ram Autar Sharma and P.W. 2 Sural Ram were already there. They tried to persuade Shri Narain and his companions to pay money, but the appellants and Bihsheshwar sided with Shri Narain and started abusing. Complainant (P.W. 1) Ram Autar Sharma asked them not to hurl abuses. Thereupon Rajender appellant slapped the complainant. Maya Ram deceased challenged the appellant Rajender to abuse or slap again. At this appellant Rajender asked Uma Shankar appellant to bring the gun from the house so that Maya Ram deceased may be seen. Thereupon Uma Shankar ran towards his house and brought the gun of his uncle (Tau) and on being instigated by Rajender appellant shot at Maya Ram, due to which he dropped dead. 3. The First Information Report was lodged by (P.W. 1) Ram Autar Sharma, same day at 9.15 p.m. The police station is situated at a distance of about two miles from the place of occurrence. 4. 3. The First Information Report was lodged by (P.W. 1) Ram Autar Sharma, same day at 9.15 p.m. The police station is situated at a distance of about two miles from the place of occurrence. 4. The post mortem examination was conducted by (P.W. 4) Dr. V.P. Agarwal on 1-6-1978 at 4 p.m. He found one ante mortem injury, which was a gun shot wound on the right side of abdomen 2" above right anterior ilioc specre superior spine. The loops of intestine were coming out. No blackening or tattoing or charring was seen around the wound. The walls of peritonium were found ruptured. The large intestine was also found ruptured at multiple places. The right ascending colon ceacum and right pelbic bone were ruptured and fractured. The aorta was also found ruptured. The right femoral artery was also found ruptured. Nine pellets of the size of Jwar and one of big size was recovered from the dead body. In the opinion of Dr. Agarwal the death was caused as a result of gun shot injury. Dr. Agarwal also stated that Maya Ram must have died instantaneously after receiving the said gun shot wound. 5. Both the appellants have stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of partibandi. In cross examination a suggestion was given that Maya Ram was murdered by unknown criminals. 6. The prosecution examined three eye witnesses; namely, (P.W. 1) Ram Autar Sharma, Complainant, Surat Ram (P.W. 2) and Suresh Chandra Awasthi (P.W. 3) out of whom first two witnesses are brothers of deceased Maya Ram. (P.W. 4) Dr. V.P. Agarwal had conducted the post mortem examination. (P.W. 7) S.I. Mahabir Singh had conducted investigation. He recovered blood stained clothes of the deceased, samples of blood stained and sample earth and had also recovered the licenced gun of Roop Narain. He after conducting the inquest and preparing the report etc. the same day interrogated all the eye witnesses examined in the ease and also prepared site plan. 7. In this case the First Information Report was lodged promptly within less than three hours of the occurrence. The investigating officer also reached the spot almost immediately and had interrogated the eye witnesses examined in the ease. There is absolutely no enmity, whatsoever, between the two appellants and three eye witnesses examined in the ease. 7. In this case the First Information Report was lodged promptly within less than three hours of the occurrence. The investigating officer also reached the spot almost immediately and had interrogated the eye witnesses examined in the ease. There is absolutely no enmity, whatsoever, between the two appellants and three eye witnesses examined in the ease. It is no doubt true that (P.W. 1) Ram Autar Sharma complainant, (P.W. 2) and Surat Ram, both are brothers of the deceased Maya Ram, but it docs not mean that they cannot be independent witnesses because the incident occurred in front of their house. The medical evidence also corroborates the eye witnesses account. We have carefully looked into the statements of three eye witnesses and there is hardly any contradiction worth noticing. They remained unshaken in cross examination. It was suggested that one Vinod was inimical towards the appellants who had earlier been roped in a murder ease and since he went to the police station along with the complainant, his hand in making of the First Information Report cannot be ruled out and, therefore, the First Information Report appears to be manipulated. Except for the argument there is hardly any evidence available on the record to substantiate this allegation. As has been mentioned above, the First Information Report had been lodged promptly eliminating any chance of manipulation and this was followed by quick steps taken in the investigation, when the Investigating Officer interrogated the eye witnesses without undue delay. We arc, therefore, satisfied that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was right in placing reliance on the prosecution evidence. 8. However, so far as the complicity of appellant Rajender is concerned, we find that all the three eye witnesses have stated that did not see Uma Shankar bringing the gun and this was stated in reply to the questions that when appellant Rajender had asked Uma Shankar to bring the gun why the deceased also did not bring his licensed gun. It shows that Uma Shankar on the exchange of hot words between Rajender and deceased rushed, brought the gun and fired the fatal shot. In view of this the implication of Rajender with the aid of section 341, I.P.C. is not free from doubt and lie deserves benefit of doubt. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Rajender appellant is acquitted of the charges for which he was convicted. In view of this the implication of Rajender with the aid of section 341, I.P.C. is not free from doubt and lie deserves benefit of doubt. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Rajender appellant is acquitted of the charges for which he was convicted. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. So far as the appeal preferred by Uma Shankar appellant is concerned, it is dismissed. He is on bail. He shall surrender and serve out the sentence awarded to him.