ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. 1. Appellant Manbir Singh is original accused 2 in the case. He along with one Lallu Singh was tried. Lallu Singh was convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellant was also convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Their convictions were confirmed by the High Court. Both of them preferred the special leave petition but the same was dismissed as against Lallu Singh and the leave was granted in respect of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case is as follows. On 2-8-1973 at about 5.00 p.m. Lallu Singh and Manbir Singh (appellant) were taking food at the hotel of Sardar Uttam Singh which was situated near the double gate level-crossing in Mohalla Das Sarai in the city of Moradabad on the highway. Moti Ram (PW 1) who carries on the work of loading and unloading of goods on trucks also came to the said hotel and ordered for a cup of tea and sat down on the bench. The deceased Mahendra Singh also arrived at the said place and occupied a seat on the same table on which the two accused were sitting. The deceased told Lallu Singh that he had always regarded him as an elder brother but in spite of that Lallu Singh abused him frequently. This led to an altercation between these two persons and hot words were exchanged between them. The appellant had a gun with him and also a belt of cartridges. Lallu Singh took the gun from his hand and loaded it with cartridges. At that stage, the appellant exhorted Lallu Singh or rather instigated saying ‘Maro Sale Ko’. On hearing this, the deceased retreated backward but Lallu Singh immediately fired from the gun which hit the deceased who fell down on the spot and died instantaneously. A report was promptly given. The inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. The doctor noted the gunshot injury on the deceased and the accused were arrested. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. 3. The prosecution examined PWs 1, 4 and 5 as eyewitnesses, who are all independent witnesses. A report was promptly given. The inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. The doctor noted the gunshot injury on the deceased and the accused were arrested. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. 3. The prosecution examined PWs 1, 4 and 5 as eyewitnesses, who are all independent witnesses. PW 3, a lawyer was also examined in order to prove that the appellant had gone to Moradabad carrying gun and a belt of cartridges. The accused pleaded not guilty and pleaded that they had been falsely implicated. 4. Shri Promod Swarup, learned counsel, submits that the mere exhortation by saying ‘Maro Sale Ko’ would not attract the provisions of Section 109 Indian Penal Code and the appellant would not have really meant by such instigation that Lallu Singh should shoot the deceased. We see no force in this submission. The evidence established that the appellant was having the gun and the belt of cartridges and during the altercation between the deceased and Lallu Singh who took the gun and loaded it and at that stage the appellant exhorted. In the context the instigation is clear and as explained in Sections 107 and 108 of the Penal Code such exhortation or instigation clearly amounts to abatement particularly when the appellant was aware that Lallu Singh had taken the gun and cartridges from him and loaded the same, during the quarrel which took place between the deceased and Lallu Singh. If at that stage the appellant instigated by saying ‘Maro Sale Ko’ he clearly instigated Lallu Singh to shoot at the deceased. Therefore, both the courts have rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. We see no merits in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. The appellant who is on bail shall surrender and serve out the sentence. Appeal dismissed.