K. NARAYANAN, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED-APPELLANT Krishan Pal Singh was found guilty of the offence of murder under Section 302, I. P. C. and convicted by an order dated 31/7/1979 in Sessions Trial No. 527 of 1978 by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly. After due hearing he was awarded the sentence of Imprisonment for Life. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by both conviction and sentence, he has come to this court in Appeal. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A. G. A. at length and gone through the record of the case along with them. ( 4 ) IN brief, the undisputed facts are that Krishan Pal Singh the accused-appellant and Natthu Singh the deceased were brothers being sons of Ram Chander Singh but they had different mothers. P. W. 1 Vijai Pal Singh, who had also lodged the First Information Report, is son of one Ganga Singh, who in his turn, was the real brother of Ram Chander Singh. Natthu Singh had one sister, namely Smt. Khilli and P. W. 5 Mullu Singh, an alleged eye witness of the occurrence is father-in-law of this Smt. Khilli. Possibly her brother-in-law was also an eye-witnesses but since he has not been examined there is no need to go into that aspect. The entire property was partitioned between the two brothers, namely, Natthu Singh and Krishan Pal Singh but there was some discord left for a chunk of land measuring about 7 biswas. According to the defence version this piece of land was to be cultivated in alternate year by the two brothers while according to the prosecution, this land had been in the cultivation of Natthu Singh for the last few years before his death and on the date of occurrence, accused Krishan Pal Singh had ploughed it in the morning on the date of the occurrence. The occurrence is said to be in the form that at about 7. 00 a. m. on 15. 7. 1978 Natthu Singh deceased having come to know about the ploughing of the land by Krishan Pal Singh began to extend abuses or harsh words. Krishan Pal Singh also came out and there was some exchange of hot words. The occurrence is said to be in the form that at about 7. 00 a. m. on 15. 7. 1978 Natthu Singh deceased having come to know about the ploughing of the land by Krishan Pal Singh began to extend abuses or harsh words. Krishan Pal Singh also came out and there was some exchange of hot words. After some pursuation of the people of the vicinity including Vijai Pal Singh and Raghubir Singh, Natthu Singh who had come with a Gandasa went back to his house and returned after leaving Gandasa there. The exchange of hot words, however were continued. In the meanwhile accused Krishan Pal Singh got up moved a step or two and fired at Natthu Singh which struck him in his wrists; knees and the chest. Natthu Singh, who was sitting at the edge of the Chabutara, fell back in the lane. Krishan Pal Singh went to him and gave -few blows with the butt of the Gun and thereafter went to his house. ( 5 ) AN F. I. R. of the incident is said to have been lodged in the form of a written report scribed by P. W. 1 Vijai Pal Singh and it is also said to have been carried to the police station by P. W. 3 V. C. Roshan Lal. The Sub Inspector of Police P. W. 7 Ram Autar Sharma, Investigating Officer arrived and conducted the inquest upon the dead body and other investigations. The Gun of Krishan Pal Singh was admittedly deposited by him with Jawahar Gun House, Tilhar on 19. 7. 1978 and it was taken from there by P. W. 8 J. P. Verma, Sub Inspector of Police. However, that part is not material for the purposes of the present trial or appeal except to show that Krishan Pal Singh has been a licence of a gun and it could not be said that he did not possess it on the date of occurrence. ( 6 ) THE prosecution had examined P. W. 1 Vijai Pal Singh, scribe of the First Information Report as well as an eye witness. The other eye witnesses were P. W. 2 Raghubir Singh and P. W. 5 Mullu Singh. Their evidence will be considered below. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution were P. W. 4 Dr. ( 6 ) THE prosecution had examined P. W. 1 Vijai Pal Singh, scribe of the First Information Report as well as an eye witness. The other eye witnesses were P. W. 2 Raghubir Singh and P. W. 5 Mullu Singh. Their evidence will be considered below. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution were P. W. 4 Dr. I. J. Punhan who conducted the post mortem examination P. W. 3 V. C. Roshan Lal and P. W. 6 Smt. Rajwanti, the widow of Natthu Singh deceased. The evidence of P. W. 6 Smt. Rajwanti is of no avail to either party as it indicated only a denial of the suggestion of the defence to other witnesses that it was because of her illicit relations with Chokhey Singh that Natthu Singh was murdered. In fact this was a mere defence contention and did not need a disproof. ( 7 ) THE evidence of prosecution has been assailed on behalf of the appellant on primarily two grounds: the first contention has been that the witnesses were partisan and therefore, not reliable and the second contention has been that the First Information Report in this case was open to grave doubt and conduct of the witnesses in that behalf would not inspire confidence. We will taken up the second question first. P. W. 1 Vijai Pal Singh was the scribe and he has maintained throughout that he had scribed the report soon after the occurrence and given it to be Chaukidar who carried it to the police station. The evidence of P. W. 2 Raghubir Singh in this behalf was of course not up to the mark. He had stated in his cross examination that the S Sub-Inspector of Police had seen the dead body, filled in the inquest report and got a paper scribed by Vijai Pal Singh for which the Sub- Inspector of Police had been dictating and Vijai Pal Singh had been writing. The contention has been that this statement relates to the writing of the First Information Report. Similarly in the statement of P. W. 3 V. C. Roshan Lat, the examination-in-chief showed the facts as alleged by the prosecution that is that the witness reached the spot on hearing the information about the murder and there Vijai Pal Singh gave him a written report which he carried to be Police Station. Similarly in the statement of P. W. 3 V. C. Roshan Lat, the examination-in-chief showed the facts as alleged by the prosecution that is that the witness reached the spot on hearing the information about the murder and there Vijai Pal Singh gave him a written report which he carried to be Police Station. However, in the cross-examination he gave a totally different version in the form that he was sitting at a place about a furlong from the place of occurrence along with 10 or 12 persons including Vijai Pal Singh when he heard some noise and came to the spot. He saw the dead body of Natthu Singh lying in the lane with no body near him and then he went to the Police Station to give the necessary information. He returned with the Sub-Inspector of Police and at that time Vijai Pal Singh was present near the dead body and the Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded with the inquest After that, Darogaji dictated a challan to Vijai Pal Singh on the chabutara of Hamam Singh. It was also shown in his cross examination that he had been given some thrashing in the morning by Policewalas at the instance of Vijai Pal Singh and he has given this statement in the examination-in chief on account of the fear. After this much of the statement, the State Counsel appearing before the trial court seems to have put a desire to cross examine him and this prayer also seems to have been allowed by the Sessions Judge. This cross examination has again shattered his presence even during the time of inquest and he has gone to the extent of stating that he did not know as to what was scribed by the Sub Inspector on the spot The net result of both these cross examinations can be only one and that is that this witness has no respect for his oath and possibly has no brains either. He would give an affirmative nod to whatever is suggested by any body as an Advocate. His evidence, therefore, cannot be given much weight either way. He would give an affirmative nod to whatever is suggested by any body as an Advocate. His evidence, therefore, cannot be given much weight either way. ( 8 ) REVERTING back to the statement of P. W. 2 Raghubir Singh where he had stated that a writing was got scribed by the Sub-Inspector of Police in the hand of Vijai Pal Singh, it has been urged that there is no definite reference to the First Information Report itself. It may be that it was the duty of the prosecution counsel before the trial court to have got it clarified by way of re-examination and, when he has failed to do so, it cannot be said that this is a very material aspect of the reference. Even if it is taken that the first Information report was got scribed at the instance of the Sub Inspector of Police who had come to the spot with a mere oral information of the village Chaukidar, it cannot be said that it was totally false and wrong. The Sub Inspector of Police has to take a decision whether to proceed with an investigation or not in respect of cognizable cases in view of Paragraph Nos. 107 and 108 of the Police Regulations. If he wants to ascertain certain facts, it cannot be said to be a dishonest act. However, one factor remains there that the prosecution has been some what tainted and not an independent one as it is expected from the public servants. This aspect will simply render the First Information Report alone some what beyond the clutches of the evidence. This slackness or deviation on the part of the prosecution as a State body is to be considered along with the other entire evidence. It is not that every minor or majorlacuna or even misdemean or on the part of a public servants connected with the prosecution will make the entire case of the prosecution unworthy of credence. The omissions, additions or overt acts in every case have to be weighed along with the other evidence in the case. We cannot deny that this is an aspect which should get weight and will weigh with us and it has to be seen as to whether it can outweigh the other evidence on record. The omissions, additions or overt acts in every case have to be weighed along with the other evidence in the case. We cannot deny that this is an aspect which should get weight and will weigh with us and it has to be seen as to whether it can outweigh the other evidence on record. ( 9 ) THE testimony of P. W. Vijai Pal Singh, P. W. 2 Raghubir Singh and P. W. 5 Mullu Singh has been challenged on the ground of their interest. The situation exactly is that Vijai Pal Singh is a neighbour and has some property joint with Krishan Pal Singh. As already stated above, he is the first cousin of the accused and the deceased. He is a close neighbour living on the turn of the Gali between the houses of the assailant and the deceased and the place of occurrence. If he is a cousin of the deceased, he stands on equal footing for the purposes of the case with accused as well. P. W. 5 Mullu Singh is said to be father-in-law of Smt. Khilli and this Smt. Khilli is sister of both being daughter of Ram Chander Singh. It has not been shown in the cross-examination as to whether she is real sister of Krishna Pal Singh or Natthu Singh. In any event for a married sister, both brothers are just the same and that will be more so with her father-in-law who is said to have had come to the house of Natthu Singh. P. W. 2 Raghubir Singh is also of the same family as he has joint property with Krishan Pal Singh and when it comes to be a matter of agnate or relation, he will naturally stand on equal degree from Krishan Pal Singh in the matters of pedigree. It was also urged that this witness had not been on speaking terms with Krishan Pal Singh for some time past because of some dispute in the matter of Chaupal where he had also a share and permitted Krishan Pal Singh to make certain constructions. This situation itself suggests that he too has been a man in confidence with Krishan Pal Singh till some time before the occurrence itself. The other developments are day today affairs in village life and they do not become very material for the purposes of discarding the evidence. This situation itself suggests that he too has been a man in confidence with Krishan Pal Singh till some time before the occurrence itself. The other developments are day today affairs in village life and they do not become very material for the purposes of discarding the evidence. There is no person without prejudice or malice with the persons who come in this contact. These are minor things and have to be ignored unless it could be said that they were heavy enough to weigh with a witness in order to do away with the accused as an accused and convict. One more factor was made out in the statement of P. W. 1 Vijai Pal Singh that Raghubir Singh had sold some portions of land and Raghubir Singh was not getting possession of it. This has also been got clarified in the cross examination of Raghubir Singh and the facts as they appear, are that there was some sort of agreement to sell and thereafter since the accused failed to pay the money, he was not delivered the possession. Be that what ever it may, since it was an agreement to sell, delivery or non delivery of possession would not give rise to any back blood. ( 10 ) THE defence version has been that the murder was committed in small hours or the day by some unknown persons account of illicit relations between one Chokhey Singh and Smt. Rajwanti. There was nothing beyond a suggestion and the statement of the accused in this behalf. A mere possibility that the murder could have taken place 2 or 3 hours earlier will not render the eye witness account unworthy of credence. ( 11 ) IT was also urged on behalf of the appellant that according to the evidence of P. W. 4 Dr. I. J. Punhan there should have been two shots. The witness seems to have been re-examined by the State counsel and he had, later on, admitted that one shot could also cause all these injuries. In fact, the situation was made out in the cross-examination of P. W. 1 Vijai Pal Singh that the deceased was sitting over a raised boundary wall about 6 on the eastern edge of the Chabutara with his legs some what straightened and some what folded and hands over the chest. In fact, the situation was made out in the cross-examination of P. W. 1 Vijai Pal Singh that the deceased was sitting over a raised boundary wall about 6 on the eastern edge of the Chabutara with his legs some what straightened and some what folded and hands over the chest. It may be a situation where all the injuries could have been caused by a single fire. In any event, a medical evidence in the matter of injury by a single shot or the necessity of 2 fires, will not be a matter of medical opinion but of a calculation of the possibility of sitting in that manner. Therefore, the evidence of Doctor while stating that there should have been two shots which has also been withdrawn by him, cannot be given much weight. ( 12 ) IT was lastly argued on behalf of the appellant that the offence said to be proved against the accused appellant may not amount to murder and could be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to appreciate this argument, a reference to the definition of murder contained in Section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code may be referred to. Needless to say that if an offence as such could be considered to be one covered by Section 300 I. P. C. , there would be no occasion for application of Section 304 I. P. C. for the purposes of punishment. For the purposes of this aspect, the offence under section 299, that is, culpable homicide is to be assumed as it is common for Sections 300 and 304, I. P. C. There are five requirements in Section 300, I. P. C. and the existence of any of them, of course subject to non-availability of the exceptions (i) to (iv), will make the offence as one of murder. These requirements are if the act by which the death is caused (i) is done with the intention of causing death, or (ii) it is done with the intention of causing of such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or (iii) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or (iv) if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid the offence may amount to murder. In the instant case, it has been shown in the statement of P. W. 1 Vijai Pal that Krishna Pal Singh had stood up before moving towards Natthu Singh with the gun and then had also extended a warning TChup Ho Ja Varna Goli Mar Dunga and thereafter he had fired from a distance of about 5 of 6 upon Natthu Singh. Firing of a gun is some thing which is known in its effect and a person cannot say that while making gun fire he did not know of the effects of it. It was a fire by a regular gun from a close range with no chance of missing the target. When the pellets had struck the chest, they must have been so aimed as well. It is thus very clear that whether Krishna Pal Singh intended to cause death or not, he had fully known that he was going to cause bodily injury which could be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and was also likely to cause death. The impression that since there has been exchange of hot words including abuses, does not put the case in the parameters of exception (i) which is invited when there is loss of self control on account of grave and suddent provocation. The provocation whatever it was, was building up gradually and if the appellant was too hot to get over heated, he can thank himself. The provocation whatever it was, was building up gradually and if the appellant was too hot to get over heated, he can thank himself. The exception (iv) would cover the actions during sudden fight, which itself may arise from sudden quarrel. This is, in fact a situation which may at times come up when the injury is caused during grappling or the like and the injury proves to be fatal, though it was not so intended and was only a slip, or exaggeration of the action. In our opinion, none of the two exceptions (i) or (iv) will cover the present case. ( 13 ) WE may also make reference to the law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant which we have borne in mind while coming to the above conclusion. In the case of Jawahar Lai and another v. State of Punjab, the factors before the Supreme Court were that the accused was immature boy of 19 years and had caused a single blow, which had fallen on the chest. A knife blow 1. A. I. R 1983 S. C. 284. may be fatal or simple hurt with the depth of W and even in the chest region, if it passes between the ribs it may reach the heart and if it falls on rib it may be a mere wound of the small depth. Similarly in the case of Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, the quarrel took place on the spur of moment and on trivial reason, when the deceased was passing over the road in front of the appellants house, his head was dashed with the Parnala of the accused which provoked the deceased. Naturally the circumstances were of the nature that the appellant was not at fault and during the hurling of abuses, the appellant gave a knife blow. This was also a case where single knife blow was inflicted in the chest region, which injury itself will be very different from that of the kind where neither aim nor force used by the assailant is of any value. The force of the injury will depend upon the gun powder and a person using the gun must know the value thereof. The force of the injury will depend upon the gun powder and a person using the gun must know the value thereof. Again in the case of Sital Singh v. State of Punjab, the appellant was a lad of 19 years and the gun shot wound was in the thigh region, which generally speaking is not a vulnerable part of the body. Even the intentional fire armed on such part of the body may not give rise to an impression that the accused desired to inflict bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of life to cause death or with intention to cause death. ( 14 ) THIS argument of the learned counsel for the appellant also, therefore, is not sustainable. ( 15 ) CONSIDERING all facts and circumstances of the case, we see no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is confirmed. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail and serve out the sentence awarded to him according to law. Appeal dismissed. .