JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—The appellant herein was tried by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur for causing the death of Bhagat Ram on or about 8 or 8.15 p. m on 10-10-1989 in village Bomana. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000 and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Now the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows :— 3. The appellant and deceased Bhagat Ram belonged to village Bumana within Police Station Hamirpur. On 10-10-1989 at about 8 or 8.15 p m., Bhagat Ram was taking meals in the ground floor of his house. His wife Krishna Devi was serving food to him. Their daughter-in-law Bimla Devi was cooking food in the kitchen on the first floor. The appellant came to the court-yard of Bhagat Ram armed with ) 2 bore gun and fired two shots in the air. Bhagat Ram came out of his house and asked the appellant about the matter who, in turn, inquired about Bhagat Rams son Ashwani Kumar as he wanted to kill Ashwani Kumar. Bhagat Ram told the appellant that Ashwani Kumar had not returned from the shop and asked him to sit inside the house and wait for the arrival of Ashwani Kumar. The appellant started abusing Bhagat Ram in filthy language and fired gun-shot at Bhagat Ram which hit him on the lower part of his abdomen and he consequently fell down in the court-yard. Krishna Devi followed Bhagat Ram and stood in between the outer door of the house and had seen the appellant aiming and firing the gun-shot at Bhagat Ram. On seeing the occurrence, she cried. Smt. Bimla Devi daughter-in-law of Bhagat Ram had also seen the occurrence from the window of the house and came down after the accused had fired the gun shot at Bhagat Ram. She had also cried and raised alarm on which the appellant fled away with the gun. Smt Krishna Devi took care of Bhagat Ram and put his head on her thighs On hearing gun-shots, cries and alarm raised by Smt. Bimla Devi, PVV Prem Singh, Ran Singh and other villagers rushed to the house of Bhagat Ram. She had also cried and raised alarm on which the appellant fled away with the gun. Smt Krishna Devi took care of Bhagat Ram and put his head on her thighs On hearing gun-shots, cries and alarm raised by Smt. Bimla Devi, PVV Prem Singh, Ran Singh and other villagers rushed to the house of Bhagat Ram. They were told by injured Bhagat Ram and his wife Smt. Krishna Devi that the appellant had fired gun shot at the former Blood was oozing from the injuries. PW Prem Singh had bandaged the wounds of Bhagat Ram and took him to the Primary Health Centre Bhota in a Palki (Palanquin) Doctor G. R. Kaushal after seeing the gun-shot injury on the person of Bhagat Ram informed the Police immediately by telephone. After receipt of the telephonic message A S. I Ishwar Singh came and reached at Primary Health Centre Bhota and recorded the statement (Ex. PK) of injured Bhagat Ram under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which formed basis of the F. I. R. (Ex, PA/1) for the offence under section 307, I. P. C. 4. Since the injury in question was serious and dangerous, Doctor J. R. Kaushal referred the injured to District Hospital, Hamirpur. Smt. Krishna Devi also accompanied the injured There was no Surgeon avail able at District Hospital Hamirpur at the relevant time and injured Bhagat Ram was referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla where he remained under treatment upto 14-11-1989, but he died there due to the gun-shot injuries. Therefore, the case was converted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Sub-Inspector Jeet Ram commenced (PW 23) the investigation after inspecting the spot and prepared the site-plan (Ex. PQ). He recovered one empty cartridge and some burnt pieces of" papers from the court-yard of Bhagat Ram on 11-10-1989. During the inquest proceedings PW Jeet Ram recorded the statement of eye-witnesses namely, Smt. Krishna Devi (PW 1) and Smt. Bimla Devi (PW 2) among others. The appellant was arrested on 12-10-1989 by A. S. I Ishwar Singh (PW 13) armed with gun (Ex. P-l). The Investigating Officer recorded the disclosure statement (Ex. PO) of the appellant and recovered two other empty cartridges at his instance in the presence of Panches. The appellant was arrested on 12-10-1989 by A. S. I Ishwar Singh (PW 13) armed with gun (Ex. P-l). The Investigating Officer recorded the disclosure statement (Ex. PO) of the appellant and recovered two other empty cartridges at his instance in the presence of Panches. Empty cartridges and the gun were sent for chemical examination and on chemical analysis it was found that the gun had been fired. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented before the trial Court for trial. 6. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. He made statement under section 313, Cr. P. C. He denied all the allegations and claimed that he has been falsely implicated on suspicion as he pos sessed the licensed gun. However, no defence has been led by the appellant. 7. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses and also tendered into evidence the relevant documents. The trial Court held that the prosecution ha°. satisfactorily established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the evidence in order to see whether the trial Court has committed any error in convicting the appellant in this case 9. Shri T R. Chandel, learned Counsel for the appellant has strongly contended that the prosecution has not been able to establish motive on the part of the appellant to kill Bhagat Ram. It has been held by the trial Court and rightly so that crime can take place even without pre-motive or pre-planning in a particular situation. It is a settled proposition that where there is a direct evidence to prove guilt of the accused, the proof of motive does not play an important roll. 10. In the present case, the prosecution has produced two eye-wit nesses namely Smt. Krishna Devi and Smt. Bimla Devi. Smt. Krishna Devi (PW 1) widow of the deceased stated that on the day of incident at about 8 or 8.15 p. m. she was serving meals to her husband Bhagat Ram in the ground floor of her house when they heard two gun shots. Her late husband came out of the house, whereas she stood in between the door of her house. Her late husband came out of the house, whereas she stood in between the door of her house. She saw the appellant in their court-yard with a gun, who asked her husband to bring her son Ashwani Kumar as he wanted to kill him Her husband told the appellant that their son had not come from the shop, therefore, the appellant should sit inside the room and wait for his arrival. But the appellant started abusing her husband and fired a gun shot which hit the left side of the abdomen of husband who fell down. She further stated that she cried and raised alarm and went near her husband and placed his head on her thighs. On hearing her cries and gun shot her daughter-in-law Bimla Devi (PW 2) and grand-daughters Meena Kumari and Reena Kumari also came at the spot and after seeing them the appellant had fled away. She also deposed that Prem Singh (PW 3) and Ran Singh also came there and after their arrival so many persons from the village gathered at the spot and that she and her husband had told Prem Singh and Ran Singh and to the other villagers that the appellant had fired a gun-shot and inflicted the injuries on the person of Bhagat Ram. She has also stated that PW Prem Singh and Ran Singh covered the injuries of her husband with bandage and took him to the Hospital. She also accompanied them to the hospital at Bhota where the Police had recorded the statement of her husband and thereafter he was referred to the District Hospital, Hamirpur and then to Shimla. In her cross-examination, she has categorically denied the suggestion of the appellant that the occurrence had taken place at about 9 or 10 p. m. or that the appellant had not visited her house at that time much less with a gun. It is also denied by her if her husband had received the gun injury from some unknown person and the appellant has been implicated on suspicion. She has also stated that it was a moon-lit night and the electricity light of the house was on. 11. Smt. Bimla Devi (PW 2) is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. She has corroborated the statement of PW Smt. Krishna Devi. She has also stated that it was a moon-lit night and the electricity light of the house was on. 11. Smt. Bimla Devi (PW 2) is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. She has corroborated the statement of PW Smt. Krishna Devi. She has stated that on the day of occurrence at about 8 or 8.15 p. m. she was cooking meals .in the kitchen situate in the first floor of the house, whereas her mother in-law PW Krishna Devi was serving the meals to Bhagat Ram in the ground floor of the house She heard two gun-shots in the court-yard of their house and on hearing such shots she alongwith her daughter Meena Kumari came to the window of the house and saw that her father- in-law came out of the house and the appellant was standing in the court yard with a gun in his hand. The appellant asked her father in-law about his son Ashwani Kumar and her father-in-law replied that his son had not come from (he shop and the appellant should sit in the house and wait for his arrival. She deposed that the appellant started abusing her father-in- law and fired gun-shot at him who consequently fell down in the court yard She immediately came down from the house and started crying and raising alarm alongwith her mother-in-law. The appellant immediately fled-away from the scene of occurrence when he saw PW Prem Singh and Ran Singh followed by other villagers coming towards the scene of occurrence. PW Prem Singh and Ran Singh covered the injury of her father-in- law with bandage and took him to the hospital. Her mother-in-law also accompanied them. She has specifically denied the suggestion of the appellant that at the time of the incident it was dark or that she was asleep. She stated that there was light at that time She also denied the suggestion that she had not seen the appellant giving gun-shot to her mother-in-law or she was naming the appellant only out of suspicion at the instance of her mother-in-law. 12. Both these witnesses have been residing in the same house with the deceased, therefore, their presence at the time of the occurrence cannot be doubted. 12. Both these witnesses have been residing in the same house with the deceased, therefore, their presence at the time of the occurrence cannot be doubted. Both of them have stated unequivocally that on 10-10-1989 at about 8 or 8.30 p. m they heard two gun shots in the air and thereafter when late Bhagat Ram came out in the court-yard of his house they saw the appellant with the gun, standing near the deceased and after the brief exchange of words, he fired at deceased and inflicted the injuries in question. 13. Prem Singh (PW 3) though declared hostile has fully corroborated the statements of these two eye-witnesses and further stated that he applied the bandage to the injury and taken the deceased accompanied by PW Krishna Devi to the Primary Health Centre at Bhota where Doctor G. R. Kaushal attended him. PW Prem Singh has also stated that PW Krishna Devi had told him that the appellant had fired gun-shot on her husband. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of two eye witnesses to discredit or disapprove what they have stated. The prosecution has proved by adducing cogent and convincing evidence of the eye witnesses that it was the appellant who had fired the gun-shot on the deceased. 14. Doctor G. R. Kaushal (PW 5) attended the injured at about 10.30 p. m. on the same day. He examined him medically and found three small injury wounds in the lower part of left side of Thorax within 2 cm. in diameter, but without exit wounds. He also found three small openings in the under-vest worn by the injured corresponding to the wounds He has opined that the duration of the injuries was within 2 to 6 hours with gun-shot and issued the medico-legal report (Ex PD). He has stated that the injured was conscious and fit to make statement. He allowed the Police to take his statement (Ex. PA) in his presence. He denied the suggestion of the defence that the statement of the injured was not recorded in his presence or that he has stated so under the influence of Police. 15. Doctor Kamal Jaswal (PW 6) has produced admission record of the injured of Indira Gandhi Hospital Shimla. According to record the injured remained admitted in the hospital at Shimla from 11-10-1989 to 14-11-1989. 15. Doctor Kamal Jaswal (PW 6) has produced admission record of the injured of Indira Gandhi Hospital Shimla. According to record the injured remained admitted in the hospital at Shimla from 11-10-1989 to 14-11-1989. He has stated that during the treatment of the injured two pellets were recovered from the chest wall of Bhagat Ram which were sealed in a packet and handed over to the Police. 16. After the death of Bhagat Ram the post-mortem was conducted by Doctor Suresh Sankhian (PW 7) of Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla at about 11.30 a. m. on 15-11-1989. Doctor found 15 injuries out of which 6 were pre-surgical injuries. He prepared post-mortem report being Ex PH. According to his opinion the deceased had died due to septicemic shock which was the direct and natural consequence of the gun- soot injury on the person of the deceased. He has also opined that those gun shot injuries on the person of Bhagat Ram were sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that septicemia is the result of infection inside the body the source of which is the external wounds communicating inside. He has also admitted that any injury irrespective of gun-shot injury can cause the septicemia through infection which starts immediately after the injury. He has further stated that infection may or may not be cured because it depends upon the drug administered to the patient. He has admitted that infection can be caused if the patient is properly treated. He has also admitted that the infection can also possibly be caused from the wound caused by nail. 17. The next contention of Shri Chandel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the septicemia in the present case is not the direct result of the gun-shot injury, but could be the result of infection in the wound during treatment of injured Bhagat Ram and that the ocular version of the eye-witnesses is inconsistent with the medical evidence. He has also con tended that according to the post-mortem report (Ex. PH) as also the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex. PS), there were tattoeing marks on the injuries. He has also con tended that according to the post-mortem report (Ex. PH) as also the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex. PS), there were tattoeing marks on the injuries. Therefore, the gun was fired from the close range but according to the depositions of two eye-witnesses, the appellant was standing at a distance of about 10-20 paces from the deceased, which on inspection was found to be 15-17 feet. With the support of Modis Medical Jurisprudence, he has argued that such a gun shot injury could be inflicted from a distance not more than 3 feet. 18. We are not inclined to accept these submissions of the learned Counsel. If the gun shot has been fired within 3 ft. distance then the wound would have a single entry, but from the medical evidence, it is clear that three entry wounds from a single shot were found on the person of deceased Bhagat Ram. Otherwise, also according to Doctor Modi, if the shot is fired from less than 2 yards then the cardwad is also found in the wound But admittedly, according to the medical evidence there was no cardwad in any of the entry wounds of the deceased and it had 3 entry wounds from a single shot. In Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 20th Edition at page 229, it is found noted that if the shot is fired from a distance of 6 ft. the central aperture is surrounded by separate openings in an area of about two inches in diameter made by few pellets of the shot which spread out before reaching the mark. In that case though the surrounding of the apertures may not be blackened or scorched, but it is tattoed to some extent. Therefore, applying the Medical experts opinion, it clearly would go to show that the shot of the gun in the present case was fired from a distance of near about 6 ft. The distance given by the eye-witnesses was approximate. It is not disputed that the barrel of the gun (Ex. P-l) was 32 inches. It had the Butt and the middle portion also. Therefore, the length of gun may be about 4 feet. When the length of the gun and the distance between the appellant and the deceased are - taken into consideration, then the shot can be said to have been fired from the distance of 10 ft. P-l) was 32 inches. It had the Butt and the middle portion also. Therefore, the length of gun may be about 4 feet. When the length of the gun and the distance between the appellant and the deceased are - taken into consideration, then the shot can be said to have been fired from the distance of 10 ft. Therefore, the ocular account of the versions of the eye-witnesses and medical evidence and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory are not contradictory to each other. Rather the medical evidence corroborates the ocular version of the eye witnesses. 19. Shri Chandel has relied upon a decision of the apex Court in Dev Raj v. State of Punjab, 1992 (1) Crimes 980. In that case from the medical evidence of the Doctor, it was found clearly that the death was not direct result of the injuries caused to the deceased during the occurrence and the injured died on 19-11-1979, i. e, nearly 1-1/2 month later. In between, he was operated and for the purpose of surgeries several incised wounds were made and the Doctor opined that the second haemorrhage, which resulted in shock and haemorrhage resulting in death, took place on the day when the right arm of the deceased was amputated. In these circumstances, the apex Court found the commission of the offence to be one of grievous hurt. In the present case, the evidence of the Doctor is quite clear that the deceased had died due to septicemic shock which was the direct result of the gun-shot injury on his person. Therefore, the decision of Dev Rajs case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 20. Shri Chandel has then contended that mere use of the gun by the appellant or the presence of gun shot injuries on the person of the deceased is not enough by itself, to prove an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of this contention, he has relied upon Piyarey Lal v Shankar Das and State, SLJ 1971 HP 364. In support of this contention, he has relied upon Piyarey Lal v Shankar Das and State, SLJ 1971 HP 364. In that case, learned Single Judge of this Court had held that in the circumstances, in which the gun was fired showed that the accused could not have the intention to commit an offence punishable under section 307, I. P. C. The facts of that case are entirely different than that of the present case and therefore, that decision is not helpful td the appellant. 21. Shri T. R. Chandel next contended that the statement of the injured (Ex. PA) was recorded by Ishwar Singh (PW 13) on 10-10-1989 on the basis of which F I. R. (Ex. PA/A) was lodged on the same day, but the copy of the First Information Report was seat to the Judicial Magistrate on 16-10-1989 after the delay of about 6 days and there is no explanation about it. We do not however, find it possible to appreciate this argument. The trial Court has noticed in its judgment that judicial courts at Hamirpur were closed for Dussehra holidays from 9-10-1989 to 13-10-1989 and 14-10-1989 was Second Saturday, whereas 15-10-1989 was Sunday. The copy of F. I. R. (Ex. PA/1) was received by Judicial Magistrate on 16-10-1989 which was the first opening day. Therefore, this delay is not fatal to the prosecution in these circumstances. However, this does not prove if there had been any chance of recording the F. I. R at a later stage We find no cross-examination on this point of the prosecution witness. A. S. I. Ishwar Singh (PW 13) who recorded the statement (Ex. PA) and on the basis of which F I. R. was recorded. The statement of deceased Bhagat Rim was recorded on 10-10-1989 after 10.30 p.m. and thereafter immediately the F. I. R. was recorded at 1.15 a m. on 11-10-1989 in Police Station Hamirpur. Bhagat Ram was referred to the District Hospital Hamirpur from where he was further referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. According to Doctor PW Kamal Jaswal, injured was admitted in the hospital on 11-10-1989 and he remained there till he expired on 14-10-1989 The learned Sessions Judge has held that there is no evidence on record to show that if Ishwar Singh A. S. I. or Jeet Ram Sub-Inspector had ever visited Shimla from 11-10-1989 to 14-10-1989. According to Doctor PW Kamal Jaswal, injured was admitted in the hospital on 11-10-1989 and he remained there till he expired on 14-10-1989 The learned Sessions Judge has held that there is no evidence on record to show that if Ishwar Singh A. S. I. or Jeet Ram Sub-Inspector had ever visited Shimla from 11-10-1989 to 14-10-1989. There was no chance for the Police officials to record the statement of Bhagat Ra n at later date or recording the F. I. R ante dated. We find this reasoning in tune with the evidence on record. 22. It has lastly been contended by Shri Chandel that since Bhagat Ram had died of infection and after more than one month of the gun shot injury sustained by him, the offence does not fall within the ambit of murder. According to the learned Counsel if the appellant is found guilty he can only be convicted and punished under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. We are afraid, we cannot accept this submission as well. It is not disputed that the injury in question was inflicted on the person of the deceased on 10-10-1989. and he died on 14-11-1989 at Shimla. The appellant had used deadly weapon like gun and chosen to inflict injury with it on the vital part of the body of the deceased, Doctor Suresh Sankhyan found 15 injuries on the person of the deceased out of which 6 were pre surgical injuries. According to his opinion, the deceased had died due to septicemic shock which was the direct result of the gun-shot injury on the person of the deceased Further, it has come in the evidence of the Doctor that those gun-shot injuries were sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. On the basis of the medical evidence, it is made out that the death of the deceased was approximate and not the remote consequence of the act of violence. The appellant had the intention of causing the injuries and also that he had the knowledge that the injuries which he intended to inflict with the gun were likely to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, the offence is fully covered under section 300, I- P. C. and punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. No other point was urged. 23. Therefore, the offence is fully covered under section 300, I- P. C. and punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. No other point was urged. 23. The result, therefore, is that there is no justification to interfere in the matter. The trial Court has carefully and meticulously examined the evidence on record before recording finding of conviction in this case. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.