ORDER : J. Jayachandra Reddy, J. The sole appellant has been found guilty for causing the death of one Bheraram on the intervening night of August 8 and 9, 1970 at Raniwara in the house of Shri Mohanlal, PW 3, BDO. Prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 4 as the direct witnesses. Seven other persons were also prosecuted for the offence of conspiracy but they were acquitted. So far as the appellant is concerned, both the courts below have accepted the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and accordingly convicted him under Section 302 simpliciter. 2. The prosecution case is as follows. On the fateful night, PW 3, BDO was sleeping inside the house. Others were sleeping in the verandah and open yard. At about midnight or during the early hours of night, they heard two gunshots. Immediately they woke up and with the aid of a torch, PWs 2 and 4 identified the appellant who was leaving the place with pistol in his hands. PW 3 also came out immediately after hearing the gunshot and he was told by PW 4 that it was the appellant who shot at the deceased and was running away. A report was given and the inquest was held on the dead body and the post-mortem was done. PW 7, the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem found three lacerated wounds and according to him injury No. 1 was the wound of entry for one gunshot, injury No. 2 was the wound of entry for the other shot and injury No. 3 was the wound of exit for the wound of entry No. 2. The accused denied the offence. Both the courts below have accepted the evidence of PWs 1 to 4. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that it was a dark night and it would not have been possible for the witnesses to identify the assailant and due to previous enmity the witnesses have falsely implicated the accused. On behalf of the defence, DWs 1 and 2 were also examined. DW 1, the doctor, and an M.D. in Forensic Medicine with medico-legal experience, after having perused the post-mortem report given by Dr Mathur, PW 7, deposed that there is only one gunshot injury. The learned counsel relied on the evidence of this witness to discredit the evidence of eyewitnesses who deposed that they heard two gunshots. DW 1, the doctor, and an M.D. in Forensic Medicine with medico-legal experience, after having perused the post-mortem report given by Dr Mathur, PW 7, deposed that there is only one gunshot injury. The learned counsel relied on the evidence of this witness to discredit the evidence of eyewitnesses who deposed that they heard two gunshots. We think that this opinion of DW 1 by itself cannot be a ground to reject the evidence of eyewitnesses. Even if the witnesses have deposed that they heard more than one shot that by itself does not in any manner falsify their evidence. The medical evidence establishes that the deceased died because of gunshot injury and the witnesses could not give the correct version as to whether they heard one or two shots that in the circumstances is not a ground which falsifies their evidence. DW 1 also opined that since there was some semi-digested food the occurrence must have taken place earlier and not at 3 a.m. This again is an opinion evidence and the possibility of the deceased having eaten late in the night cannot be ruled out. 4. In any event, the evidence of PW 3, an independent witness, namely, BDO, establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased and PWs 1, 2 and 4 were sleeping in the house and the occurrence took place on that intervening night. PW 3 also heard gunshots and he came out immediately and he was told by PW 4 that it was the appellant who shot at the deceased. Much comment has been made about the identification. PW 4 asserted that he knows the appellant since his childhood and there is nothing to discredit him on this aspect. The courts have rightly accepted the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 as material witnesses and we see no grounds to come to a different conclusion. 5. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.