PALOK BASU, J. ( 1 ) MURAT alias Ram Murat has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 24. 1. 1979 passed by V Addi. Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 1978 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302/341 I. P. C. and also under Section 302 I. P. C. simplicitor and sentenced to imprisonment for life on both counts and also under Section 307 I. P. C. and sentenced to ten years RI. (sentences directed to run concurrently ). The first charge against the appellant was that on 16. 1. 1978 at 5 P. M. he shared the common intention along with brother Puranmasi to kill Bachcha Ram Yadav and others and in furtherance of the said common intention Puranmasi committed the murder by intentionally shooting at and causing death of Bachcha Ram Yadav and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34 I. P. C. The second charge against the appellant was that in the said incident the appellant caused the death of Smt. Dhiraji wife of Bachcha Ram Yadav by causing her death by intentionally causing spear injury as a result of which she died on the way to ;the hospital. For this the appellant was charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. simplicitor. The third charge against the appellant was that in the same incident he caused injuries with spear to Rajnath P. W. 7 with intention to cause his death, who survived and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 307 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, was that informant P. W. 1. Deonath and the appellant Murat are residents of the same village Dhudhuwa, police-station-Chaubepur, district-Varanasi. The other accused Puranmasi is the real brother of the appellant. Purnmasi died during the trial. The house of P. W. 2. Mehlad is practicularly adjoining. The deceased Bachcha Ram Yadav is the real brother of the informant. The other deceased Smt. Dhiraji is the wife of this deceased Bachcharam Yadav. Similarly, P. W. 7, Rajnath, the injured witness, is also brother of the informant and the deceased Bachcha Ram Yadav. The prosecution case further is that enmity existed between the families of the appellant and that of the informant and some litigation had already taken place between them. On the fateful day, i. e. on 16. 1. Similarly, P. W. 7, Rajnath, the injured witness, is also brother of the informant and the deceased Bachcha Ram Yadav. The prosecution case further is that enmity existed between the families of the appellant and that of the informant and some litigation had already taken place between them. On the fateful day, i. e. on 16. 1. 1978 the ladies of the house of the accused had abused and beaten the sister of the informant Smt. Israji, P. W. 11. About this incident Smt. Israji lodged an F. I. R. at the police-station Chaubepur on the same day at 2. 45 P. M. because she was a victim and had received injuries. Lodging of this F. I. R. caused sufficient annoyance to the two accused and around 5 P. M. on 16. 1. 1978 the appellant armed with a spear and co-accused Puranmasi (dead during the trial) armed with his gun came to the house of the informant where the informant, his another brother Rajnath, his brother Bachcha Ram deceased, his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Smt. Dhiraji, the other deceased, were working at their door. Puranmasi and Murat started hurling abuses which was resisted by the deceased Puranmasi. Immediately thereupon the co-accused Puranmasi fired from his gun which hit Bachcha Ram Yadav who fell down. At this the informant Rajnath and Smt. Dhiraji rushed to apprehend the accused at which the appellant Murat assaulted Rajnath and Smt. Dhiraji with his spear and when the other persons, namely, Ram Swarup Dular P. W. 8 and Mehlad, P. W. 2. and several other villagers tried to apprehend the accused they threatened them to kill if they dared to come near. Thereafter both the accused fled away. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, an F. I. R. was lodged by Deonath, P. W. I at the police-station Chaubepur on 16. 1. 1978 at 6. 45 P. M. It is said that all three victims were carried to the policestation. P. W. 12 Sriram, S. H. O. was present at the police-station when this F. I. R. was lodged. He immediately interrogated all the three injured as also informant. The statements of the two deceased Bachcha Ram Yadav and his wife Smt. Dhiraji was proved during the trial as dying declaration of the two deceased being admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, marked Ext. and Ka. 15 and Ka. 16. He immediately interrogated all the three injured as also informant. The statements of the two deceased Bachcha Ram Yadav and his wife Smt. Dhiraji was proved during the trial as dying declaration of the two deceased being admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, marked Ext. and Ka. 15 and Ka. 16. The Investigating officer made arrangements for sending the three victims to the hospital but in the meantime the two deceased died. However, Rajnath was medically examined by Dr. Anil Kumar, P. W. 5. on 16. 1. 1978 at 8. 45 P. M. is S. S. P. G. hospital, Varanasi. He found one incised would, 1 cm x 1/2 cm. x depth not probed on the right side of chest at 3 OClock position, 7 cm, medial to right nipple. The said injury was kept under observation. According to the statement P. W. 7, Rajnath was remained hospitalised for about a week. ( 4 ) TO complete the chronology of the prosecution case it may be mentioned here that P. W. 12 Sriram Singh, sub-Inspector immediately proceeded to the place of the occurrence. He got an information that co-accused Puranmasi was likely to be arrested if immediately his tubewell was raided. Consequently he proceeded to the tubewell of Puranmasi where he was successfully arrested. From his possession, his gun and cartridges were recovered about which memorandum was prepared which has been marked Ext. Ka. 13. It may be mentioned here that P. W. 9 Rajaram had accompanied P. W. 12 Shri Ram at the time of arrest and in his testimony the said P. W. 9 Rajaram has fully corroborated the prosecution case about the arrest of Puranmasi and recovery of the fire-arm and cartridges from his possession. Thereafter on 17. 1. 1978 the appellant Murat was also arrested by the Investigating Officer. It may be mentioned here that the Investigating officer prepared the site plan after inspecting the spot which was marked Ext. Ka. 18. He also look plain and blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and -prepared the recovery memo Ext. Ka. 17. While interrogating P. W. 11 Smt. Israji who had sustained injuries in the incident which happened in the afternoon, who had handed over the carbon copy of the F. I. R. which she had lodged. This carbon copy of the F. I. R. has been proved as Ext: Ka. 19. Ka. 17. While interrogating P. W. 11 Smt. Israji who had sustained injuries in the incident which happened in the afternoon, who had handed over the carbon copy of the F. I. R. which she had lodged. This carbon copy of the F. I. R. has been proved as Ext: Ka. 19. ( 5 ) IT may be mentioned here that P. W. 6. Rama Shanker Misra was posted as Station Officer at police-station Kotwali. On receiving information about the dead-body at S. S. P. G. Hospital, he was deputed to prepare the inquest reports on the dead-bodies of Bachcha Ram Yadav and Smt. Dhiraji. Similarly, the said Station officer also prepared the photonash, challan nash and the letters addressed to the Medical Officer for getting post mortem conducted on the said dead bodies. All these documents have been proved by this P. W. 6 R. S. Misra as Exts. Ka 5 to Ka 12 respectively. Ultimately the post-mortem on the dead bodies of Bachcha Ram and Smt. Dhiraji was conducted by Dr. S. P. Tandon P. W. 3, Senior Physician, S. S. P. G. Hospital, Varanasi on 17. 1. 1978 at 3. 45 P. M. at 4. 30 P. M. respectively. According to his statement and the post mortem report Ext. Ka-2, the age of the deceased Bachcha Ram was about 38 years and his death had taken place about half to one day ago. His body was of average built. Rigor mortis was present. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of Bachcha Ram: (1) Six gun shot wounds of entry 1 cm. x 1 cm. inside with inverted margin on the abdomen. (a) Two on the pubic sum physis. (b) Two on left side of abdomen 1 cm. apart 6 cm. outer and 4 cm. below umbilicus. (c) Two on right side of abdomen 6 cm. away on unbilicus and 6 cm. apart. There was no blackening, charring or tattoo-ing around the wounds. There are 4 wounds of exit, two on the rectum on the outer side of left buttock and one 8 cm. above it. These wounds had everted margins and are cm. x 1/4 cm. in size. away on unbilicus and 6 cm. apart. There was no blackening, charring or tattoo-ing around the wounds. There are 4 wounds of exit, two on the rectum on the outer side of left buttock and one 8 cm. above it. These wounds had everted margins and are cm. x 1/4 cm. in size. On internal examination inferior venacava and disc ending aorta was pierced through and through by the pellets, the abdomenal cavity containing 500 c. c. blood and it contained 50 c. c. semidagested food and the small and large intestines contained four holes and the right kidney pierced through and through by the pellet and contains 1 pound of blood on it. ( 6 ) IN the opinion of the doctor, the death of Bachcha Ram was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries suffered by him during his life. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the statement of Dr. S. P. Tandon and the postmortem report of Smt. Dhiraji Ext. Ka 3, the age of the deceased was about 32 years and her death had taken place about half to one day ago. Her body was of average built. Rigor mortis was present. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on her body:1. Incised wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. on the front of left chest4 cm. above and inner to left nipple. The injury cuts through the inter castle muscles and 2nd and 3rd ribs and cuts the plura and lung in downward direction and medially cutting pericardium and left ventricle. Pericardinal cavity has 200 c. c. blood in it. 2. Incised wound with tailing 3 cm. x 2 cm. on the back of right chest 6 cm. below inferior angle of scapula. It transverses through the muscles and pleura and lungs 1000 c. c. blood lide fluid present in the right pleural cavity. 3. Incised wounds 3 cm. x 2 cm. x 1 cm. below injury No. 2. It has the same course as injury number two. 4. Contusion 8 cm. x 8 cm. on the front of right chest 6 cm. below the nipple. On internal examination the doctor has found 150 C. c. semi digested food in the abdomen. According to Dr. S. P. Tandon, the death of Mst. Dhiraji was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries stated above. It has further been stated by Dr. on the front of right chest 6 cm. below the nipple. On internal examination the doctor has found 150 C. c. semi digested food in the abdomen. According to Dr. S. P. Tandon, the death of Mst. Dhiraji was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries stated above. It has further been stated by Dr. S. P. Tandon that the injuries of Bachcha Ram could be caused by firearm and the injuries Nos. 1 to 3 of Mst. Dhiraji could be caused by sharp edged weapon such as Ballam and her injury No. 4 could be caused either by falling on the ground or by the handle of the spear. It has further been stated by him that the death of the deceased could have taken place on 16. 1. 1972 at about 8 or 8. 30 P. M. and the injuries found on their bodies were sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature to cause their death. After completing the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant by Sri Ram, P. W. 12, the Investigating officer. ( 8 ) THE learned trial Judge placed implicit reliance on the testimony of four eye-witnesses who included P. W. 7, Rajnath, an injured one and then convicted and sentenced the appellant as noted above. Aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred. ( 9 ) SRI S. N. S. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants has been heard in support of this appeal at length. Sri S. P. Tewari, learned Govt. Advocate has spoused the cause of the State and the entire record has been thoroughly scrutinised. ( 10 ) THE first criticism of Sri Yadav against the prosecution witnesses was that all of them are partisan and had reason to falsely depose against the appellant and, therefore, the learned trial Judge has wrongly placed reliance on their testimony. In support of this argument reliance was placed on the two facts: Firstly, that so far as P. W. 2, Mahjad is concerned he admittedly tried to conceal his relationship though when searching cross-examination was directed, he admitted that he is the cousin f the informant. Secondly, that so far as Dular, P. W. 8 is concerned he had prepared an affidavit for being filed during the trial and had put his signature and, therefore he was not voluntarily making a statement in the court when his deposition was recorded. Secondly, that so far as Dular, P. W. 8 is concerned he had prepared an affidavit for being filed during the trial and had put his signature and, therefore he was not voluntarily making a statement in the court when his deposition was recorded. ( 11 ) SO far as the first criticism against P. W. 2. Mahjad is concerned it may be mentioned here that by an urge that his deposition should appear more independent perhaps the witness had initially tried to conceal his relationship with the informant. The fact, however, remains that he has himself said that he is the first cousin of the informant. This witness is living only about 100 paces from the house of the informant. Infact his house lies in between the two houses, i. e. on one side that of the appellant and on the other that of the deceased. His testimony, apart from the aforesaid criticism, has not been challenged at all during the cross-examination. Therefore, there is no reason that this witness should be discarded. Similarly, the statement of P. W. 8, Dular can and should not be discarded because there was a suggestion thrown to him that he had prepared an affidavit for being filed during the trial. Discarding such a witness is not possible as no effort has been made by the defence to prove that the affidavit was infact executed by the said witness. Neither any Oath Commissioner has been produced nor any Identifying witness has been produced nor for document was proved in accordance with law. Consequently, the learned trial Judge was rightly placed reliance on the testimony of the aforesaid witness and has discarded the said argument which was raised in the identical terms before him also during the trial. Another interesting aspect with regard to P. W. 8 is that he happened to be closely related to the accused side also. Consequently it is impossible to expect that a relative-witness would be deposing falsely against the appellant. His house is also practically adjacent to that of the appellant. There is, therefore, absolutely no reason that this witness would be deposing falsely against the accused-appellant. P. W. 7 Rajnath was a victim of the assault perpetrated by the appellant. His medical examination was done within two hours of the incident along with a Mazrubi Chitti. His house is also practically adjacent to that of the appellant. There is, therefore, absolutely no reason that this witness would be deposing falsely against the accused-appellant. P. W. 7 Rajnath was a victim of the assault perpetrated by the appellant. His medical examination was done within two hours of the incident along with a Mazrubi Chitti. Spear injury was said to have been caused to him on the chest and a mention about this fact is found in the F. I. R. There is no reason on earth for disbelieving this injured witness. The immediate motive for assault stands established by the testimony of P. W. 11 Smt. Israji Devi who sustained injuries at the hands of Maltiya, daughter of Puranmasi and Phulia, sister of the appellant. Copy of the F. I. R. (Ext. Kal 9) fully established the truth of the incident which was the immediate motive for the appellant and the deceased accused torush to avenge the fact of lodging of the F. I. R. against the ladies of their families. ( 12 ) IT may be further pointed out that the contents of the F. I. R. and the two post-mortem reports and the injury report of Rajnath fully corroborates the eye-witness account. ( 13 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion there is no error in the judgment and the order of the trial Judge in convicting and sentencing the appellant as noted above. ( 14 ) EVEN if the two statements said to have been recorded by the Investigating officer which have been treated as dying declarations of the two deceased namely, Bachcha Ram Yadav and Smt. Dhiraji are not taken note of for non-compliance of some of the Rules mentioned in U. P. Police Regulations the aforesaid eye-witness account and the attending circumstances are more than sufficient Jo up-hold the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant. In view of the aforesaid discussion this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He will surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the sentences awarded to him by the trial Judge. Appeal dismissed. .