Judgment : B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. THE instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur dated 25.4.1980 passed in sessions trial No. 229 of 1979 by which the appellant Prem Chand has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. THE prosecution case had been that on 19.7.79 Chhitaiyan - deceased was sitting at his door in the evening at about 6 p.m. along with his son Dhanpat, informant, P.W. 1, his brother Khub Chand, P.W. 3, his uncle Pancham, P.W. 2 and his wife Smt. Girjarani, P.W. 4, the appellant Prem Chand armed with D.B.B.L. gun came there and asked for a cock. Chhitaiyan told him that he had only one hen and expressed his inability to give the same to the appellant as the hen was sitting on eggs. THE appellant felt very much offended and fired his gun aiming Chhitaiyan, who received the injuries on his abdomen. Appellant also fired the second shot and subsequently escaped from the scene. After hearing the cries and the noise of the gun shots several persons came there from the nearby. Dhanpat, P.W.I took Chhitaiyan injured in the bullock cart to police station Uaria along with other said witnesses but he succumbed to injuries on the way. THE F.I.R. was lodged at 10 p.m. on the same day at police Station Uaria which is about 4 miles away from the place of occurrence. Ali Hasan, P.W. 6. Head Muharrir wrote the F.I.R. and registered the case under Section 302, I.P.C. Lal Bahadur Sharma, S.I., P.W. 7 started the investigation. THE dead body was sent for post mortem and Dr. A. K. Srivastava, P.W. 5 conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Chhitaiyan deceased on 20.7.79 at 4 p.m. THE following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased :- "Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm. x 1 cm. with scortching around the wound 9 cm. x 7 cm. incised and 11 cm. below the left nipple, clots present." In the opinion of Dr. A. K. Srivastava, P.W. 5, the death was caused due to haemorrhage. Lal Bahadur Sharma, I.O., P.W. 7 tried to apprehend the appellant but the appellant was absconding and he surrendered in the Court on 24.7.79. x 7 cm. incised and 11 cm. below the left nipple, clots present." In the opinion of Dr. A. K. Srivastava, P.W. 5, the death was caused due to haemorrhage. Lal Bahadur Sharma, I.O., P.W. 7 tried to apprehend the appellant but the appellant was absconding and he surrendered in the Court on 24.7.79. Investigating Officer, P.W. 7 completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the appellant on 3.10.79. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thus on committal, the appellant was tried for the murder of Chhitaiyan. 3. IN support of its case the prosecution examined Dhanpat, P.W. 1, Pancham, P.W. 2. Khub Chand, P.W. 3. Girjarani, P.W. 4, all the aforesaid witnesses were examined as eye-witnesses of the incident, Dr. A. K. Srivastava, P.W. 5 proved the post mortem report, Head Constable, Ali Hasan, P.W. 6 proved the Chik report and Lal Bahadur Sharma, Investigation Officer, P.W. 7. Dhanpat. P.W. 1, has given the details of the incident as mentioned above. Pancham, P.W. 2 has narrated the incident in verbatim what Dhanpat, P.W. 1 has stated. Khub Chand, P.W. 3 did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. Smt. Girjarani, P.W. 4 also supported the case of the prosecution fully. 4. THE appellant when examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C stated that he has falsely been enroped at the behest of one Jiyalal, who was having grudge against Lachhi, the brother of the appellant as Lachhi was in Jail at the time of commission of this offence in connection with the murder of the brother of Jiyalal and Dhanpat, P.W. 1 was working as a ploughman to the said Jiyalal. Learned Trial Court after considering the entire evidence on the record, convicted the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 5. HEARD Shri V. S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri K. C. Saxena, learned D.G.A. for the State. 6. THE submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the presence of all the eye-witnesses is doubtful and thus no reliance can be made on their testimony. We have examined the entire testimonies of the eyewitnesses. Dhanpat, P.W. 1 has given the account of the incident and he had been put to a long cross-examination and nothing could be elicited from him which can make his veracity doubtful. We have examined the entire testimonies of the eyewitnesses. Dhanpat, P.W. 1 has given the account of the incident and he had been put to a long cross-examination and nothing could be elicited from him which can make his veracity doubtful. He deposed that he was residing there but was working as a ploughman with Jiyalal and used to come in the evening in his house. THE contention of Shri Singh, learned counsel for the appellant that his presence at 6 p.m. is doubtful as he himself had stated that he comes after the sunset. This contention is devoid of any merit and it is a matter of common knowledge that in the village the ploughman has hardly any work to do during the rainy season. THE offence was committed in the month of July and thus it cannot be so unnatural or improbable that Dhanpat, P.W. 1 had come home a bit early. In our considered opinion Dhanpat, P.W. 1 is the most natural and trustworthy witness and any part of his statement cannot be disbelieved. So far as Pancham, P.W. 2 is concerned, he has supported the case of the prosecution. He deposed that he came there to meet Chhitaiyan and his family members. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court towards his statement that he was 75 years of age and was not having a good vision. He was unable to see anything in the night. Even in the day his vision was only up to 3-4 steps. He was residing in another village Bayanda, which was about 3-4 miles from the place of occurrence. He further stated as under :- "I was not having any work in Italia on the day of incident. I came to Italia after receiving the information in Bayanda. Police had reached Italia and I was called from Bayanda by giving the information." 7. ADMITTEDLY, Pancham, P.W. 2 is a chance witness and it is necessary to have a close scrutiny of his evidence. He has given a parrot like version and that too verbatim as whatever has been deposed by Dhanpat, P.W. 1. and had sung the song of accusation in chorus and he seems to be tutored witness. Moreover, his deposition is highly artificial and becomes suspicious. Due to his old age and poor vision his testimony does not inspire any confidence. He has given a parrot like version and that too verbatim as whatever has been deposed by Dhanpat, P.W. 1. and had sung the song of accusation in chorus and he seems to be tutored witness. Moreover, his deposition is highly artificial and becomes suspicious. Due to his old age and poor vision his testimony does not inspire any confidence. In our view it is not safe to place any reliance on his testimony. Vide Patel Chale Viram v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1994 SC 1250 and State of Punjab v. Monti Ram and others, 1994 Suppl (1) SCC 632. 8. KHUB Chand, P.W. 3 had been declared hostile and no reliance can be placed on his statement. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed vociferous objections regarding the presence of Smt. Girjarani, P.W. 4, wife of the deceased, at the place of occurrence as according to the learned counsel for the appellant the place on which she was sitting, it was not possible for her to see the incident from there. But she has also stated that she came out just after the shots were fired. Even if it is assumed that she had not seen the first part of the incident. i.e. shooting, it cannot be accepted that she must not have seen the appellant with the gun in his hand preparing to run away from the place of occurrence. No cross-examination has been made in this line and there is no reason to disbelieve her presence on the place of occurrence. To this extent her testimony is acceptable. This lends sufficient corroboration to the testimony of Dhanpat, P.W. 1. Even if as a matter of abundant caution, for the sake of argument we exclude the testimony of Girjarani, P.W. 4, we find the testimony of Dhanpat, P.W. 1 wholly reliable and trustworthy. He has absolutely no aim us to falsely implicate the appellant in such a heinous crime. An attempt was made by defence in cross-examination to elicit from him that he is falsely deposing against the appellant at the instance of Jiyalal. He is working as a ploughman for Jiyalal is admitted by him in most innocent manner. This itself indicates that Dhanpat, P.W. 1 is an honest and straight forward person. An attempt was made by defence in cross-examination to elicit from him that he is falsely deposing against the appellant at the instance of Jiyalal. He is working as a ploughman for Jiyalal is admitted by him in most innocent manner. This itself indicates that Dhanpat, P.W. 1 is an honest and straight forward person. The only serious challenge thrown upon his integrity is that he has stated in cross-examination that appellant had fired twice though according to the medical evidence only one shot had been fired. This issue shall be dealt with later. 9. IT is settled law that a conviction can be based and the verdict of the court can rest on the testimony of a solitary witness if the witness is trustworthy and his presence at the place of occurrence is proved beyond reasonable doubt, State of Haryana v. Manoj Kumar, AIR 1994 SC 147 ; Marwadi Kishore Parmanand and another v. State of Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 459 ; Amrik Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan, (1994) 1 SCC 563 and Vadivelu Thever v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 . 10. FURTHER submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the direction of the injury is from upside down and it is not possible to cause such injury unless the assailant is standing on a higher platform than the victim and the consistent deposition of the eye-witnesses had been that Chhitaiyan deceased was talking to the appellant while standing in front of him. This submission is also devoid of any force and we are in full agreement with learned trial court, which has recorded the following findings : "This argument has no force because it is presumed that Chhitaiyan would remain standing in the same posture even when the gun fired had been made on him. Thus it is quite natural that Chhitaiyan would either try to run away or would try to bend downward to avoid the force. Moreover, the doctor has also stated that the direction was also from left to right. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn on account of direction of the wound. Thus it is quite natural that Chhitaiyan would either try to run away or would try to bend downward to avoid the force. Moreover, the doctor has also stated that the direction was also from left to right. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn on account of direction of the wound. The pellets take uncertain course after coming into the friction with bony part inside the body." In the instant case it is clear from the post-mortem report that the spleen, kidneys, small intestine and stomach were found lacerated and thus the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant has no force. 11. FURTHER contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Dhanpat, P.W. 1 has deposed specifically that appellant Prem Chand had fired twice and both the shots had hit Chhitaiyan- deceased. The said ocular evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence as in the post mortem report there had been only one gun-shot wound. 12. THE learned trial court has given a very plausible explanation and the cogent reasons for the same as the appellant might have fired twice but the deceased- Chhitaiyan in order to avoid the injury could have moved in different directions and the second shot could not have been received by him and hence this contention has no force. In the case of Om Prakash and others v. State of Haryana, 1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 366, the Apex Court has held that mere expression by a witness in respect of number of shots fired by the accused cannot be a ground to doubt his veracity. In the case of Mohammad Yusuf v. State of U. P., AIR 1994 SC 1542 , the Supreme Court has observed as under :- "It has been stated by the eye-witness that.........the appellant had fired three shots at the deceased from the rifle. Simply because two shots were noted by the doctor, it cannot be established that three shots were not fired, because it is not unlikely that one shot might have missed the target." 13. SIMILARLY, in the case of Suraj Pal v. State of U. P., AIR 1994 SC 748 , the Supreme Court has observed that testimonies of witnesses cannot be rejected on such a count as at the most it can be said to be an embellishment. 14. SIMILARLY, in the case of Suraj Pal v. State of U. P., AIR 1994 SC 748 , the Supreme Court has observed that testimonies of witnesses cannot be rejected on such a count as at the most it can be said to be an embellishment. 14. THE next submission raised on behalf of the appellant is that there was no sufficient immediate motive for the appellant to commit the murder of Chhitaiyan deceased merely on refusal to give the hen. This averment has no force as different persons react differently in different situations and circumstances. No hard and fast rule of universal application with regard to a person in a given circumstance can be laid down and noone knows how the mind of an accused acts in a particular point of time. The appellant is a Lodhi Rajput and the deceased belonged to Shepherd community. The instant refusal by the deceased to part with the only hen, hatching the eggs, might have driven the appellant to madness and he may have emptied both the barrels of his gun upon the hapless and helpless victim. Moreover, the question of immediate sufficient motive is irrelevant as it is settled law that where there is a direct evidence, the question of motive cannot loom large. Brypal Singh and others v. State of U. P., AIR 1994 SC 1624 . 15. THE next submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the witnesses had tried to shift the place of occurrence as reference in their depositions had been made to the house and the incident in fact had occurred where the catties were that chered. THE said reference is merely of a trivial nature and cannot be given any significance. 16. THUS we are of the considered opinion that the testimonies of Dhanpat, P.W. 1 and Smt. Girjarani, P.W. 4 suffer from no blemish at all. And it is futile to contend that the said witnesses had deposed without being present at the place of the occurrence. Their testimonies are fully supported by the medical evidence and we are of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no scope for giving any benefit of doubt to the accused/appellant. Thus, we see no merit in this appeal, it is accordingly dismissed. 17. THE appellant is on bail. Their testimonies are fully supported by the medical evidence and we are of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no scope for giving any benefit of doubt to the accused/appellant. Thus, we see no merit in this appeal, it is accordingly dismissed. 17. THE appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled, sureties are discharged. He is directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur forthwith. Appeal dismissed.