JUDGMENT I. S. Mathur, J. (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.5.1980, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bijnor, convicting the appellant Jamuna Prasad under Sections 307 and 302, I.P.C., and appellant Ghanshiam Singh under Sections 307/34 and 302/34,I.P.C. and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and five years respectively for offence under Sections 307 and 307/34, I.P.C. and Imprisonment for Life for offence under Sections 302 and 302/34, I.P.C. (2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, the appellants, the deceased Chhotey and injured Mukaridi belong to the same village Gopalpur. On 12.12.1978 deceased Chhotey and his brother Haria (P.W. 1) along with some other persons, started for Railway Station, Balawali, at about 7 p.m. to escort their mother and the daughter-in-law of Asha Ram who were coming by Sealdah Express. The time of arrival of the said train was 6.05 p.m., but on that date it was reported to be late by two hours. Amongst the persons who accompanied Chhotey, deceased, and Haria, Har Dayal and Mukandi had licensed guns with them. When they reached some distance near the field of Bhajna at about 8 p.m. a shot was fired at Mukandi as a result of which he fell down. Chhotey turned towards the place from where this shot was fired and saw the appellants standing at some distance on the southern Daul' of Bhajna's Wheat field which is towards north of the passage. Jamuna Prasad had a gun in his hand, Chhotey called Jamuna by name and asked why he has fired at Mukandi. On this the appellant Ghanshiam asked Jamuna to fire at Chhotey also. Jamuna fired at Chhotey as a result of which he fell down and died. The first information report of the incident was lodged at police station Mandawar, district Bijnor at 00.30 hours on 13.12.1978 and a case was registered. Injured Mukandi was examined by Dr. H. C. Dua at 11.45 p.m. at Primary Health Centre, Najibabad. The doctor found the following injuries on his person, vide Ex. ka 3:- 1. Gun shot wounds in an area right side abdomen lower part (four in number) measuring 1/8 cm. x 1/8 cm. Bleeding present. Injury was not probed to avoid complications. The injury was kept under observation to watch complications and X-ray was advised. 2 Gun shot wound 1/8 cm. x 1/8 cm. ka 3:- 1. Gun shot wounds in an area right side abdomen lower part (four in number) measuring 1/8 cm. x 1/8 cm. Bleeding present. Injury was not probed to avoid complications. The injury was kept under observation to watch complications and X-ray was advised. 2 Gun shot wound 1/8 cm. x 1/8 cm. on the right lateral side of chest, 3 cm. above subcostal margin. Red in colour. 3. Gun shot wounds four in number, in front of arm in its lower 1/3 right side crossing in line downward and laterally 1/8 cm. x 1/8 cm. x muscle deep. Bleeding present. X-ray was advised, 4 Gun shot wound on the lateral aspect of right elbow joint 1/8 cm. x 1/8 cm. x muscle deep. Injury was kept under observation. X-ray was advised. 5. Gunshot wounds over posterior aspect of right forearm 1/8 cm. x 1/8 cm. x muscle deep. Injuries are four in number, above downwards. Injury was kept under observation and X-ray advised. According to the doctor all these injuries were wounds of entry and were caused by some firearm like gun. All of them were fresh and could have been caused on 12.12.1978 at 8 p.m. Mukandi was referred for further treatment and X- ray to District Hospital Bijnor. (3.) THE post-mortem examination on the dead body of Chhotey was conducted by P.W. 3 Dr. M.K. Ghildiyal, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Bijnor on 14.12.1978 at 2.30 p.m. He found the following noted ante-mortem injuries on his dead body :- 1. Multiple pellet wounds, gun shot, all the wounds scorched and tattooed in an area of front of chest 10" x 6". 2. Multiple pellet wounds (gun shot) present on the umbilical and around area of abdomen in an area of 10" x 7". 3. Gun shot pellet wound in an area of 4 cm. x 6 cm. upper arm. 4. Gun shot wound in forearm in an area 10 cm. x 6 cm. 5. (Left) forearm area-gun shot wounds in an area of 11 cm. x 4 cm. 6 (Left) Axilla front aspect in an area of 3 cm. x 2 cm. gun shot wound. (4.) THE doctor has noted in the post-mortem report that all the gun shot wounds had tattooed margins and the area was scorched. According to him all the wounds were wounds of entry. x 4 cm. 6 (Left) Axilla front aspect in an area of 3 cm. x 2 cm. gun shot wound. (4.) THE doctor has noted in the post-mortem report that all the gun shot wounds had tattooed margins and the area was scorched. According to him all the wounds were wounds of entry. On internal examination he found haemorrhage present on thoracie wall and intercostal muscles. Right pulmonary artery was ruptured and two pellets were recovered from the area around it. THE pericardium had two pellet wounds over the ventricular area. Two pellet wound were found in the heart and one pellet was recovered from it. Abdominal wall was found haemorrhagic due to multiple gun shot wounds. Peritoneum was perforated and had pellet wounds. Small intestines were perforated at three places and three pellets were recovered. After completing investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer P.W. 8 Mahendra Singh against both the appellants. (5.) THE appellants pleaded not guilty. (6.) THE learned Sessions Judge considered the evidence produced and held the charges proved against both the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. He accordingly convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate. In our opinion there is no force in this appeal. The factum of the incident, the place of incident and date and time of the incident has not been disputed and is clearly established from the evidence on record including the medical evidence i.e. the post-mortem and injury reports. The prosecution examined three eye-witnesses, namely, P.W. 1, Haria, P.W. 3 Haneef and P.W. 4 Mukandi Singh in support of the prosecution version. All the three eye witnesses have supported the prosecution version and have stated that they alongwith some other were going to the Railway Station, Balawali, to escort mother of Haria and daughter-in-law of Asha Ram, who were coming by Sealdah Express. The usual time of arrival of this train was 6.05 p.m., but it was late by two hours that day. These witnesses have further stated that when they reached near the field of Bhajna at about 8.00 p.m. appellant Jamuna fired at and injured Mukandi and on being asked by Chhotey as to why he has shot at Mukandi, the appellant Ghanshiam exhorted him to shoot Chhotey. These witnesses have further stated that when they reached near the field of Bhajna at about 8.00 p.m. appellant Jamuna fired at and injured Mukandi and on being asked by Chhotey as to why he has shot at Mukandi, the appellant Ghanshiam exhorted him to shoot Chhotey. Therefore Jamuna shot at Chhotey also as a result of which he died at the spot. It is further stated by the prosecution witnesses that the shot was fired from the southern Mend of the field of Bhajna and that there was moon light. P.W. 4. Mukandi is an injured witness and the other two witnesses namely P.W. 1 Haria and P.W. 3 Haneef are quite independent witnesses. There is no sufficient reason why they should falsely implicate the appellants. The fact that Mukandi is an injured witness is an added guarantee to the truthfulness of his statement. (7.) THE learned counsel for the appellants, however, challenged the prosecution version and the statements of these witnesses on the grounds that there was no motive, that the medical evidence is highly inconsistent with the statements of the alleged eye witnesses; there are contradictions in regard to the place from where the shots were fired and that there is nothing to show how the appellants would have known about the movement of the complainant and other persons and that it was not possible for the alleged eye witnesses to identify the assailants. (8.) IT is true that no motive has been alleged in the first information report. However, it is settled law that it is not necessary for the prosecution to allege and prove motive and that it is only when a motive is alleged it must be proved because then it becomes relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in with the alleged motive; motive is not necessary when there are reliable eye witnesses (See Tarseem Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 1994 SCC (Cri) 1735). In the present case the report was lodged by Haria (P.W. 1) brother of deceased Chhotey. IT is no doubt admitted by P.W. 1 Haria that there was no enmity between the appellants and Chhotey. In the present case the report was lodged by Haria (P.W. 1) brother of deceased Chhotey. IT is no doubt admitted by P.W. 1 Haria that there was no enmity between the appellants and Chhotey. However, P.W. 4 Mukandi stated that there was enmity with the appellants inasmuch as a dispute took place in regard to irrigation of field some time back and about three months before the date of the incident Suraj Singh, father of the appellants, contested against him and that he won the election. IT is further stated by him that on account of this election the appellants had started to have a grudge against him. IT Is true that D.W. 1 Om Prakash has proved that, in the said election, Suraj Singh had, in fact, withdrawn his name. Even so, it is quite likely that Suraj Singh or his sons may have developed a grudge against Mukandi for having had to withdraw the candidature on account of him. In this connection it is also important to notice that both the appellants have stated in their statements under Section 313, Cr. P.C. that there was enmity with the witnesses and they have been implicated due to such enmity. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that so far as Chhotey is concerned there was admittedly no motive. Indeed, P.W. 1 Haria has admitted that there was no enmity between his brother Chhotey, deceased, and the appellants. However, the evidence discloses that it was Chhotey who identified the appellant Jamuna and, calling him by his name, asked him why he had fired. Quite obviously, this would have been the reason for Jamuna to fire at Chhotey. (9.) EVEN if it is accepted for argument sake that no sufficient motive has been established by the prosecution, this is quite evidently a case where no motive was alleged in the first information report. The prosecution did not come with an allegation of motive initially and it has relied upon the motive on the basis of the testimony of the eye witnesses. As has been indicated above, if the eye witnesses are found to be reliable, mere absence of motive will not be sufficient to discard the case of the prosecution. The prosecution did not come with an allegation of motive initially and it has relied upon the motive on the basis of the testimony of the eye witnesses. As has been indicated above, if the eye witnesses are found to be reliable, mere absence of motive will not be sufficient to discard the case of the prosecution. (10.) SO far as place from which the shots are alleged to have been fired is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that, in the first information report, it is mentioned that the shots were fired from the northern boundary of the field of Bhajna while, in the evidence, this place is stated to be the southern boundary. In our opinion, this alleged inconsistency has been satisfactorily, explained by the prosecution witnesses. All the three eye witnesses have consistently stated that the shots were fired from the southern Mend (boundary) of the field of Bhajna. The first information report in this case was lodged orally by P.W. 1, Haria. He has explained in his cross-examination that he did not inform the scribe that shots were fired from the northern boundary of the field and that he had told him that when the shots were fired, the assailants were standing on the boundary, north to the place where they, the witnesses and other persons of his party, were going on the road. The statement of the prosecution witnesses that the place from where the shot was fired was the southern boundary of the field of Bhajna is borne out from the post-mortem report and the nature of the bullet injuries. According to P.W. 1 the distance between the southern and northern boundaries of the field of Bhajna is 30-40 paces. The witnesses were moving on the southern side of the road. The width of the road was about 10 feet and the southern boundary of the field of Bhajna was 3 or 4 feet from the road. This means that the northern boundary of the field of Bhajna was more than 40 feet from the place the deceased and the injured were moving on the road, Considering the 'dispersal of the pellets shown in the post-mortem report and the injury report it is not possible that the shots would have been fired from a distance of about 40 feet. As we shall presently discuss, the dispersal of the pellets, insofar as Chhotey is concerned, is about 12 cm. when they struck his arm. According to the formula given by Taylor in his Medical Jurisprudence the distance in feet will be roughly equal to the dispersal of pellets into centimetres. In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 21st Edition, the formula given is that if range in yards is 'X' then the diameter of the wound or dispersal would be = (X+1) inches, Since dispersal, as indicated by the pellet injuries on the arm is about 12 cm., the distance from which the shot could have been fired would be about 12 feet and not about 40 feet. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the factum of firing from the northern boundary has been wrongly scribed by the scribe in the first Information report and the explanation given by P.W. 1 Haria is quite truthful. We accordingly, reject the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution version must be held to be doubtful on account of this inconsistency. (11.) WE are also not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that it was not possible to identify the assailants from the distance the shots were fired. The submission of the learned counsel is quite obviously based on the assumption that the shots were fired from the northern boundary of the field of Bhajna which was at a distance of more than 40 feet. The distance was actually between 10 to 15 feet only as has been indicated above. In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 18th Edition, referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is stated with reference to the investigation done by Tidy that the best known person cannot be recognised in the clearest moon light beyond a distance of 17 yards and that Col. Barry is of the opinion that "at distance greater than 12 yards the stature or outline of the figure alone is available as a means of identification." In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ashok Kumar and another, AIR 1979 SC 874 Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to and endorsed the following passage appearing in Dr. Barry is of the opinion that "at distance greater than 12 yards the stature or outline of the figure alone is available as a means of identification." In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ashok Kumar and another, AIR 1979 SC 874 Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to and endorsed the following passage appearing in Dr. Hans Gross's Criminal Investigation at page 185:- "By moon light one can recognise, when the moon is at the quarter persons at a distance from 21 feet, in bright moon-light at from 23 to 33 feet; and at the very brightest period of the full moon, at a distance of from 33 to 36 feet. In Tropical countries the distance for moon light may be increased." In the present case, as we have indicated above, there was admittedly moon light. The distance from which the shots were fired was about 12 feet Accordingly, it is quite obvious that it was possible to identify the assailants as has been done by the prosecution witnesses. (12.) THE learned counsel for the appellants lastly but most strongly relied upon some observations in the post-mortem report arid contended that the oral evidence is absolutely inconsistent with the medical evidence and must accordingly be rejected on that ground. He relied upon Ram Narain v. THE State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727 and the following observations therein in support of his submission:- "If this be the position, then injury No. 4 is not at all explained. THE blackening on injury No. 4 clearly indicates that this was also a gun-shot injury and the ballistic expert has also testified to the effect at p. 6 of the High Court Paper Book that in case the blackening which has been reported by the doctor in injury No. 2 and injury No. 4 were not the actual blackening due to the power gases then it is possible that it could be from one single fire. THE doctor, however, says nothing of this sort. Thus a combined reading of the evidence of Dr. Walia the medical expert and Mr. J.K. Sinha, Ballistic Expert clearly establishes that the deceased died of two gun shot injuries and the prosecution has not been able to explain this important circumstance. THE doctor, however, says nothing of this sort. Thus a combined reading of the evidence of Dr. Walia the medical expert and Mr. J.K. Sinha, Ballistic Expert clearly establishes that the deceased died of two gun shot injuries and the prosecution has not been able to explain this important circumstance. For these reasons, therefore, the evidence of the two eyewitnesses Surjit Singh and Juginder Singh is wholly inconsistent with the medical evidence as also the evidence of ballistic expert and must be rejected on that ground alone, apart from other inherent improbabilities which appear in their evidence and which have already been pointed out." THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that according to the post-mortem report all the gun shot wounds had "margins tattooed and area scorched". According to the learned counsel if the shots were really fired even from a distance of 12 feet or 15 feet scorching is not possible. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in the light of the Medical Jurisprudence and the decision cited by him but we are clearly of the opinion that the submission cannot be accepted for a number of reasons. It is, no doubt, true that scorching is possible only if the shot is fired from a shot gun from a distance of 1 to 3 feet but we are of the opinion that the description and the remark given by the doctor regarding scorching is clearly wrong and appears to have been given due to misunderstanding as we shall presently discuss in detail. It will be useful to notice the following observations at pages 227-229 in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Texicology (20th Edition). "Blackening is found, if a firearm like shotgun is discharged from a distance of not more than 3 feet and a revolver or pistol discharged within about 2 feet. In the absence of blackening no distinction can be made between one distance shot and another, as regards to distance. Scorching in the case of the latter fire-arms is observed within a few inches, while some evidence of scorching in the case of shot guns may be found even at 1 to 3 feet" "The effects produced by small shot fired from a shot gun vary according to the distance of the weapon from the body, and choking device. Scorching in the case of the latter fire-arms is observed within a few inches, while some evidence of scorching in the case of shot guns may be found even at 1 to 3 feet" "The effects produced by small shot fired from a shot gun vary according to the distance of the weapon from the body, and choking device. A charge of small shot, fired very close to, or within a few inches, of the body enters in one mass like a single bullet making a large irregular wound with scorched and contused edges, and is followed by the gases of the discharged which greatly lacerate and rupture the deeper tissues. Particles of unburnt power expelled from the weapon behind the missile are given to some distance, through the wound, and some of them are found embedded in the wound and the surrounding skin which is also singed and blackened by the flame and smoke of combustion. The exit wound of a close range shot may show greater damage of tissues than the entrance wound, the margins are obverted, but there is no evidence of blackening or singing. At a distance of one to three feet small shot make a single aperture with irregular and lacerated edges corresponding in size to the bore of the muzzle of the gun, as the shot enter as one mass, but are scattered after entering the wound and cause great damage to the internal tissues. The skin surrounding the wounds is blackened, scorched and tattooed, with unconsumed grains of powder. On the other hand, at a distance of six feet the central aperture is surrounded by separate openings in an area of about two inches in diameter made by a few pellets of the shot which spread out before reaching the mark. The skin surrounding the aperture may not be blackened or scorched, but is tattooed to some extent. On the other hand, at a distance of six feet the central aperture is surrounded by separate openings in an area of about two inches in diameter made by a few pellets of the shot which spread out before reaching the mark. The skin surrounding the aperture may not be blackened or scorched, but is tattooed to some extent. At a distance of twelve feet the charge of shot spreads widely and enters the body as individual pellets producing separate openings in an area of five to eight inches in diameter depending on the choke, but without causing blackening, scorching or tattooing of the surrounding skin." (13.) IN Parikh's Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology also the following observations have been made in this regard : "IN shot gun injuries, close distance phenomenon such as burning, scorching and blackening are generally seen upto about a yard. The halo of tattooing also gradually widens upto about a yard but upto about three yards, a few particles of powder grains may still be found on careful search." 'The shot enters as a single mass upto about 3 yard. Upto about two yards, the overshot wad may be seen in the body. The wadding can produce an injury upto about three yards. Upto 2-3 yards, the shot produces an entrance hole with individual pellet holes round the periphery." (14.) IT will appear from the above authoritative texts on medical jurisprudence that if a shot is fired from a shot gun from a distance upto three feet, there would be scorching or burning accompanied by blackening and tattooing. IT is not possible to have scorching and tattooing without there being blackening also. Further, if the shot is fired from such a close distance i.e. less than three feet the shot will enter as one mass. The pellets shall not disperse and there will be only one wound of entry. As we have noticed above, the dispersal will be approximately same in centimetres as distance in feet. In the present case injuries Nos.3 and 4, as mentioned in the postmortem report, indicate that there was a dispersal of about 12 cm. in the pellets that hit the arm of the deceased. The dispersal has obviously increased when the pellets hit the chest. This may have been due to the fact of intervening resistance of the arm. In the present case injuries Nos.3 and 4, as mentioned in the postmortem report, indicate that there was a dispersal of about 12 cm. in the pellets that hit the arm of the deceased. The dispersal has obviously increased when the pellets hit the chest. This may have been due to the fact of intervening resistance of the arm. In any case the dispersal as appearing from the arm in around 12 cm. only which means that the bullets must have been fired from a distance of about 12 feet. If the bullet had been fired from less than three feet, the shot would have entered as one mass and there would have been no dispersal at all. In the present case the shot has not entered the body in such a manner and there has been dispersal of pellets. Accordingly, it is clearly established that this shot could not have been fired from a distance of less than three feet. (15.) SINCE the bullet could not have been fired from a distance of less than three feet there could have been no scorching at all. However, the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, has mentioned the existence of scorching. The probability is that the doctor has mistaken redness due to swelling caused by the entry of the pellets as scorching. The observation regarding scorching is clearly negatived by the fact that there is no accompanying blackening also nor there is entry of the shot en mass. (16.) THE decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied upon by the learned counsel, could be of no help to him in the facts and circumstances of this case. In that case the prosecution version was that two injuries, being injuries Nos.2 and 4, were caused by a single shot. THE evidence disclosed that there was blackening around both these injuries. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that this blackening was possible only if two shots were fired from a distance of less than four feet. Accordingly, the Court disbelieved the version of the prosecution and statements of the witnesses and held that these statements of the eye-witnesses must be rejected as being wholly inconsistent with the medical evidence. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that this blackening was possible only if two shots were fired from a distance of less than four feet. Accordingly, the Court disbelieved the version of the prosecution and statements of the witnesses and held that these statements of the eye-witnesses must be rejected as being wholly inconsistent with the medical evidence. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding only one shot being fired at the deceased.' There is no blackening present and we have indicated above that the observation of the doctor regarding scorching is misplaced and is not believable. We have also observed above, that, considering the fact that the shot did not enter in mass, there was dispersal of pellets and there was no blackening present the shot could not have been fired from a distance less than three feet and it was fired from a distance of about 12 feet only. In fact we are of the opinion that the post-mortem report clearly supports the version of the prosecution regarding shots having been fired from the southern boundary of the field of Bhajna. (17.) IT was sought to be contended by the learned counsel that even if we take the southern boundary of the field of Bhajna to be the place from where the shot was fired that distance was again about 15 feet and it was not possible that tattooing could have resulted if the shots were fired from that distance. According to the Investigating Officer the distance from the place where the shot hit the deceased and the southern boundary of the field of Bhajna was about 5-6 paces and he considers one pace equal to two feet. The statements of other witnesses also indicate that the distance between two places would be between 12-15 feet. The observations in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, extracted above, indicate that tattooing is possible upto 12 feet. However, we must remember that the normal length of a barrel is about 40 inches and the length of a gun is normally 4-1/2 feet. Therefore, even if we take the distance to be about 15 feet the effective distance will be about 10 feet only. In this connection we may also observe that, according to the prosecution evidence, the deceased Chhotey had moved a few paces closer when he was hit. Therefore, even if we take the distance to be about 15 feet the effective distance will be about 10 feet only. In this connection we may also observe that, according to the prosecution evidence, the deceased Chhotey had moved a few paces closer when he was hit. Whichever distance we take the effective distance will be much less than 12 feet and, as such, the presence of tattooing will not make the version of prosecution, as given by the eye witnesses, inconsistent with the medical evidence. (18.) THE learned counsel for the appellants made a last effort by submitting that the dispersal of the pellets and the factum of scorching indicate that the shots may have been fired from a country made pistol. He placed reliance on the following observations of this Court in Shiv Kumar v. State 1985 A Cr R 75 : "Moreover, we further hold on the basis of the opinion of the ballastic, expert that from a distance of 4 to 6 paces, it is not possible to have so much dispersal, blackening and singing in this case even if a hand-filled cartridge is in the standard gun. Consequently, if there is dispersal of pellets in an area of 15 cm.x 13 cm. with blackening and singeing around the wound, it is probable that a country-made pistol would have caused such a wound fired from a distance of 4 to 6 paces on the object." In our opinion, this decision or observations could be of no help to the appellants in the present case. In the case of Shiv Kumar the version of the prosecution was that the shot was fired from a distance of 4 to 6 paces and the Court found it to be inconsistent with the Ballistic Expert's evidence that such dispersal was not possible from that distance unless the shot was fired from a country-made pistol. Quite obviously, the dispersal in centimetres is roughly equivalent to the distance in feet and the Court seems to have found the dispersal and the distance to be inconsistent insofar as standard gun is concerned. THE Court further noticed the fact that there was blackening and singing. It is quite obvious that blackening and singeing could not have resulted from that distance unless the shots were fired from a country-made pistol. THE Court further noticed the fact that there was blackening and singing. It is quite obvious that blackening and singeing could not have resulted from that distance unless the shots were fired from a country-made pistol. In the present case, there is no blackening or singeing and we have already held that the observations of the doctor regarding presence of scorching is incorrect. We have also indicated above that the dispersal of the pellets is consistent with the distance established by the prosecution. Therefore, this decision also could be of no assistance of the appellants and the submissions based thereon must also be rejected. In view of the above facts and circumstances we are clearly of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the appellants vis-a-vis Chhotey beyond reasonable doubt and there is no sufficient reason to disturb the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. (19.) WE are also of the opinion that charge under Section 307. I.P.C. in respect of Mukandi has also been proved against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The injury report clearly shows that He received gun shot wound and that injury was caused on the date and about the time alleged by the prosecution. The statements of prosecution witnesses, injury report and the facts and circumstances, discussed above, fully establish the charge. (20.) THE appeal is accordingly liable to be, and is hereby dismissed. THE appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall surrender and shall be taken into custody by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor, to undergo the sentences awarded to them by the learned Sessions Judge. THE office shall issue necessary directions within a week and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor, shall report compliance within three weeks. Appeal dismissed.