JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Mohan Lal was the accused in Sessions case No. 342 of 1992 on the file of the Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Kota. He was found guilty Under section 302 Indian Penal Code convicted there under and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 250 (in default to further undergo sentence of 3 months rigorous imprisonment). 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the present action for filing the appeal has been resorted to. 3. Brief facts are:- (i) On 13.12.1990 at about 8.00 a.m. informant Sohan Lal, lodged a written report with the Police Station Modak, Distt. Kota against the appellant stating therein that in the morning around 7.00 a.m. he and Laxminarain, son of his uncle Heera Lal, were sitting and gossiping in the room. Thereafter Laxminarain had gone out of his room and was wandering in front of the room of his brother Mohan Lal, suddenly his brother Mohan Lal opened fire with the gun and killed Laxminarain. Dead body of Laxminarain was lying in the house; he sustained gun shot injury on his right hand. In the preceding night there was a quarrel and marr-peet between Laxminarain and Mohan Lal and Laxmi Narain had slept in the room of the informant. Besides him, Bhanwar Bai, Shanti Bai and Durga Shanker Sharma were present when the occurrence took place. (ii) A case Under section 302 Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused appellant and investigation commenced. (iii) Charge-sheet Under section 302 Indian Penal Code was filed and case was committed in the Court of Sessions Judge, Kota which was ultimately tried by Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Kota. (iv) Charge Under section 302 Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused appellant, who denied charges and claimed trial. (v) The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses in support of its case and produced 20 documents. Thereafter statement of accused appellant was recorded Under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code On behalf accused appellant no defence witness was produced. (vi) The learned trial Court relying the prosecution witnesses, recorded the conviction and sentence indicated here in above. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsels and carefully perused the judgment of the trial Judge as well as the evidence recorded in the trial Court. 5. Mr. (vi) The learned trial Court relying the prosecution witnesses, recorded the conviction and sentence indicated here in above. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsels and carefully perused the judgment of the trial Judge as well as the evidence recorded in the trial Court. 5. Mr. A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel, has vehemently contended that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt against accused appellant. The FIR. of the case was concocted and ante-dated. The trial Judge has not properly appreciated the statement of informant Sohan Lal (PW 1) who claimed to be an eye-witness but a perusal of his statement reveals that he was in the toilet when the incident had taken place. This witness has not supported the prosecution case and the appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of his testimony. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel has further contended that the trial Judge has committed illegality in placing reliance on the statement of Shanti Bai (PW 5), she is an interested witness being Bhabhi of deceased. In her examination-in-chief she stated that she actually had seen the firing but in the cross-examination she has admitted that she caught Laxminarain and had seen accused Mohan Lal running from the back side. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel has further contended that the statement of Kanya Bai (PW 6) was also wrongly relied upon by the trial Judge as she was not named as eye-witness of the occurrence in the FIR she is a child witness and her statement was not corroborated by Shanti Bai (PW 5) Hamarain (PW 7) was also a child witness and was related to deceased. The recovered article gun was licensed arm and there was nothing to suggest that the pellets, recovered from the body of the deceased were actually fired from the recovered gun and as such the recovery of gun from the possession of the accused appellant, does not connect him with the crime. According to Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel, there was no motive to commit crime. The prosecution has not examined independent witnesses of the occurrence but only produced interested witnesses. 6. Mr. According to Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel, there was no motive to commit crime. The prosecution has not examined independent witnesses of the occurrence but only produced interested witnesses. 6. Mr. Goyal, the learned Public Prosecutor, has supported the judgment of the trial Judge and contended that informant Sohan Lal was the real brother of the deceased and because of this reason he has made certain improvements in his statement before the trial Court but considering this fact that he promptly instituted report with the Police Station against his brother, his testimony cannot be thrown out. Presence of Shanti Bai (PW 5) and Kanya Bai (PW 6) in the house was natural as the occurrence took place in the house and their testimony cannot be discarded on the ground that they were interested witnesses. A look at the site plan goes to show that room of the appellant was infront of the place where dead body of Laxminarain was lying. 7. We had given our anxious and thoughful consideration to the arguments advanced before us and minutely perused the statements of the witnesses as well as documents produced by the prosecution. We have also gone through the explanation given by accused appellant in his examination Under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. A look at the FIR (Ex. P/1) reveals that it was lodged with the police at 8.15 a.m. on 13.12.1990 i.e. about an hour after the incident, so it cannot be said that there was much delay in instituting the FIR. Sohan Lal, the informant (PW 1) has stated that in the preceding night appellant Mohan Lal demanded Rs. 10,000/- from him and he requested Laxminarain to make Mohan Lal understand not to demand money from him. At this Mohan Lal attempted to hurt him. Mohan was having knife or something similar to it. Laxminarain caught hold of him and pushed him on the floor and climbed on his chest. Neighbours arranged water for Mohan Lal. Therefore Laxmi Narain and Sohan Lal slept together in the room. Next day morning they took tea together and thereafter he entered in to toilet from where he heard noise of gun. He was informed by his wife that Laxminarain was hurt. After he came out of the toilet he found the dead body of Laxminarain but he did not see Mohan Lal. This witness has admitted that he lodged report (Ex. He was informed by his wife that Laxminarain was hurt. After he came out of the toilet he found the dead body of Laxminarain but he did not see Mohan Lal. This witness has admitted that he lodged report (Ex. P/1) with the police which is in his hand writing and bears his signatures. He has also made signatures on the copy of FIR (Ex. P/2). He has also admitted that site plan (Ex. P/3) was drawn in his presence and it bears his signatures. He has also identified accused Mohan Lal in the Court. He was not subjected to lengthy cross-examination. Nothing could be elicited from him in the cross-examination. He is successful in establishing this fact that in the preceding night of the incident deceased Laxminarain pushed Mohan Lal on the floor and he climbed on the chest of Mohanlal. He has not been confronted with the FIR and was not questioned as to why he had named Mohan Lal in the FIR. It appears that being real brother of appellant he has made improvements in his statement and has stated that he had not seen the incident from his eyes. 8. PW 2 Usha Sharma has not supported the case of the prosecution she was also not named in the FIR. 9. PW 3 Bhanwar Bai is the wife of informant Sohan Lal. She was named in the FIR but she has not supported the prosecution case. In the cross-examination. She has admitted the presence of her husband Sohan Lal. 10. PW 4 Munni Bai is the wife of Laxminarain. She was not present at the spot when the incident has taken place. 11. PW 5 Shanti Bai has stated that she resides near the house of appellant Mohan. There was a quarrel between Mohan and Sohan in the evening of 12th and Laxminarain intervened, thereafter they had slept in there respective houses and about 7.00 a.m. in the morning on 13th she was preparing tea and her daughter had gone to Laxminarain to serve him tea, suddenly Mohan opened fire from the window and Laxminarain sustained injury on his right hand. Mohan thereafter fled with the gun. At that time Sohan, Kala, Bhanwar and Kanya Bai were present at the place of occurrence. She had seen Mohan firing the gun and running thereafter. Mohan thereafter fled with the gun. At that time Sohan, Kala, Bhanwar and Kanya Bai were present at the place of occurrence. She had seen Mohan firing the gun and running thereafter. In the cross-examination, she stated that she was not examined by the police and she disowned her earlier statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. 12. Kanya Bai (PW 6) was 14 years of age at the time of her examination she stated that Mohan opened fire from the window at 7.00 a.m. on 13th and thereby killed Laxminarain who was standing in the chowk. When he sustained injury on the right hand she was standing having tea in her hand. Her mother was preparing tea in the chowk. Mohan had run away from the back side of the door. Only few questions were asked from her in the cross-examination. She also stated that she was not examined by the police and statement Ex. D/2 was not given by her. 13. Harmarain (PW 7) has not supported prosecution case. 14. Durga Shanker (PW 8) is a witness of panchnama. 15. Dr. N.K. Soni (PW 9) has conducted post-mortem of the dead body of Laxminarain and found following injuries:- (i) Gun shot wounds : Pea nut to almond size present, scattered on an area 6 inch x 3 inch of right arm, upper half anteromedially with blackening and tattooing. (ii) 10 Pea nut size and two almond size wound with inverted margins : singering of hair. (iii) 8 Pea nut size and two pellets about half inch diameter taken out and preserved. 16. According to Dr. Soni, death was caused due to syncope as a result of severe haemorrhage caused by injury to right arm and right lung due to gun shots. The injury sustained by deceased Laxminarain was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 17. Harish Chand (PW 10), Jugal Kishor (PW 11), Devi Lal (PW 12) and Ramesh (PW 13) have been declared hostile as they have not supported prosecution case. Rajesh Kumar Vishnoi (PW 14) had filed Challan in the Court. Mohan Singh (PW 15) is the I.O. and nothing could be elicited from his cross-examination which may help accused Mohan Lal. 17. Harish Chand (PW 10), Jugal Kishor (PW 11), Devi Lal (PW 12) and Ramesh (PW 13) have been declared hostile as they have not supported prosecution case. Rajesh Kumar Vishnoi (PW 14) had filed Challan in the Court. Mohan Singh (PW 15) is the I.O. and nothing could be elicited from his cross-examination which may help accused Mohan Lal. Rajan Kumar Gautam (PW 16) is the photographer who exhibited photographs of the dead body of Laxminarain and Ram Swaroop (PW 17) was declared hostile as he also had not supported prosecution case. 18. In his statement Under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code accused Mohan Lal has given detailed explanation. He stated that on the relevant day at about 7 a.m. he had gone for morning walk in the platform of Modak station. When he came back at 8.30 a.m. he found Chittar Lal constable, Shanker Lal constable and Mohan Singh A.S.I. and other publicmen infront of his house. As soon as, he entered the house police persons told him that he committed murder. He found dead body of Laxminarain lying in front of his house. His gun bearing No. 44 was also lying nearby. They took him to the Police Station and asked about licence of the gun. He was beaten in the Police Station. There upon he informed that his licence bearing No. 917 was kept in the box. Police took him to his house and recovered licence. When Police persons found that in the licence two guns have been shown they also recovered another gun bearing No. 43. Thereafter they came back to the Police Station where he informed them that gun bearing No. 43 was loaded. They opened fire in the Police Station. He did not kill Laxminarain. 19. We are now to determine as to whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As already stated, it has been established from the statement of informant Sohan Lal that accused had motive of murder of Laxminarain. In the preceding night of the incident he had a quarrel with the appellant thereupon he pushed appellant and climbed on his chest. As already stated, it has been established from the statement of informant Sohan Lal that accused had motive of murder of Laxminarain. In the preceding night of the incident he had a quarrel with the appellant thereupon he pushed appellant and climbed on his chest. Sohan Lal is the real brother of the appellant and was not in good relation with him on the date of the incident and that is why he had given truthful version of the incident in his report but in his examination before the trial Judge he has changed his version to the extent that he had not seen incident as he was in the toilet. He has firmly stated that he instituted FIR and nothing could be brought from his cross-examination to suggest that the incident did not take place as mentioned by him in the FIR. 20. Shanti Bai (PW 5), the only eye-witnesses named in the FIR has supported the prosecution case. The trial Judge has believed her and observed that she was present when the occurrence took place. Her statement was discussed at length by the trial Court. We ourselves have carefully perused the testimony of Shanti Bai. Her presence at the place of incident was natural and convincing. Thought she is an interested witness and stated that she was not examined by the police earlier but nothing could be elicited from her cross-examination which creates doubt about her presence at the time of incident. We have also perused her statement (Ex. D/1) said to have been recorded by Mohan Singh A.S.I. Under section 161 Criminal Procedure Court But Mohan Singh was not asked as to whether he recorded her statement Under section 161 Criminal Procedure Court Statement Ex. D/1 was not shown to Mohan Singh A.S.I. and Mohan Singh has not stated that he recorded the statement of Shanti Bai (PW 5). As such, the contradictions in the cross-examination of Shanti Bai do not help the defence and we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Shanti Bai had not seen the incident. 21. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel has further contended that name of Kanya Bai (PW 6) was not mentioned in the FIR and the trial Judge has committed illegality in placing reliance on her statement. We find ourselves unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel. 21. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel has further contended that name of Kanya Bai (PW 6) was not mentioned in the FIR and the trial Judge has committed illegality in placing reliance on her statement. We find ourselves unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel. Kanya Bai is the daughter of Shanti Bai and her presence in the house on the date of occurrence was natural and it was not necessary to name all the family members in the FIR who were residing in the house at the relevant time. Shanti Bai has stated that she was preparing tea and her daughter had gone to serve tea to Laxminarain. Kanya Bai has also corroborated the statement of Shanti Bai. According to her, Shanti Bai was preparing tea in the chowk and when Laxminarain sustained injury she was standing nearby having tea. In the cross-examination she stated that gun was fired from the window and she again repeated that her mother was preparing tea in the chowk and she had gone to serve tea, when gun was fired she was the first person to make hue and cry. She also stated that she did not give statement in the police. Mohan Singh, A.S.I. was not shown her statement recorded by the police. Thus on the ground that her name was not mentioned in FIR, we can disbelieve her. One peculiar aspect came to our notice at the time of perusing the statement of Kanya Bai that she was suggested in the cross-examination that her father Sohan Lal had opened fire at Laxminarain and in order to save Sohan Lal she was lying in the Court. It appears that the accused appellant initially wanted to introduce defence theory to connect informant Sohan Lal with the crime. 22. The statements of Sohan Lal (PW 1) Shanti Bai (PW 5) and Kanya Bai (PW 6) have been further corroborated by the statement of Dr. N.K. Soni who found gun shot injury on the right hand of the deceased and according to him the injury sustained by the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The prosecution is successful in proving that the gun from which the accused opened fire was recovered at his instance on 16.12.1990 at 9.00 p.m. through recovery memo (Ex. P/16). The prosecution is successful in proving that the gun from which the accused opened fire was recovered at his instance on 16.12.1990 at 9.00 p.m. through recovery memo (Ex. P/16). This recovery was effected on the basis of information supplied by the accused appellant at 8.00 p.m. on 16.12.1990. The information was recorded by I.O. Vide Ex. P/15. The I.O. had sent 'Bush-shirt' and `Baniyan' of the deceased found on her body as well as 10 pellets to the FSL, Jaipur. According to FSL report these article were stained with human blood. I.O. had also sent 10 irregular shaped lead shots and one SBML Gun No. 43 for examination. After examination of these articles, the FSL was of the opinion that SBML gun was a serviceable fire arm and the examination of the barrel residue indicates that SBML gun has been fired. With regard to lead shots it was opined that they could have been fired from the recovered SBML gun. Thus the prosecution is successful to connect the gun with the crime, recovered at the instance of the appellant. 23. Now dealing with the arguments of Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel, that in the site plan neither the window from where the gun was fired nor the places where the witnesses were standing, have been shown. Undoubtedly, there are lapses on the part of I.O. in preparing site plan which has been drawn in a casual manner but on the basis of infirmities in the site plan it cannot be observed that the case of the prosecution has become doubtful. In this case, witnesses Shanti Bai, Kanya Bai and Sohan Lal are reliable witnesses and their testimony cannot be rejected on the ground that the I.O. had not shown the places from where the witnesses had seen the occurrence. The testimony of the eye-witnesses Shanti Bai and Kanya Bai has received corroboration in all material and broaden aspects by the statement of Doctor. Though the eye-witnesses are related to the deceased and, therefore, can be said to have an interest in the prosecution but their evidence stood close judicial scrutiny and their testimony inspires confidence. The incident had taken place in the house and, therefore, only related witnesses could have been present at the time of occurrence and no other independent witness could have seen the incident. The incident had taken place in the house and, therefore, only related witnesses could have been present at the time of occurrence and no other independent witness could have seen the incident. Therefore, merely non-production of independent witness does not create doubt in the prosecution case. We have considered and assessed the evidence of the related eye-witnesses with more than ordinary care and caution. Having done so, we do not find any reason to dis-believe them. We find the evidence of eye-witnesses, fully corroborated by the FIR which was lodged promptly, that is within an hour of the incident and contains the substratum of the entire prosecution case. We find that the evidence of the witnesses is quite consistent and acceptable and their presence in the house at the time of occurrence was quite natural and convincing. So far as the explanation given by the accused appellant in his statement Under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, we may say that it was after thought as no such question was asked from any of the witnesses in the cross-examination though, earlier the defence of the accused was that Sohan Lal, the informant had committed murder of Laxminarain, as is evident from the cross-examination of Kanya Bai. 24. For the discussions made herein above it is clear that accused appellant is responsible for the murder of Laxminarain and, therefore, we hold that he has been rightly convicted for the offence Under section 302 Indian Penal Code by the trial Court. 25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******