JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-Phoolya @ Phool Chand has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated, February 26, 1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 251/92. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC for causing murder of one Bhagwan Singh and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted and sentenced under Section 324, IPC for causing simple injuries to PW 3 Parwat Singh and also under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. He was awarded six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- under each count. In default of payment of fine to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that the deceased had gone to see the fair of Chomhela alongwith PW 5 Shiv Singh, PW 3 Parvat Singh and PW 4 Hari Singh. PW 1 Hindu Singh also accompanied them for village Ravatpura. While they were passing through near the `Dora of Kanjars' for going to village Karnakheri, the appellant and his son Sanwaliya came from the side of their `Dora'. The appellant was having a gun and abusing to the people of Rawatpura for up-rooting his land of village Charnot. As per the prosecution case, appellant's son Sanwaliya exhorted and asked the appellant to make a gun fire. The deceased Bhagwan Singh when proceeded ahead to check him from making a gun fire, the appellant made fire from the gun causing injuries on his person. PW 3 Parwat Singh also sustained pallet injuries. The deceased died on the spot as a result of gun-shot injuries and the accused-persons ran away. The appellant and his son were identified by the witnesses in the moon lit night. 3. A written report of the incident (Ex.P 1) was made by PW 3 Parvat Singh at Police Station Gangdhar in the morning at 6.30 a.m. and Crime No. 24/92 was registered under Sections 302 and 307, IPC. A formal FIR (Ex.P. 18) was also chalked by the S.H.O. After registration of the case, the SHO Ashwani Kumar (PW 12) commenced investigation. He went to the field to Ramlal Gayri of village Rampura, where dead body of the deceased Bhagwan Singh was lying. A formal FIR (Ex.P. 18) was also chalked by the S.H.O. After registration of the case, the SHO Ashwani Kumar (PW 12) commenced investigation. He went to the field to Ramlal Gayri of village Rampura, where dead body of the deceased Bhagwan Singh was lying. Site Plan (EX.P. 2), Inquest Report (Ex.P. 4), Memo describing condition of the dead body (Ex.P. 5) were prepared by him. Clothes of the deceased were seized vide Memo Ex.P. 9. He also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex.P. 3. At the place of occurrence blood was noticed and one shoe of left leg of the deceased Bhagwan Singh was seized from the place of occurrence vide Memo Ex.P. 6. The autopsy of dead body was conducted by Dr. Ramesh Chandra Khatik (PW 10). The doctor found the following external injuries at the time of examination : 1. Gun short wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm present in the front of neck over suprasternal notch. 2. Gun shot wound 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm epigastic region of the abdomen. Two in number. 3. Gun shot wound 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm on the right side of front of chest in the IIIICS 2" above the nipple. 4. Gun shot wound 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm present on the doesum of left hand. 5. Gun shot wound 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm present in the right nasolacrimal fold. 6. Gun shot wound 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm present in the II ICS of left front of chest in the muscavicular line." 4. The injuries of PW 3 Parvat Singh were examined vide injury report BY 13. After the arrest of the appellant,'a gun was recovered on his information. The police submitted charge sheet against the appellant after completion of the investigation. The co-accused Sanwaliya could not arrested, as such, charge sheet was filed against him under Section 299 Cr.PC. 5. The concerned Magistrate committed the appellant to Court of Sessions for trial. The learned trial Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 307, IPC as well as under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. During trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses, which included eye-witnesses of the occurrence, namely, PW 1 Hindu Singh, PW 3 Parvat Singh, PW 4 Hari Singh and PW 5 Shiv Singh. PW 10 is Dr. The learned trial Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 307, IPC as well as under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. During trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses, which included eye-witnesses of the occurrence, namely, PW 1 Hindu Singh, PW 3 Parvat Singh, PW 4 Hari Singh and PW 5 Shiv Singh. PW 10 is Dr. Ramesh Chandra Khatik, who conducted post-mortem of the dead body and examined injuries of PW 3 Parvat Singh. PW 12 is the Investigating-Officer Shri Ashwani Kumar. The plea of the appellant was that of denial and alibi. He examined DW 1 Ratan in his defence. The learned trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of eye-witnesses and medical evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 6. The learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that the prosecution did not present a true version of the incident and that the appellant has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel contended that there are material contradictions in statements of eye-witnesses and the report of the incident was lodged after in-ordinate delay giving sufficient time to concoct a false case against the appellant. Learned counsel also contended that there was no motive for the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased Bhagwan Singh and to cause injuries to PW 3 Parvat Singh. 7. We deeply considered the above submissions after going through the entire materials on record, including statements of the witnesses and the judgment under challenge in this appeal. In our view none of the contentions made on behalf of the appellant has ahy merit. 8. PW 3 Parvat Singh is an injured eye-witness. His presence at the time of incident is stamped by the injuries sustained by him. He has stated that he and PW 5 Shiv Singh of his village had gone to see the fair of Chomhela, and started back for their village at 7.30 p.m At village Rawatpura they asked PWs Bhagwan Singh, Hindu Singh and Hari Singh to accompany them upto their village for which they agreed. In the way the appellant and his son Sanwalia met. Sanwalia exhorted and asked the appellant to make gun fire to kill the people of Rawatpura. In the way the appellant and his son Sanwalia met. Sanwalia exhorted and asked the appellant to make gun fire to kill the people of Rawatpura. Upon this, deceased Bhagwan Singh asked them as to why they wanted to kill them as they made no harm to them, but the appellant opened fire from causing injuries to Bhagwan Singh on his leg, chest and other parts of his body. He also sustained pallet injuries on his right foot. Then, he went to the police station and a written report Ex.P. 1 was made by him. The witness was cross-examined at length, but his testimony could not be shakened at length, but his testimony could not be shakened at all. We find his statement consistant state forward and firm. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the witnesses had any oblique motive to falsely implicate the appellant. His evidence gets full corroboration from the report Ex.P 1 made by him at the police station immediately in the morning at 6.30 a.m. His statement also gets corroboration from post-mortem report Ex.P. 12 as well as his own injury report Ex.P. 13. 9. PW 1 Hindu Singh, PW 4 Hari Singh and PW 5 Shiv Singh are also eye-witnesses of the occurrence and they have fully supported the prosecution case implicating the appellant to be the author of the gun-shot injuries sustained by the deceased Bhagwan Singh. After going through in the statement minutely, we find that the learned trial Court committed no error in placing reliance on them. 10. Learned counsel strongly contended that PW 1 Hindu Singh did not state that he had gone to see the fair. It may be stated here that PWs Hindu Singh, Hari Singh as well as the deceased Bhagwan Singh are residents of village Ravatpura, while PW 3 Parvat Singh and PW 5 Shiv Singh are residents of village Karnikheri. Village Ravatpura comes in way between the place of fair and the village Karnikheri. It may be stated here that PWs Hindu Singh, Hari Singh as well as the deceased Bhagwan Singh are residents of village Ravatpura, while PW 3 Parvat Singh and PW 5 Shiv Singh are residents of village Karnikheri. Village Ravatpura comes in way between the place of fair and the village Karnikheri. It is true that PW 1 Hindu Singh has not specifically stated that he had also gone to see the fair and as per his statement at 9.00 p.m. the witnesses Parvat Singh and Shiv Singh of village Karnikheri Bhagwan Singh and Hari Singh of village Ravatpura came to his house from the fair and he was asked by Shiv Singh to accompany them upto the well of his brother Parvat Singh, which is situated at the outskirt of village Karnikheri. This witness, however, has categorically stated to be an eye-witness of the incident and to have accompanied Shiv Singh, Parvat Singh alongwith the deceased Bhagwan Singh and Hari Singh. He has fully supported the prosecution story that the appellant made a gun fire causing pallet injuries to the deceased. After going through the statement of this witness and the statement of PW 4 Hari Singh, we are fully convinced that they had witnessed the occurrence and from the fact that PW 3 did not specifically stated that he too had gone to the fair does not make his evidence untrustworthy. Nothing has come in his cross examination to discard his testimony. 11. The learned counsel, then, contended that PWs Hari Singh, Hindu Singh and Mangu Singh had gone to lodge the report, but their report was not taken by the police, even though, they had reached at the Police Station in mid-night. PW I Hindu Singh, PW 4 Hari Singh and PW 6 Mangu Singh have stated in their cross examination to have gone to the police station to lodge a report. They have also stated that the report was not taken by the police. Assuming their statements to be correct, in our opinion, it does not damage the prosecution case as a written report has been made by PW 3 Parvat Singh at 6.30 a.m. in the following morning. Parvat Singh had no occasion or motive to fabricate a false story against the appellant and in our view there was no delay in lodging the report by him. Parvat Singh had no occasion or motive to fabricate a false story against the appellant and in our view there was no delay in lodging the report by him. Eye witnesses, PW I Hindu Singh and PW 4 Hari Singh have not stated that deceased Bhagwan Singh had sustained injuries at the hands of somebody else. They had supported the prosecution story. Consequently, the above contention has no effect on the truth of the case. 12. Lastly, it was contended that dead-body of the deceased was lying in the field of Ramlal, as such the incident did not take place near Dera of the appellant. This argument also has no merit. PW 5 Shiv Singh has stated in cross examination that from the place of incident the dead body was taken upto the field of Ramlal, but they could not take him further upto the village Ravatpura as persons of Kanjar community were standing in the way. The Investigating Officer had also inspected the place of occurrence which was near the Dera of the appellant and he found blood there. A shoe of the deceased Bhagwan Singh was also recovered from the place of incident. The recovery of shoe has been proved by the Investigating Officer as well as the Motbir witnesses. Consequently, we find no merit in the argument of the learned counsel that the place of incident has been changed by the prosecution. 13. The last contention of the learned counsel relates with the crime gun recovered at the instance of the accused. It is contended that gun is not connected with the crime, as it was not found in working condition. Suffice is to say that the gun was recovered from a pit covered from sand, as such, it could be out of order. No benefit can be given to the appellant from this fact also. We are full convinced that the conviction and sentences' of the appellant are well founded. 14. Consequently, the appeals fail and the same are hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******