JUDGMENT Appellant Halkuram @ Biraju stands convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, with sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- vide judgment dated 1.12.87, recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker District Jagdalpur in Session Trial No. 200/85. Bhukauram (pw/2), while narrating the details of the incident, categorically stated that appellant Halkuram, after a wordy quarrel between him and the deceased, had gone to his house and came back after sometime with his gun, and fired on the chest of deceased Karga from point-blank range, killing him instantaneously. Bhukauram (pw/2) is a common relative of appellant Halkuram and deceased Karga. Nothing could be. brought out in his cross-examination, which may make his evidence unreliable, though in his cross-examination he was confronted with his case diary statement (Ex.D/1), in reference to certain omissions. These omissions relate to the details of the persons, who had tried to intervene and, therefore, in our opinion, are of no significance. He has also denied the defence suggestion that the appellant's gun went off during the scuffle between him and the deceased, resulting in the injury found on the chest of Karga. On a close scrutiny of his evidence, we are satisfied that his evidence is trustworthy, and does not suffer from any infirmity. Gando (pw/3) appears to be an independent eyewitness of the incident of murder. In his statement, in the Court, he has given a vivid description of the incident. He has categorically stated that when he came out of his house, after hearing the quarrel, he found appellant Halkuram standing armed with a gun in front of the house of Bhukauram (pw/2). He further stated that appellant Halkuram kept his gun close to the chest of deceased Karga and fired, resulting in the instantaneous death of Karga. The above reliable evidence of Bhukauram (pw/2) and Gando (pw/3), in our opinion, is sufficient for holding the appellant guilty for committing murder of Karga. Even if the criticism levelled by the learned counsel for the appellant against Sanau (pw/1), about his being an eye-witness is accepted, the prosecution case does not suffer from any infirmity, as the evidence of Bhukauram (pw/2) and Gando (pw/3) has been found, hereinabove, sufficient for holding accused/appellant Halkuram guilty. Even if the criticism levelled by the learned counsel for the appellant against Sanau (pw/1), about his being an eye-witness is accepted, the prosecution case does not suffer from any infirmity, as the evidence of Bhukauram (pw/2) and Gando (pw/3) has been found, hereinabove, sufficient for holding accused/appellant Halkuram guilty. Therefore, we do not deem it necessary to dilate much on the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, in regard to their reliability or otherwise of Sanan (pw/1). On the above re-appreciation of the evidence, we are satisfied that the trial Court has rightly held appellant Halkuram guilty of having committed murder of Karga and, therefore his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, does not warrant any interference we, therefore, do not see any scope for interference in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.