Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24th January, 1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 488/94 by Sri Alok Kumar Sinha, 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the appellant Binod Kumar was found guilty under Section 302, IPC; whereas the other appellant Subodh Kumar was found guilty under. Section 302/34, IPC and both of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the deceased Balmiki Choudhary, younger brother of the informant, got a shop of electrical goods known as Bijay Stores in Arsande Block Chowk and he used to sell electrical goods alongwith Surya gas and similarly both the appellants who are brothers also got their shop in that very place and they also used to deal in electrical goods and Surya Gas. It has been alleged that the deceaseds shop was older and he used to sell articles at a lower rate to which the appellants protested and asked him to sell the articles on the same rate at which they used to sell, which led to animosity between the parties. It has been alleged that the informant on 26.2.1994 after taking meal from his house was going to the shop of the deceased at about 1.30 p.m. or so. Then he had seen from a distance that these two appellants alongwith one unknown person near the shop of the deceased and they were abusing the deceased and in that very place, the LML Vespa Scooter bearing No. BR-14B- 0445 was standing. It has also been alleged that in course of hot exchange of words, the appellant Binod took out a revolver from the full-pant. Then the informant rushed to the shop. In the meantime, the other appellant and an unknown person asked Binod to fire and then appellant Binod fired which hit on the chest of the deceased and then all of them escaped away towards Bosia village in that very scooter standing thereon. Then the informant rushed to the shop. In the meantime, the other appellant and an unknown person asked Binod to fire and then appellant Binod fired which hit on the chest of the deceased and then all of them escaped away towards Bosia village in that very scooter standing thereon. The informant then tried to apprehend them but they escaped in the scooter and the informant then came to the shop of the deceased and found the deceased lying in front of the shop with profuse bleeding from the chest and so the informant brought a tempo and alongwith some witnesses took the deceased in injured condition to Rajendra Medical College, Bariatu where a doctor examined him in the Emergency Ward and declared him dead. The informant has alleged that this occurrence took place at about 2.30 p.m. or so and the appellant committed the murder of the deceased due to business rivalry as mentioned above. 3. In R.M.C.H., the O.C. Kanke P.S. on getting information of the occurrence came there and found the informant with the dead-body of the deceased. So the O.C. recorded the fardbayan of the informant at RMCH itself at 4.30 p.m. and on that basis this FIR was subsequently drawn up at the P.S. 4. The inquest of the deceased was also prepared in the RMCH and the dead-body was sent for postmortem examination. The O.C. then took up the investigation and visited the P.O. on the date of occurrence itself and seized blood-stained earth and a used cartridge near the shop of the deceased and prepared seizure list in presence of the witnesses. Subsequently the aforesaid scooter bearing No. BR-14B- 0445 belonging to the appellant Binod and used in this occurrence was also seized from the house of appellant Binod and the seizure list was prepared. The police after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet as against both the appellants. 5. Both the appellants claimed themselves innocent and had denied to have committed the murder of the deceased and their only defence is that some unknown person might have committed the murder of the deceased, but they had been falsely implicated in this case due to business rivalry. 6. The trial Court believed the prosecution story and rejected the defence version and convicted and sentence the appellant in the manner indicated above. 6. The trial Court believed the prosecution story and rejected the defence version and convicted and sentence the appellant in the manner indicated above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order of conviction both the appellants preferred this appeal and challenged the findings of the Court below on various grounds. 7. The alleged occurrence took place at about 2.30 p.m. on 26.2.1994 or so just in front of the shop of the deceased Balmiki Choudhury, the younger brother of the informant. The prosecution had examined as many as 14 witnesses and one A.S.I, of police was also examined as Court witness. PW I Alauddin is a witness to the occurrence; PW 2 Upendra Singh; PW 3 Sunil Kumar and PW 4 Banwari Pandey who are also witnesses to the occurrence and search and seizure had not supported the prosecution case and so they were declared hostile. Similarly PW 5 Gopal Choudhury; PW 12 Shamsad Ali are tendered witnesses. PW 7 is the informant and PW 8 Shankar Kumar and PW 11 Santosh Kumar are the witnesses examined on the point of occurrence; whereas PW 13 is the doctor who hed autopsy on the dead-body and PW 14 is S.I. Rajeev Ranjan, the I.O. of this case. 8. According to the prosecution case, this occurrence took place on 26.2.1994 at 2.30 p.m. just in front of the shop of the deceased itself. It is admitted position that the deceased got a shop and he deals in electrical goods in Arsande Chouk within Kanke police station and the occurrence took place on 26.2.1994 at 2.30 p.m. While the informant who is the own brother of the deceased was going from the residential house towards the shop of the deceased. Naturally PW 7 Om Prakash Choudhury who is the informant of this case is the most important witness. 9. PW 7 Om Prakash Choudhury, the informant of this case and elder brother of the deceased claimed in his evidence that on 26.2.1994 which was a Saturday at about 2.30 p.m. or so after taking meal from his house, he was going towards Arsande Chauk for taking betal and near that Arsande Chauk the deceased got a shop in which he used to sell electrical goods and Surya gas cylinders. It is his evidence that at that place, he heard altercation and found these two appellants Subodh and Binod who are full brothers abusing the deceased and Subodh ordered for killing, then Binod pulled out a pistol from his waist and fired just outside the shop which hit on the chest of the deceased. Due to that, deceased had fallen on the ground and both the appellants escaped in their scooter towards their residence situate in village Boria. It is also his evidence that immediately he alongwith some of the witnesses took the deceased after bringing a tempo for his treatment his treatment at RMCH, and in the RMCH he was examined in the Emergency Ward by a doctor and he was declared dead and in that very place, Officer-in-charge Kanke came and recorded his fardbayan in presence of the witnesses. Ext. 4 is the Fardbayan recorded by the I.O. PW 14 at about 4.30 p.m. in the Emergency Ward of the RMCH which contains the names of both the appellants and the detailed version about the occurrence. So apparently there is no delay in lodging the FIR in view of the fact that the occurrence took place at about 2.30 p.m. that to in Kanke PS. which is at some distance from the hospital. 10. The evidence of this witness was criticysed by the counsel for the appellants firstly on the ground that he is a close relation of the deceased and naturally he want to implicate the appellants with whom the deceased got busing rivalry and secondly that his evidence is not free from doubt and suffers from various infirmities. 11. So far the first ground of attack of the learned counsel for the appellant that this witness is highly interested witness, this much can be said that only on this score his evidence cannot be rejected outright and the law requires that his evidence may be examined with caution and care to eliminate chance of false implication. 11. So far the first ground of attack of the learned counsel for the appellant that this witness is highly interested witness, this much can be said that only on this score his evidence cannot be rejected outright and the law requires that his evidence may be examined with caution and care to eliminate chance of false implication. On close scrutiny it appears that according to this witness, he was going to the place of occurrence for taking betel after taking meal and the house of this witness is near about the P.O. At the same time from the evidence of other witnesses which is on the record and more particularly that of O.C. Kanke who found him with the dead-body at RMCH immediately after the occurrence clearly indicate that he took the deceased in injured condition to RMCH in a tempo and this leads to a conclusion that he was present at the time of occurrence and had seen the occurrence. In that view of the matter, this witness is competent, natural and also appears to be truthful. 12. So far other infirmities in his evidence, it was pointed out by the counsel for the appellants that he has claimed in his evidence that the deceased had fired by pistol by one of the appellants, but the doctor claimed that the deceased got injury by firing from revolver. This witness has further stated that he chased the appellants while giving his statement to the police. But in the Court he has not given the same statement. 13. At the very out set it can be said that the doctor has only said that the injury caused by the fire arm and most probably by a revolver. So far revolver and pistol are concerned, difference between these two fire arms is very little and unsophisticated people are not in a position to distinguish between a revolver and pistol. But there is no two opinion that the injury was by a small fire arm most probably by revolver. Furthermore, the evidence of this witness also finds corroboration from other surrounding circumstances, such as, seizure of incriminating article at the P.O. including seizure of the scooter used by the appellant and above all it is admitted position that the deceased died on 26.2. r994 in the RMCH due to fire arm injury. Furthermore, the evidence of this witness also finds corroboration from other surrounding circumstances, such as, seizure of incriminating article at the P.O. including seizure of the scooter used by the appellant and above all it is admitted position that the deceased died on 26.2. r994 in the RMCH due to fire arm injury. Moreover, it is also admitted fact and as found by the I.O. and other witnesses that the appellants also got a shop in which they deal in electrical goods and also Surya gas near the shop of the deceased and there was business rivalry as the deceased used to sell Surya gas cylinders at a lower rate and the appellants used to threaten him off and on as to why he used to sell gas at a lower rate and even on the date of occurrence prior to this killing at 1.30 p.m. both the appellants came and had altercation with the deceased. 14. In that view of the matter, admittedly there was business rivalry. So the motive has been specifically alleged and well proved. On the other hand, though it is an admitted case of homicidal murder and the appellants are neighbour so far their business is concerned, still they have not made any specific case as a defence version that some outsider or a criminal committed the murder of the deceased. 15. No doubt the counsel for the appellants submitted that PW 1 Allauddin had admitted in his cross-examination that one Raju had demanded Rangdari tax from the deceased prior to the occurrence and for that there was quarrel between them. But surprisingly this witness is a hostile witness and he has also admitted in his cross-examination that Raju is now dead. On the basis of this stray statement in the cross-examination by a hostile witness, the counsel for the appellant tried his best to build up a case that some unknown person might have committed the murder of the deceased and the appellants were implicated in this case by the brother of the deceased. In any view of the matter, this stray statement of a hostile witness in the cross-examination is not to be accepted because neither he has stated before the police about such demand of Rangdari tax nor any other witness on the record supported about this fact. In that view of the matter. In any view of the matter, this stray statement of a hostile witness in the cross-examination is not to be accepted because neither he has stated before the police about such demand of Rangdari tax nor any other witness on the record supported about this fact. In that view of the matter. I am not inclined to rely upon the statement of this witness on the point mentioned above. 16. During police investigation several witnesses had claimed that they had seen the occurrence and named both these appellants, but they had not supported the entire prosecution version in the Court. However, on the point of actual occurrence the prosecution could examine PW 8 Shankar Kumar and PW 11 Santosh Kumar as witnesses of occurrence and these two minor children are the sons of the deceased. PW 11 Santosh was aged about 7 years; whereas PW 8 Shankar was aged about 4 years or so at the time of occurrence. But PW 11 appears to be more alert and intelligent as he is a student of Class IV and in a position to understand the question and its implication. Both these witnesses had claimed that on the date of occurrence, they had gone to the shop of their father from the school and they were sitting in the shop when these two appellants came and began to quarrel with his father and at the instance of Subodh, Binod fired causing injury to his father just outside the shop and then the younger brother that is, PW 8 had gone to his house running and called their mother, that is, PW 10 Rita Devi and then his father was taken to hospital by their uncle. 17. At the very out set, Mr. P.S. Dayal Sr. Counsel for the appellants made a submission that apart from the fact that these witnesses are child witnesses, their evidence is outright to be rejected for the reason that they are not the witnesses of occurrence and in the detailed Fardbayan by their own uncle which is well known to these witnesses, it had not at all been mentioned that they too were present at the time of occurrence. In that view of the matter, they are not the witnesses of occurrence. In that view of the matter, they are not the witnesses of occurrence. It is true that names of these witnesses had not been mentioned in the Fardbayan that they were actually present at the time of occurrence, but on this score alone it cannot be said that they had not seen the occurrence if their presence is well proved from other evidence on the record. 18. Learned APP rightly contended and had tried to paint a vivid picture that just immediately after the occurrence and it was contended that occurrence took place all on a sudden and own brother of the informant sustained injuries on the chest by fire arm and his condition was very much critical and in no time he brought a tempo and immediately took the injured brother to RMCH where he was immediately pronounced as dead and immediately his fardbayan was recorded by the O.C. Kanke. In such a situation and as all happened in quick succession it is quite possible on the part of the informant due to his mental tension that he might have missed giving names of his nephew to be the witnesses of the occurrence. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the prosecution appears to be convincing; more particularly for the reason that certainly these two child witnesses are not the witnesses of necessity and due to compelling circumstances, they were introduced as a witness of occurrence for the reason that during investigation several witnesses had claimed that they had seen the entire occurrence and had named these two appellants. So it was not the compelling reason for the prosecution to introduce these two child witnesses as a witnesses of occurrence just to strengthen the case of the prosecution. 19. Furthermore, from the evidence on the record and from the evidence of I.O. also this fact is well proved that on the date of occurrence, itself, he examined PW 11 as a witness of occurrence and immediately on the next day he examined his brother PW 9 and other witnesses were also examined on the date of occurrence which clearly indicates that these two witnesses were also present at the time of occurrence. So only for the reason that their names were not mentioned in the FIR, I am not inclined to discard the evidence of these two witnesses for the reason mentioned above. 20. So only for the reason that their names were not mentioned in the FIR, I am not inclined to discard the evidence of these two witnesses for the reason mentioned above. 20. The counsel for the appellants assailed the evidence of these two child witnesses for the reason that they had given exaggerated version in their evidence and PW 11 had claimed that even his brother was pushed and kept aside by one of the appellants and his younger brother had rushed to his house and brought the mother, this is, PW 10, but all these facts had not been mentioned in the FIR and even the informant has not claimed in his evidence about such action on the part of the appellants or even coming of the wife of the deceased. It was further contended that child witnesses had a tendency to support the version as tutored by the guardians and they are not always witness of truth; rather there is a tendency that they depose on the basis of their imagination and in such a situation it is very dangerous to rely upon the testimonies of the child witness. More Particularly when these two witnesses had sated in heir evidence that in their house this occurrence was being discussed by his mother and uncle. So hey were tutored by their mother and uncle. 21. On close scrutiny of the evidence of these child witnesses, it can be said that these witnesses had certainly made some exaggerated version as they had a poor understanding and there is a tendency of the child witness that they bring their imagination to justify their case. But on the whole they supported that these two appellants who got their shop near the shop of their father and known to them from before, came and one of the appellants fired causing injury to their father. 22. Moreover these two child witnesses are not the only witness of the occurrence and certainly I too accepted their evidence hesitantly and could have rejected their evidence if their would not have been other unimpeachable evidence on the record. But in the instant case there are other unimpeachable and circumstantial evidence. 22. Moreover these two child witnesses are not the only witness of the occurrence and certainly I too accepted their evidence hesitantly and could have rejected their evidence if their would not have been other unimpeachable evidence on the record. But in the instant case there are other unimpeachable and circumstantial evidence. In that view of the matter the evidence of these child witnesses simply lends support to the other evidence on the record and as the witnesses appear to be truthful, I am inclined to accept their testimony so far participation of the appellants are concerned. 23. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in a case reported in Suresh v. State of U.P., AIR 1981 Page 1122, In the aforesaid case of Suresh (supra) only a five year old son of the deceased was the eye-witness in a case of murder and the evidence of the child witness was accepted as it was found to be truthful and that too supported by other circumstances and unimpeachable evidence. In the instant case also the evidence of these child witnesses are not the only evidence against the appellants and there are also unimpeachable evidences as against the appellants. 24. PW 10 Rita Devi, the wife of the deceased, but her evidence is not very material because she came to the P.O. subsequently and found her husband injured which is more or less an admitted fact. In this case the prosecution has examined PW 1 A1-lauddin PW 2 Upendra Prasad Singh, PW 3 Sunil Kumar, PW 4 Banwari Pandey and PW 6 Rita Singh Modak though did not support the prosecution case in toto, but during investigation they claimed before the I.O. that these two appellants had altercation with the deceased and one of the appellants fired at the instance of the other. So all these witnesses were declared hostile. But all these witnesses had consistently supported this fact they heard firing sound and then they rushed to the P.O. and found the deceased in injured condition with fire arm injury on the chest. Some of the witnesses got their shops near the P.O. In that view of the matter, they are the competent witnesses to learn about the firing. But all these witnesses had consistently supported this fact they heard firing sound and then they rushed to the P.O. and found the deceased in injured condition with fire arm injury on the chest. Some of the witnesses got their shops near the P.O. In that view of the matter, they are the competent witnesses to learn about the firing. PW 3 Sunil Kumar who got his shop near the shop of the deceased, though declared hostile, but this much he admitted that immediately after firing he had seen one of the appellants Subodh escaping in a scooter and he was holding a revolver. PW 4 Banwari Pandey and PW 6 Rita Singh Modak also gave similar statement that they heard firing sound from the shop of the deceased and had seen Subodh escaping in scooter with revolver and prior to occurrence at about 1.30 p.m. or so, the appellant had some quarrel with the deceased. So these witnesses, though declared hostile have supported the prosecution case to the extent that there was a firing in the shop of the deceased on the date of occurrence at about 2.30 p.m. and the deceased was injured and he was taken to RMCH by the informant where he died, and immediately after firing they had seen one of the appellants with revolver escaping in scooter. Though these witnesses were declared hostile, but their entire evidence is not to be rejected outright and that part of the evidence which appears to be truthful and corroborates the prosecution case is to be accepted and to be relied upon. 25. The Apex Court in a case reported in 1997 (1) East Cr C Page 702 Balram Prasad Agarwal v. State of Bihar, also held that if the evidence of hostile witnesses partly corroborate the prosecution version, then in that situation evidence to the extent of corroboration can be relied upon. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Balram Prasad Agarwal case (supra). Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Balram Prasad Agarwal case (supra). The part of the evidence of these three hostile witnesses which corroborates and supports the prosecution case is to be relied upon and from that it can be said that both the appellants were full brothers having business rivalry with the deceased and immediately after the firing sound they had seen at least one of the appellants Subodh escaping away in a scooter which supports the prosecution case to a great extent that the appellants came in a scooter and had altercation with the deceased and escaped away after firing. 26. The prosecution case further finds support from the evidence of the doctor and the medical report. PW 13 Dr. Ram Sewak Sahu held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 27.2.1994, that is, next day of the occurrence and found one fire arm injury, i.e. would of entry on the right chest, and the margin of the wound is abraded and projectile passes through sternum pericardium and heart and also through the right lungs causing wound of exit on the right chest back. The doctor also found the clothes of the deceased bears tear on the corresponding fire arm injury. According to the doctor this injury was caused by fire arm most probably by revolver and this injury was sufficient to cause death and the death of the deceased took place within six to 24 hours. So the evidence of the doctor clearly indicates and supports the prosecution case that in the afternoon of 26.2.1994, the deceased was fired with firm arm which caused his immediate death. 27. Similarly PW 14 is Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, the I.O. of this case who on 26.2.1994 was the Officer-in-charge of Kanke P.S. According to this witness, he heard rumours and so made a station diary entry No. 502 dated 26.2.1994 and when he came to Arsande Chauk, he learnt that the injured was taken to RMCH and had gone to RMCH where he found the dead-body of the deceased and recorded the fardbayan of the informant in that very Emergency Ward at 4.30 p.m. and subsequently in the P.S. a formal FIR was recorded. This witness has further stated that when he reached the RMCH he found a police officer attached to Bariatu preparing inquest report. This witness has further stated that when he reached the RMCH he found a police officer attached to Bariatu preparing inquest report. On the same date of occurrence, he visited the P.O. and found that the P.O. is the shop of the deceased and the deceased was carrying a business of electrical goods and was selling Surya gas cylinders and similarly both the appellants also got shop near that and they used to sell the same type of articles and the I.O. also found blood stain mark outside the shop and near that place he found the upper portion of the cartridge that is, projectile portion and he seized those articles in presence of the witnesses and prepared seizure list on that very date regarding blood stained earth and projectile portion of the cartridge, that is Ext. 6 and 6/1. It is also the evidence of this I.O. that he searched the house of both the appellants and found that appellants were absconding and from their house a LML Vespa scooter bearing No, BR 14-B 445 was seized and seizure list was prepared that is, Ext. 6/2. So the evidence of the I.O. clearly indicate that he recorded the fardbayan immediately after the occurrence and visited the P.O. on the same day and found blood stain mark and projectile portion of cartridge near the P.O. which clearly indicates that the firing took place outside the shop of the deceased and fire arm was used. It has come in evidence that the appellant came in a scooter No. BR-14-B 445 and this very scooter was seized in the house of the appellant. It is also a strong circumstance to show that these appellants participated in this occurrence. 28. The senior counsel for the appellants contended that the investigation is not free from doubt and it is faulty, more particularly for the reason that the blood stained earth was not sent to the Director, FSL for examination to verify if it was human blood or not and similarly the empty cartridge was also not sent for examination by Expert. At the very outset it can be said that there is no denial from the defence that the deceased sustained fire arm injury and he died due to that on 26.2.1994 and the occurrence took place in front of the shop of the deceased. At the very outset it can be said that there is no denial from the defence that the deceased sustained fire arm injury and he died due to that on 26.2.1994 and the occurrence took place in front of the shop of the deceased. In that view of the matter, the verification if the blood was human or not and that too verification of the empty cartridge are not at all necessary because it is admitted position that the deceased sustained injury by fire arm. 29. The then ASI attached to Bariatu Police Nandu Pandey who held inquest on the deceased on 26.2.1994 at RMCH Emergency Ward was examined as Court witness and he has proved the inquest that is Ext. 8 which indicates that the deceased sustained fire arm injury on his chest and there wound of exit on the back. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that admittedly the inquest was prepared in presence of Om Prakash Choudhury and Sunil Kumar and who are also witnesses of the occurrence, but in column 8 the Police Officer has not mentioned the cause of the death of the deceased and the name of the assailant. In that view of the matter the entire allegation that these two appellants participated in the occurrence appears to be doubtful. 30. In column 8 both the witnesses of the inquest put their signature and no doubt the Police Officer had not mentioned the cause of the death of the deceased as stated by the witnesses in column 8, but in column 9 it has been clearly mentioned that on 26.2.1994 at 2.30 p.m. the deceased was done to death in his shop and firing was resorted on his chest. So the Police Officer had given the version of the witnesses in para 9. Of course the names of the assailants were not mentioned and it is quite possible that the witnesses had not disclosed at that time the name of the assailants, but for that reason the entire investigation is not to be discarded to be faulty because the cause of death was given in detail in column 9 and at that lime also the FIR was lodged in the RMCH itself. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that due to non-mentioning of the names of the assailants in the inquest, the entire prosecution case is not to be relied upon. 31. So from the entire discussions as made above and from the evidence on the record, this fact is well proved that there was business rivalry between the deceased and the appellant from before as the deceased used to sell the articles in his shop at a lower rate than the appellant and in the afternoon of 26.2.1994, both the appellants who are full brothers jointly came in a scooter and had an altercation with the deceased and the appellant Subodh @ Gullu asked his brother Binod. the other appellant, to kill the deceased and so Binod Kumar fired from his revolver or pistol hitting on the chest of the deceased in front of his shop and the injury was on such a vital part that too by a fire arm clearly indicates that both the appellants in furtherance of their common intention came there together and the deceased was fired from a close range, that loo, on the chest with an intention to commit the murder of the deceased. In the circumstances the trial Court was perfectly justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants Binod Kumar under Section 302, IPC whereas the other appellant Subodh Kumar was found guilty under Section 302/34, IPC. So far as sentence awarded by the trial Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life is concerned, I am of the view that the sentence appears to be reasonable as he had taken lenient view of the matter considering the age of the appellants and other circumstances on the record, and, thus, it does not require any interference. 32. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and so the appeal is dismissed and the judgment as recorded by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 488/94 convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life is hereby confirmed and maintained. One of the appellants Binod Kumar is in custody; whereas appellant Subodh Kumar is in bail. One of the appellants Binod Kumar is in custody; whereas appellant Subodh Kumar is in bail. So his bail bond is hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial Court without any further delay for undergoing imprisonment as awarded by this Court failing which necessary steps will be taken by the trial Court for his apprehension.