JUDGMENT 1. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in sessions case No. 100/94 the appellant named above preferred this appeal on the facts and grounds mentioned hereinafter. He challenges the order of conviction and sentence to him to imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and a lesser sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story is almost undisputed that the first information report was lodged on February 20, 1993 by one Raghuvir Singh that constable or sipoy Chandan Singh present accused of 3rd RAC Battalion has fired his put on Sheesh Ram. The accused and Sheesh Ram the deceased were lying on their bed and were discussing with each other. When the discussion got converted into a quarrel and in the quarrel Chandan Singh the accused picked up his rifle and fired a shot at Sheesh Ram which hit Sheesh Ram in his neck which resulted in his instantaneous death. After completion of investigation, challan was filed and the accused was prosecuted for murder of the deceased. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses and proved certain documents and on the appreciation of this oral and documentary evidence the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of murder and consistent with this finding of guilt, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to sentence him for imprisonment for life. It is this order which is challenged by the learned counsel appearing for the accused on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 3. The learned counsel submitted that the evidence on record shows that the accused was forced to consume liquor and it was in the state of intoxication that the action of lifting the gun and firing it at Sheesh Ram took place. According to the learned counsel the case was covered by the provisions of Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly should have been dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge, in any case there is no question of the accused being guilty of murder. Then relying on several judgments of the Supreme Court it was contended that the state of mind of the accused was such as he was incapable of having intention requisite for the offence of murder and no conviction under Section 302 IPC is possible. Then relying on several judgments of the Supreme Court it was contended that the state of mind of the accused was such as he was incapable of having intention requisite for the offence of murder and no conviction under Section 302 IPC is possible. It was also alternatively submitted by the learned counsel that lenient view in the circumstances is liable to be taken as the accused has already lost his job and has been in jail for more than five years. The offence if any was committed in an intoxicated and inducement by the deceased and, therefore, neither intention nor knowledge of death could be attributed in the accused who should in such circumstances be allowed to be released on punishment already undergone. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor we have scrutinised the evidence on record and the documents. On careful appreciation of the evidence on record we find ourselves in full agreement with the conclusions reached by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. P.W. 2 Tek Chand and P.W. 6 Raghubir Singh are the eye witnesses to the incident. They described the manner in which the incident took place. A perusal of the deposition of these two witnesses show that they corroborate each other on all material particulars. They mention the presence of the other eye witnesses. There is nothing in their cross-examination to discredit their evidence. There is nothing whatsoever to believe or even to infer that they have falsely implicated the accused. They were natural eye witnesses to the occurrence. Their presence near the scene of occurrence was also natural as they were there to perform their part of duty. In such circumstances their testimony as eye witnesses who saw the accused firing at the deceased and saw the deceased meeting violent death is wholly credible and has been rightly accepted by the learned Judge. 6. This eye witness account of P.W. 2 Tek Chand and P.W. 6 Raghuvir Singh finds total corroboration also in the evidence of Dr. P.K. Bajaj who conducted the post mortem and proved that the death was caused by gun shot and, therefore, was homicidal. RW. 1 Kana Ram is the Malkhana Incharge at Police Station, Sadulshahar from whose custody the articles recovered from the scene of occurrence were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. P.K. Bajaj who conducted the post mortem and proved that the death was caused by gun shot and, therefore, was homicidal. RW. 1 Kana Ram is the Malkhana Incharge at Police Station, Sadulshahar from whose custody the articles recovered from the scene of occurrence were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. It is proved that the bullet which resulted in causing homicidal death of Sheesh Ram was fired from the gun recovered from the bed of the accused. The eye witnesses identified the gun to be one used by the accused for firing. In our opinion, therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Sheesh Ram was fired at by the accused. It is also proved that death of Sheesh Ram was homicidal. 7. The only question that remains thereafter is whether the case of the accused is covered by Section 86. I.P.C. as convassed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused. Section 86 of the Penal Code provides that in case where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will Relying on the last phrase that there can be no presumption of knowledge or intent on the part of the accused under intoxication i.e., liquor was administered to him against his will by the deceased. Unfortunately, this provision instead of helping the accused in his submissions as now made assists the prosecution in inferring the knowledge and intent on the part of the accused knowing that firing a gun at a person will in all probability result in his death and there can be no doubt that with aid of Section 86 it can certainly be inferred that the accused under intoxicated condition committed murder of the deceased. 8. The Supreme Court decisions cited by the learned counsel are entirely different on the facts of the case and have no application to the present case. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******