Honble PRASAD, J.–The present appeal filed by the three accused appellants arises out of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 18/1993 dated 21.1.1994. (2). By this judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellants under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 IPC and has sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/-. The accused appellant Pyare Lal has also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. (3). The prosecution was initiated on the basis of the first information report lodged at about 11 A.M. at Police Station, Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar (Ex.P.6) on 11.11.1992. The first information report was lodged by P.W. 1 Kishanlal. According to the verson given in the first information report the deceased Subhash was going towards his house. He was being followed by the first informant Kishan Lal his elder brother and two of his friends Shyam Lal and Ashok Kumar. While Subhash reached near the house of the owner of Mehta Studio, he was confronted by the three accused persons. Accused Sadhu Ram had a Takua, Raj Kumar had a Gandasi and Pyare Lal had a country made 12 bore pistol. Sadhu Ram said that the enemy had come and he should be finished and after this Sadhu Ram gave a Takua blow on the neck of Subhash, Raj Kumar gave a Gandasi blow on the head of Subhash and Pyare Lal extracted the pistol from his `DAB and fired at Subhash. Subhash fell down. The accused, even after Subhash fell down, inflicted many injuries, Subhash became unconscious and the accused persons left him, treating him to be dead. (4). The witnesses carried Subhash in a rickshaw to the Hospital. Subhash was admitted in the Hospital and witness Kishan Lal came to the police station to make the report, where the first information report Ex. P.6 was registered. This incident occurred at about 10.15 A.M. and the report was lodged at 11 A.M. The S.H.O. after recording the F.I.R. proceeded to the spot and started investigation. At 12.05 P.M. Subhash succumbed to his injuries and at 1.50 P.M. the post mortem was conduc- ted. The other investigations were also undertaken. After the investigation was completed, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellants. At 12.05 P.M. Subhash succumbed to his injuries and at 1.50 P.M. the post mortem was conduc- ted. The other investigations were also undertaken. After the investigation was completed, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellants. Charges were framed under Section 302 read with Section 43 I.P.C. against all the accused and under Section 27 of the Arms Act against accused Pyare Lal. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. (5). At the trial the prosecution examined 9 witnesses including 3 eye-witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the testimony of the eye-witnesses and held that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused appellants and convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as aforesaid. (6). The story of the prosecution rests on the evidence of three eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Kishan Lal, P.W.2 Ashok Kumar and P.W. 3 Shyam Lal. As regards the principal occurrence it has been stated by the eye-witness P.W. 1 Kishan Lal that on 11.11.1992 at about 10.15 A.M. while he was in the company of the other two witnesses P.W. 2 Ashok Kumar and P.W. 3 Shyam Lal and going towards his house at about 10.15 A.M., Subhash said that the enemy had come and he should be finished. Sadhu was preceeding them. When Subhash reached near the house of the owners of Mehta Studio the three accused persons came from front. Sadhu Ram on seeing Sadhu Ram gave a Takua blow on the neck of Subhash on the left side, Raj Kumar gave a Gandasi blow on the head of Subhash and Pyare Lal took out the pistol from his `DAB and fired at Subhash. Subhash fell down. Then accused Sadhu Ram and Raj Kumar further inflicted various blows by their respective weapons on Subhash. The witnesses made noise but none came to the rescue. (7). Subhash was taken by the witness to the Hospital in a rickshaw. After admitting Subhash in the Hospital, witness Kishan Lal came to the Police Station where he registered the first information report Ex. P.6. Thereafter the police went to scene of occurrence where the site plain was prepared. This witness further states that Subhash succumbed to his injuries. (8). Subhash was taken by the witness to the Hospital in a rickshaw. After admitting Subhash in the Hospital, witness Kishan Lal came to the Police Station where he registered the first information report Ex. P.6. Thereafter the police went to scene of occurrence where the site plain was prepared. This witness further states that Subhash succumbed to his injuries. (8). This witness was cross-examined by the defence firstly on the court that Sadhu Ram and Raj Kuamr were given beating by Subhash and his friends Shyam Ratan, and Ashok. Various other questions were also asked regarding enmity between the deceased and the accused persons. This witness was also cross-examined on the point of acquaintance with Ashok Kumar which was deposed that it was an old one. A photograph was pressed into service as Ex. D.1 showing that the witness Ashok Kumar P.W. 2, Shyam Lal P.W.3 and Subhash were seen in that photograph. This was for the purpose of showing that they were close associates. The character of the deceased was also sought to be tarnished by proving various cases against him. This witness was also cross-examined about the distance from which the pistol was fired, which according to this witness was 8 to 10. This 8 to 10 have not been qualified in the statement as recorded but from the record it could be read as paces. This witness was also cross-examined on the point that how the Subhash was taken in a rickshaw and who sat in the rickshaw with Subhash. According to this witness, he sat in the rickshaw with Subhash and the other two witnesses did not sit in the rickshaw. This cross-examination was directed to establish that at the time when the deceased was put in the rickshaw whether the clothes of the other witnesses were smeared with blood or not. This witness admitted that his clothes were stained with blood. As regards the testimony of this witness, from his examination in the court and his previous statement no substan- tial part has been brought out by the defence which can show that his witness has resiled from his earlier statement or has made any improvement. (9). P.W.2 Ashok Kumar has stated almost the same story as PW1 Kishan Lal has said. The tenor of cross-examination of this witness is also similar as that of PW1 Kishan Lal. (9). P.W.2 Ashok Kumar has stated almost the same story as PW1 Kishan Lal has said. The tenor of cross-examination of this witness is also similar as that of PW1 Kishan Lal. This witness has also not been found in the cross-examination to have resiled from his previous statement or has made any substantial improvement. (10). P.W.3 Shyam Lal @ Shyam Ratan has also stated the same kind of story which the other two eye-witnesses have said and his cross-examination also does not bring out any improvement or shift from his previous statement. (11). Learned counsel for the appellant has criticised the evidence of these witnesses saying that they were not the eye- witnesses of the occurrence. Had they been the witnesses of the occurrence, they would have certainly intervened, and would not have permitted the accused to have killed the deceased. They were got up witnesses. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, it is a blind mur- der and due to previous enmity the accused persons have been implicated. If these witnesses were present at the scene of the occurrence and they handled the deceased in carrying him from the scene of occurrence to the Hospital then in that process they must have got their clothes stained with blood. No blood stained clothes have been seized by the Investigating Officer and this lapse is fatal. (12). Another aspect highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellants is that when the two accused persons are giving blows by Takua and Gandasi then it is not probable that the third one will use the fire arm because use of the fire arm will be hazardous to the other accused persons and by dispersion of pellets they would have also got themselves hit. The pistal was fired from a distance of about 8 to 10 paces and from this distance there is every likelihood that Sadhu Ram and Raj Kumar who were assaulting the deceased by their respective weapons like Takua and Gandasi could have got hit by the pellets fired by the fire-arm. Therefore, a truthful narration of the manner of occurrence is not coming forth. (13). Therefore, a truthful narration of the manner of occurrence is not coming forth. (13). It has also been emphasised by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W. 1 Kishan Lal who is the real brother of the deceased after getting the injured admitted in the Hospital immediately went to the Police Station without even caring for his brother in the Hospital. His this conduct is quite unnatural. Learned counsel for the appellants also criticised the testimony of P.W. 2 Ashok Kumar and P.W.3 Shyam Lal by saying that while P.W.1 Kishan Lal carried the deceased to the Hospital they could have gone to the Police Station and lodged the first information report. Having not lodged the report while they were going to the Hospital, they have neglected an important aspect which shows that they were not present at the scene of occurrence. Had they been at the scene of occurrence they would have certainly informed the police about the incident. (14). Learned counsel for the appellant also criticised the testimony of the doctor, saying that he does not remember as to when he handed over the wades and pellets recovered from the body of the deceased to the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel has also criticised the conviction of Pyare Lal under Section 27 of the Arms Act by stating that 12 bore country made pistal recovered has not been connected with the crime, because there was no ballistic report connecting him with the crime. Therefore, he should not have been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the prosecution case is a total fabrication and is based on the testimony of three eye-witnesses who were not present and state an unnatural manner of occurrence. (15). Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. R.K. Singhal, Advocate for the complainant urged that the occurrence took place at 10.15 A.M. and at 11 A.M. the first information report was lodged. In the intervening period the deceased was taken to the hospital. The report of the incident was lodged within 45 minutes nam- ing the accused persons and the eye-witnesses. Therefore, it cannot be said that the case is a fabricated one. Not only this the memos of investigation were also prepared by the Investigating Officer carrying the number of the first information report showing that the report was lodged at the appointed time. Therefore, it cannot be said that the case is a fabricated one. Not only this the memos of investigation were also prepared by the Investigating Officer carrying the number of the first information report showing that the report was lodged at the appointed time. On that day itself the report has reached the Magistrate. There was hardly any scope for any kind of fabrication because soon after the incident the matter was reported to the police and the first information report was sent to the Magistrate leaving no scope for any deliberations or post investigation fabrications. (16). The eye-witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these witnesses which have shaken their testi- mony. The defence has not been able to bring out anything whereby it can be shown that they have improved their case from their earlier statement or have been contradicted with their previous statement. They have stuck to their version in the police statement and that is the guarantee of the truthfulness of the statements made by these witnesses. (17). The enmity suggested by the defence with the deceased and his character draws nothing in favour of the defence as no body has a right to kill a man who has bad antecedents. As regards enmity, it is a double edged weapon and this could furnish sufficient motive to the accused to do away with the deceased. Much has been sought to be made out from the fact that the pistal was fired when the other two accused persons were assaulting the deceased by the accused Pyare Lal from a distance of 8 to 10 paces. But the fact remains that it was a close range fire from a small barrel country made pistal and the shot could be effective only on being fired from a close quarter. From a short distance its pellets would not have dispersed to any such degree. The theory of forensic science which is sought to be pressed into service regarding dispersement of pellets could not be understood by the accused persons when they were desperate. At the time when criminals kill a man then they loose rationality and therefore expecting them to act in a text book fashion is not possible. (18). The theory of forensic science which is sought to be pressed into service regarding dispersement of pellets could not be understood by the accused persons when they were desperate. At the time when criminals kill a man then they loose rationality and therefore expecting them to act in a text book fashion is not possible. (18). Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment delivered in the case of Meharaj Singh (L/NK.) vs. State of U.P. (1). Relying on this judgment the learned counsel for the appellants urges that the conduct of the witnesses is akin to the conduct of the wife in Meharaj Singhs case and since the prosecution has not produced the blood stained clothes of the witne- sses, the interpretation given in Meharaj Singhs case should come to the rescue of the accused. Further the circumstance cited in this case that the witnesses have not lodged the report is also akin to the facts of the present case and, therefore, the disbelief regarding the circumstances of the case has been made by the Honble Supreme Court should also be made in the present case. We are afraid that the line drawn by the learned counsel is not in confirmity with the things in Meharaj Singhs case (supra). The ocular evidence there was not in conformity with the medical evidence and in this back-ground the Honble Supreme Court appreciated the fact of non-lodging of the first information report by the witness and absence of blood on the clothes of the wife. In the instant case P.W. 1 Kishan Lal had clearly deposed that his clothes got stained with blood. The reminiscence on the part of the Investigating Officer in not seizing the bloodstains clothes and sending them to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination cannot go to the advantage of the accused. The incident had taken place at 10.15 A.M. and by 11 A.M. the first information report was lodged. The delay is not such which may cause any con- cern. In Meharaj Singhs case the prosecution has failed to establish that the first information report was sent to the Magistrate at all. In that back-ground the first information report became doubtful which is a circumstance missing in the present case. Therefore, the facts of Meharaj Singhs case will not govern the present case. (19). In Meharaj Singhs case the prosecution has failed to establish that the first information report was sent to the Magistrate at all. In that back-ground the first information report became doubtful which is a circumstance missing in the present case. Therefore, the facts of Meharaj Singhs case will not govern the present case. (19). The counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on Narain Soni vs. State of Rajasthan (2), wherein the blood not being found on the clothes of eye-witnesses had also been read against the prosecution. But in this case also this Court has observed that there is contradiction in the direct evidence and the evidence of the doctor and the Investigating Officer had said that he wanted to arrest some more people in connection with the crime. That shows the tentative- ness of the investigating agency in pinpointing the accused. (20). Learned counsel appearing for the Prosecution has relied upon Baitullah and another vs. State of U.P. (3), a case decided by the Honble Supreme Court wherein the Honble Supreme Court commenting on the evidentiary value of interested and related witnesses has observed that their evidence cannot be brus- hed aside as it is normally expected that such witness would not leave out real culprits and rope in innocent persons. (21). Another case relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the Prosecution is Bhaskaran vs. State of Kerala (4), wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held that where the eye-witnesses have given detailed version of the oc- currence but they did not attempt to save the deceased from the attack if on that remissness on the part of the eye-witnesses, they are sought to be discarded, then it is not correct, because different persons act differently in the same circumstances. Therefore, nothing can be read against the prosecution on account of the witnesses not intervening. Another circumstance noticed by the Honble Supreme Court was that the Investigating Officer has not seized the torch. This remission on the part of the Investigating Officer was not held to be a ground to disbelieve the eye-witnesses. In the instant case the non-seizure of the bloodstains clothes of the witness Kishan Lal by the Investigating Officer thus cannot be a ground for not believing this witness. (22). Now we take up the different points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. In the instant case the non-seizure of the bloodstains clothes of the witness Kishan Lal by the Investigating Officer thus cannot be a ground for not believing this witness. (22). Now we take up the different points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The testimony of the witnesses has been criticised to be one of the witnesses who were not present at the scene of the occurrence. The evidence given by the witnesses is natural. Their testimony has not been shaken in the cross-examination. All the 3 witnesses have stood by their police statements. Neither there is any improvement nor any omission. Thus, the first test of judging their veracity has gone in favour of the prosecution. Their testimony is being sought to be discredited on the ground that they have not no business to be there, is too remote a ground to discredit the eye-witnesses who gave a detailed account of what has happend and that account has been given with such precision that had there been any unnaturality in their deposition then there would have been some contradictions in the testimony of the three eye-witnesses. There has been no contradiction in the evidence of these three witnesses rather they are corroborating each other. (23). Witness Kishan Lal has admitted that he took his brother to the hospital and his clothes got stained with blood and those clothes have not been seized by the Investigating Officer then it cannot be said that there was anything wrong in the statement of this witness. At best it can be said that it was a reminiscence on the part of the Investigating Officer and that cannot be read against this prosecution witness. The testimony of the eye- witnesses, therefore, cannot be discarded on this ground. (24). Another aspect put forward by the learned counsel for disbelieving the testimony of the eye-witnesses is that the fire was made while the other two accused were in close proximity and this is a improbability. Suffice it to say that the fire was effective on the hand with a plastic wad getting lodged in the injury. The weapon was a small barrel country made pistal. Thus, the lodging of the wad clearly establishes that this was a close range fire and when such close range was there the dispersion cannot be of such magnitude that the other accused can be within its impact. The weapon was a small barrel country made pistal. Thus, the lodging of the wad clearly establishes that this was a close range fire and when such close range was there the dispersion cannot be of such magnitude that the other accused can be within its impact. The distance of 8 to 10 paces deposed by the witnesses cannot be taken to be literally mean that this was with the precision. In an encounter of the nature which has taken place the distance cannot be given by exact measurement and, therefore, nothing can turn out in favour of the defence on this count. (25). The criticism of the witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 that they have not reported the matter to the police while they were going to the hospital and it was P.W.1 who after getting the injured admitted at the hospital reported the matter to the police. The first information report was lodged within 45 minutes. Nothing more can be read in this relation. The report has been lodged without delay, the same was sent to the Magistrate on the same date. Then a particular act of an individual cannot be read against the prosecution. (26). The criticism of the evidence of doctor that he had not seized the pellets and wad properly and handed them over to the Investigating Officer properly has no effect on the prosecution case. Neither the wad nor the pellets could be esta- blished, having any link with the country made pistal, because in Forensic Science there is no test available, to connect the pellets with the gun, except showing that they have been fired by a 12 bore gun, nothing more can be said. Therefore, this criticism is also of no consequence. The gun has been used by Pyare Lal accused as has been stated by the eye-witnesses. (27). Since we are not in agreement with the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, we do not consider that the defence has been successful in assailing the judgment of the learned trial Court. The reasoning given by the lear- ned trial Court appears to be sufficient and proper in accepting the prosecution case. The criticism levelled is not enough to discredit the prosecution case. Consequently we hold that nothing wrong has been committed by the learned trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellants. The reasoning given by the lear- ned trial Court appears to be sufficient and proper in accepting the prosecution case. The criticism levelled is not enough to discredit the prosecution case. Consequently we hold that nothing wrong has been committed by the learned trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellants. Therefore, the conviction and sentences awarded by the learned trial Court are maintained. (28). In the result, there is no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.