M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants Hari Mohan Singh and Satya Mohan, Singh have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 1-12-1980 passed by Sri K. K. Srivastava the then IV Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in S. T. No. 139 of 1980. The two appellants are real brothers and are the sons of the daughter of the deceased Ram Dulare. The appellant Hari Mohan Singh has been sentenced to, undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC for the murder of his maternal grandfather. He has also been sentenced to undergo 6 years R. I. under Section 307, IPC read with Section 34, IPC for attempting the murder of his cousin Indra Mohan Singh. The other appellant Satya Mohan Singh has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC for the murder of Ram Dulare and to undergo 6 years R. I. under Section 307, IPC for attempting the murder of Indra Mohan Singh. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE genesis of the prosecution case was the written FIR. Ex. Ka-1 lodged at P. S. Khakhereru district Fatehpur by Bhanu Pratap on 18-12-1979 at 8. 15 p. m. The incident took place on that day at about 7 p. m. in village Rakshpalpur. The informant is the son-in-law of the deceased Ram Dulare and the father of the injured Indra Mohan Singh. The prosecution case, as per the FIR and the evidence of the prosecution, may be stated thus: At the fateful time the informant Bhanu Pratap and his sons Chandra Mohan Singh and Kailash Singh were warming themselves on the fire of Kaura in the room where the incident took place. His other son Indra Mohan Singh (injured) was reading in the light of a lamp in the said room. Ram Dulare was lying on a nearby cot. At about 7 p. m. Sukuri Devi-PW3, widow of the son of elder brother of Ram Dulare brought food in a Thali for him. He started taking his food when the appellants Hari Mohan Singh and Satya Mohan Singh, armed with pistols, came over there. They told Ram Dulare that they would put an end to the dispute regarding the land and that he would not live to be able to give the land to some other person. He started taking his food when the appellants Hari Mohan Singh and Satya Mohan Singh, armed with pistols, came over there. They told Ram Dulare that they would put an end to the dispute regarding the land and that he would not live to be able to give the land to some other person. Saying so, the appellant Hari Mohan Singh fired a shot from his pistol on Ram Dulare who was hit thereby. Indra Mohan Singh rushed towards Hari Mohan Singh and caught hold of him when the other appellant Satya Mohan Singh fired a shot from his pistol on him to kill him. The shot hit him on his right shoulder. The informant Bhanu Pratap and his other son rushed to capture the appellants but they succeeded in running away. A hue and cry was raised. Several persons of the village also rushed to the scene of occurrence and saw the appellants running away. Ram Dulare died at the spot, whereas Indra Mohan Singh sustained gunshot injuries. The FIR also mentioned the motive on the part of the appellants for commission of the crime that Ram Dulare wanted to give share in the agricultural land to his brothers widowed daughter-in-law Sukuri Devi and it was resented to by them. On the case being registered, the investigation was entrusted to S. I. Ram Pal Rawat-PW 6. ( 3 ) THE postmortem over the dead body of Ram Dulare was conducted by Dr. Anand Swarup, PW4 on 20-12-1979 at 1. 30 p. m. As per the postmortem report the age of the deceased was about 80 years and about two days had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person : 1. Fire arm lacerated wound of entry 1-1/2" x 1" x through and through injury No. 2 through the chest cavity on the left side chest 2-1/2" from left nipple at 3 Oclock position and lacerated the wall left pleura, left lung, heart, right lung, right chest wall and liver, Blackening and tattooing present. 2. Fire arm lacerated wound of exit nine in number in an area of 4" x 4" just below the hand outer to the right nipple and each measuring 1/2" in diameter and communicating with injury No. 1, Wadding piece found and taken out. 3. 2. Fire arm lacerated wound of exit nine in number in an area of 4" x 4" just below the hand outer to the right nipple and each measuring 1/2" in diameter and communicating with injury No. 1, Wadding piece found and taken out. 3. Fire arm wound of entry lacerated 1/2" x 1" through and through injury No. 4 on the inner side of the right arm middle part. ( 4 ) FIRE arm wound of exit lacerated 11/2" x 1" through and through injury No. 3 on the outer side of middle part of right arm. ( 5 ) FIRE arm wound lacerated of entry 0. 5" x 0. 5" bone marrow cavity deep 5-1/2" above the right knee joint. One pea size pellet found lodged in the bone and taken out. 4. A pellet by the size of a pea (Ex-1) and wadding piece (Ex. 2) had been taken out from the dead body of the deceased. On internal examination, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ribs on the left side in the chest were found fractured and 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ribs on the right side in the chest were also found fractured. The sternum was also found fractured. The oesophagus was found lacerated. The liver was also lacerated. The stomach contained about four ounces semi digested food. The doctor opined that death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of fire arm injuries. 5. The injuries of injured Indra Mohan Singh were examined by Dr. V. K. Tripathi, P. W. 7 on 19-12-1979 at 10. 30 a. m. As per the injury report, Ex. Ka-16, following injuries were found on his person: 1. Gunshot wound of entry 4 cm x 3-1/4 cm x through and through the right shoulder on the outer aspect of upper most part of right arm. Margins were inverted and lacerated. No blackening tattooing was found present around the wound. 2. Gunshot wound of exit two in number, size 2-1/2 cm x 3-1/2 cm. and 2 cm x 1/2 cm x through and through injury No. 1, Margins averted and lacerated on the outer middle third part of right scapular region of back 5 cm above the posterior auxiliary fold. Both the injuries were intercommunicating. ( 6 ) THESE injuries were of fire arm. The duration was noted as about one day old. and 2 cm x 1/2 cm x through and through injury No. 1, Margins averted and lacerated on the outer middle third part of right scapular region of back 5 cm above the posterior auxiliary fold. Both the injuries were intercommunicating. ( 6 ) THESE injuries were of fire arm. The duration was noted as about one day old. They were kept under observation and X-ray was also advised. ( 7 ) ON chargesheet being submitted after investigation, the case was committed to Court of Sessions and the two appellants were tried. At the trial, the prosecution examined the informant Bhanu Pratap-PW1, injured Indra Mohan Singh-PW2 and Sukuri Devi-PW 3 as eye witnesses. Dr. Anand Swarup-PW4, Constable Ram Kishore-PW 5, Ram Pal Rawat, P. W. 6 and Dr. V. K. Tripathi PW 7 were also examined. ( 8 ) THE appellants pleaded false implication but did not adduce any evidence in defence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the two appellants as stated in the opening paragraph of the judgment. Aggrieved, they are in appeal before this Court. ( 9 ) WE have heard the arguments of Sri D. N. Wali, learned counsel for the appellants and of the learned A. G. A. from the side of the State. We shall deal with the arguments one by one. ( 10 ) IT has first been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive on the part of the appellants to commit this crime. It is pertinent to state here that the motive is not sine qua non for the commission of a crime. Motive is known to the person committing the crime and others including the prosecution can only guess about it. Moreover, motive becomes insignificant when there is direct, positive and clinching evidence of the commission of a crime by a particular person (s) as is the case here. We also wish to point out that it is not acceptable that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive on the part of the appellants in the present case. Moreover, motive becomes insignificant when there is direct, positive and clinching evidence of the commission of a crime by a particular person (s) as is the case here. We also wish to point out that it is not acceptable that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive on the part of the appellants in the present case. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the statement of PW-1, Bhanu Pratap who stated that Ram Dulare deceased had an elder brother Ishwari Prasad, Ishwari Prasad had a son Ram Saran whose widow Smt. Sukuri Devi, PW-3 is; Ishwari Prasad also died; Ram Dulare deceased and Ishwari Prasad jointly owned 36 Bighas land out of which 18 Bighas belonged to Ram Dulare and remaining 18 Bighas belonged to Ishwari Prasad; during his life-time Ishwari Prasad executed a will in respect of his share of land, bequeathing six Bighas to Raj Kumari (wife of Bhanu Pratap, PW 1), six bighas to Gomati Devi (wife of Ram Singh-mother of the appellants) and six Bighas to his daughter-in-law Smt. Sukuri Devi, PW 3; he also provided in the Will that after the death of Sukuri Devi, her six Bighas land would go to Raj Kumari and Gomati Devi in proportion of half and half and that Ram Dulare had also executed a Will in respect of 18 Bighas of land bequeathing nine Bighas of land to Raj Kumari and nine Bighas to Gomati Devi (his daughters ). In this background, it has been urged that there was no dispute over the land and as such, there could be no motive on the part of the appellants to commit the murder of Ram Dulare. The argument does not stand an in-depth inquiry and the matter is not so simple as has been sought to be projected by the learned counsel for the appellants. It has to be noted that the FIR, which is the first prosecution version, clearly mentioned that Ram Dulare wanted to give some share in land to Sukuri Devi, and over this score the appellants (Hari Mohan Singh and Satya Mohan Singh) harboured grudge against him. It has also come in the testimony of PW-1 Bhanu Pratap that after the death of Ishwari Prasad, Ram Singh (father of the appellants) had got mutated Ishwari Prasads land in the name of Ram Dulare in collusion with Patwari. It has also come in the testimony of PW-1 Bhanu Pratap that after the death of Ishwari Prasad, Ram Singh (father of the appellants) had got mutated Ishwari Prasads land in the name of Ram Dulare in collusion with Patwari. He also clearly stated that Ram Dulare was adamant that he would give some share in the land of Ishwari Prasad to Smt. Sukuri Devi, and that Ram Singh and his sons Hari Mohan Singh and Satya Mohan Singh used to object to it and they wanted Ram Dulare not to give any land to Smt. Sukuri. But Ram Dulare was not yielding to their pressure. So, it comes to the fore that for practical purposes, the Will executed by Ishwari Prasad had remained a paper transaction and the entire land stood in the name of Ram Dulare. In such circumstances, if Ram Dulare was to transfer some land in the name of Sukuri Devi, the latter could become its full owner and could transfer or deal with it in any manner she liked. It is understandable that it was for this reason that Ram Singh and his two sons (the appellants) wanted Ram Dulare not to transfer any land in the name of Smt. Sukuri. In case Ram Dulare was to retain the entire land in his name, they were likely to be benefited on the death of Ram Dulare, Judged with this correct approach, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive on the part of the appellants to commit his crime. They had a grudge against Ram Dulare for his insistence to transfer some land of Ishwari Prasad to Sukuri Devi and as such they did have motive to cut short the life of Ram Dulare. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has then challenged the time and place of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution and has also doubted the source of light at the alleged spot. It has been pointed out that the incident took place in winter season on 18-12-1979. On that date, the sun would have set at 5. 13 p. m. The prosecution case is that the incident took place at about 7 p. m. in the Baithaka of Ram Dulare. Our attention has been invited to the statement of PW-3 Sukuri Devi, who stated that the incident took place at about sunset. On that date, the sun would have set at 5. 13 p. m. The prosecution case is that the incident took place at about 7 p. m. in the Baithaka of Ram Dulare. Our attention has been invited to the statement of PW-3 Sukuri Devi, who stated that the incident took place at about sunset. What she stated in the opening part of the second paragraph of her statement is: She also stated in the last part of her testimony thus : -------_picking up these sentences from the testimony of PW-3 Smt. Sukuri Devi, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution case is that Sukuri Devi had taken the food of Ram Dulare to his Baithaka and he had started taking dinner when the alleged incident took place. As the food had been taken by her at about sunset time the incident could not have taken place at about 7 p. m. Rather it must have taken place at about 5. 13 p. m. as per the own case of the prosecution. We are not impressed by this argument. We are of the opinion that it cannot be inferred on the basis of the statement of Sukuri Devi. P. W. 3 extracted above that she had taken the meal of Ram Dulare to his Baithaka immediately after sunset. She is a rustic and illiterate lady for whom time could hardly be the essence of life. Her statement has to be interpreted in a logical manner. What she has meant to say is that was after sunset that she had taken the meal to the Baithaka of Ram Dulare and there is no justification to draw this inference that meal had been taken by her to Ram Dulare at about 5. 13 p. m. in winter season of December, 7 p. m. is the usual and proper time for dinner. P. W. 4 Dr. Anand Swarup who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased also deposed in paragraph No. 11 of his statement that the death of the deceased could have occurred on 18-12-1979 at about 7 p. m. on account of ante-mortem injuries sustained by him. To the same effect is the statement of P. W. 7 Dr. V. K. Tripathi who had examined the injuries of Indra Mohan Singh PW. To the same effect is the statement of P. W. 7 Dr. V. K. Tripathi who had examined the injuries of Indra Mohan Singh PW. 2 that he could have sustained those injuries on 18-12-1979 at about 7 p. m. There could hardly be any reason for the prosecution to have shifted the time of incident as about 7 p. m. in case it had actually taken place at about 5. 13 p. m. Indeed, the prosecution was not likely to gain any point by so shifting the time of incident. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants laid stress on the fact that the Investigating officer did not find pellets of the injuries of Ram Dulare and Indra Mohan Singh in the Baithaka. He also did not find the second cot in the Baithaka on which P. W. 2 Indra Mohan Singh was allegedly lying after sustaining injuries as per his own statement. It has thus been urged that the incident did not take place in the Baithaka as alleged by the prosecution. The argument does not have any merit. of course, the I. O. Ram Pal Rawat P. W. 6 did not find any pellet at the spot in the Baithaka but it could not be taken to mean that the incident had not taken place in the Baithaka. It is natural that after the incident a number of persons came to the spot before the I. O. prepared the site plan on 19-12-1979. The Baithaka had not been cordoned off. There is also no evidence to the effect as to whether the Baithaka was Kachcha or Pucca. There is nothing unusual if the I. O. could not find tiny sized pellets in the Baithaka which would have come out from the two exit wounds of the deceased and one exit wound of Indra Mohan Singh injured. It is a fact that he did find an empty cartridge near the entrance site in the Baithaka. The place of occurrence as alleged and proved by the prosecution could not be doubted simply because the I. O. could not find the pellets in the Baithaka. It can also not be doubted on that score that the I. O. did not find the second cot in the Baithaka at the time of spot inspection. The place of occurrence as alleged and proved by the prosecution could not be doubted simply because the I. O. could not find the pellets in the Baithaka. It can also not be doubted on that score that the I. O. did not find the second cot in the Baithaka at the time of spot inspection. We find from the statement of the I. O. Ram Pal Rawat PW-6 that Indra Mohan Singh P. W. 2, injured was not present when he had inspected the Baithaka on 19-12-1979, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Indra Mohan Singh PW-2 has stated that he was lying on the cot when the I. O. reached the place of occurrence. On the other hand, the I. O. Ram Pal Rawat, P. W. 6 has stated that he found Indra Mohan Singh, P. W. 2 lying on a gunny bag or Gadda at place b. His statement is that at the time of his inspection only one cot was found there on which the deceased Ram Dulare was found lying dead. It was not specifically asked from the I. O. in his cross-examination as to when in the night he reached the place of occurrence how many cots he found in the Baithaka. His statement is not very specific as to whether the injured was lying on the gunny bag or Gadda. The alleged contradiction regarding the second cot in the statements of P. W. 2 Indra Mohan Singh and P. W. 6 Ram Pal Rawat is of insignificant nature and may be attributed to the lapse of time and consequent failure of memory. It does not go to the root of the matter. The incident took place on 18-12-1979. The evidence of P. W. 2 Indra Mohan Singh was recorded on 9-9-1980 and that of P. W. 6, I. O. Ram Pal Rawat on 12-9-1980. The consistent case of the prosecution as per the evidence of P. W. 2 Indra Mohan Singh and P. W. 3 Sukuri Devi is that there was a second cot in the Baithaka on which P. W. 2 Indra Mohan Singh was studying in the light of a lamp. Indra Mohan Singh, P. W. 2 had sustained injuries and had not died, whereas, the other victim Ram Dulare had died at the spot. Indra Mohan Singh, P. W. 2 had sustained injuries and had not died, whereas, the other victim Ram Dulare had died at the spot. What seems to be likely is that after the incident, the second cot had been removed from the Baithaka to facilitate movements near the deceased. On judicial scrutiny of the evidence and the attending circumstances, the argument is not acceptable that the incident did not take place as alleged by the prosecution. ( 13 ) IT was also argued for the appellants that the incident could have taken place in late hours of night under the cover of darkness by unknown persons when Ram Dulare might have gone out of the Baithaka in the company of Indra Mohan Singh P. W. 2. Such a theory is wholly built on straw. It has come in the evidence of P. W. 1 Bhanu Pratap that Ram Dulare had become lame and he could move only with the aid of a Danda. As per the postmortem report he was aged about 80 years. This being so, there could hardly be any question or possibility of the old man moving about outside the Baithaka under the cover of darkness. There is also no suggestion even remotely to any witness of the prosecution that anyone else bore enmity against Ram Dulare who could have any motive to put end to his life. It is also pertinent to state that the FIR itself had been lodged at the Police Station at 8. 15 p. m. on 18-12-1979. Thus the argument falls to the ground that the incident took place in the late hours of the night. ( 14 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellants doubting the availability of light at the spot owing to non-depiction of the lamp in the site plan prepared by the I. O. is also not sustainable. It is clearly borne out from the testimonial assertions of P. W. 2 Indra Mohan Singh (injured witness) and P. W. 3 Sukuri Devi, that there was the light of a lamp glowing in the Baithaka at the time of the incident. P. W. 2 Indra Mohan Singh was studying in the Baithaka and Ram Dulare had just started taking his dinner which had been brought in a Thali to him by P. W. 3 Sukuri Devi. P. W. 2 Indra Mohan Singh was studying in the Baithaka and Ram Dulare had just started taking his dinner which had been brought in a Thali to him by P. W. 3 Sukuri Devi. Having regard to these activities, the light must have necessarily been there in the Baithaka. Neither Ram Dulare could partake his dinner nor Indra Mohan Singh, P. W. 2 could study in pitched darkness. Otherwise also, the availability of light at that time was quite natural. The incident took place at about 7 p. m. in winter season. No. doubt, darkness had set in by that time, but it was not the time for going to sleep Had the incident taken place in late hours of night, there could be some justification for the argument of the light being not available but that is not the case here. The non-depiction of the lamp in the site plan stands satisfactorily explained by the statement of I. O. Positive prosecution evidence is that in the statement of the injured witness P. W. 2 Indra Mohan Singh that the lamp had been shown to Daroga which he had returned after examining it. P. W. 6 Ram Pal Rawat did prepare a Supurduginama (Ex. Ka-10 ). The same was produced before the Court also as Ex. 7. There is clear statement of the I. O. , P. W. 6 Ram Pal Rawat also that the lamp glowing in the Baithaka at the time of incident was shown to him and he had examined it whereafter it had been returned to the informant. He explained that as the site plan had been prepared the next day, i. e. , 19-12-1979 in day time, it escaped his attention to show in the site plan the spot where the lamp had been pointed out to him as being glowing at the time of the incident. Such slip on the part of the I. O. would not lead to draw any adverse inference against the prosecution case. We, therefore, reject the argument that there was no light at the spot at the time of the incident. ( 15 ) THE next argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is directed against the testimony of P. W. 1 Bhanu Pratap. It has been urged that his evidence could not be believed as an eye witness in respect of the incident. ( 15 ) THE next argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is directed against the testimony of P. W. 1 Bhanu Pratap. It has been urged that his evidence could not be believed as an eye witness in respect of the incident. Our attention has been drawn to the revelation made by PW-2 Indra Mohan Singh in his cross-examination that before scribing the FIR after about five minutes of the incident, his father (Bhanu Pratap) had asked him as to how he sustained injuries and as to who was his assailant. He had also asked him as to where he sustained injuries. The relevant portion of the statement of P. W. 2 Indra Mohan Singh may be extracted below : ( 16 ) ON a careful consideration, we find sufficient force in this argument of learned counsel for the appellants that Bhanu Pratap P. W. 1 was not an eye witness and his testimony as such could not be accepted. It is a different question that he had come to the spot immediately after the incident but the above statement made by the injured witness Indra Mohan Singh, P. W. 3 leaves not the slightest doubt that Bhanu Pratap was not present when the actual incident took place. Had he witnessed the incident himself, there could hardly be any occasion for his interrogating his son Indra Mohan Singh P. W. 2 in respect of vital facts, as contained in the statement of the latter extracted above. At the same time, however, we are of the definite opinion that the prosecution case is not at all adversely affected against the appellants. The reason is that even on ignoring the ocular testimony of Bhanu Pratap P. W. 1, the satisfactory evidence of two eye witnesses, namely, Indra Mohan Singh PW. 2 (injured) and Sukuri Devi, P. W. 3 is there who are the most natural witnesses of the incident. Learned counsel for the appellants has levelled criticism against their evidence also but the same is found to be without any merit as would be indicated in the discussion that follows. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has criticised the testimony of Indra Mohan Singh P. W. 2 on the ground that he could not have sustained injuries in the manner described by him. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has criticised the testimony of Indra Mohan Singh P. W. 2 on the ground that he could not have sustained injuries in the manner described by him. It has been pointed out that his statement is to the effect that he had caught hold of Hari Mohan Singh who had fired on Ram Dulare and it was at that time that Satya Mohan Singh had opened fire on him. He clarified in his cross-examination that he had actually caught hold of the country-made pistol that Hari Mohan Singh was holding in his hand. The testimony of Sukuri Devi P. W. 3 has also been subjected to criticism on the same premise who too made similar statement. It has been submitted that had Satya Mohan Singh fired on Indra Mohan Singh in this manner, then Hari Mohan Singh must have also received some injuries of the shot fired on Indra Mohan Singh. Moreover, if Indra Mohan Singh had caught hold of the country-made pistol of Hari Mohan Singh, Satya Mohan Singh would not have taken the risk of opening fire which could hit Hari Mohan Singh also. This argument does not impress us. It has to be recalled that the two appellants Hari Mohan Singh and Satya Mohan Singh are the real brothers and they had common grudge against the old man Ram Dulare that he was insisting for transferring some land to Smt. Sukuri Devi, to their detriment despite their resistance. Both of them had come with the common intention of cutting short the life of Ram Dulare and it was in furtherance of such common intention of both of them that Hari Mohan Singh had done the job by firing fatal shot on him (Ram Dulare ). It was an instant reaction of P. W. 2, Indra Mohan Singh that he made an attempt to apprehend Hari Mohan Singh and it was at that moment that Satya Mohan Singh fired a shot taking aim on Indra Mohan Singh, P. W. 2, whereby the latter sustained injuries. He did so to ward off the possibility of the apprehension of his brother Hari Mohan Singh at the spot by Indra Mohan Singh. The incident took place all in a trance when he (Satya Mohan Singh) could hardly have occasion to take a leisurely decision. He did so to ward off the possibility of the apprehension of his brother Hari Mohan Singh at the spot by Indra Mohan Singh. The incident took place all in a trance when he (Satya Mohan Singh) could hardly have occasion to take a leisurely decision. He had taken aim on Indra Mohan Singh and there is nothing surprising if his own brother Hari Mohan Singh did not sustain injury of that shot. Judged from the right angle, the argument be accepted that Indra Mohan Singh could not sustain injury in the manner described by him and other witnesses, Sukuri Devi P. W. 3, simply because Hari Mohan Singh had escaped unhurt. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants then urged that there was conflict in ocular testimony and the medical evidence. It has been submitted that the case of the prosecution is that Ram Dulare was taking his meal when Hari Mohan Singh opened fire on him. Reference has been made to the contents of the stomach of Ram Dulare as found at the time of postmortem. As per the postmortem report, the stomach of the deceased contained four ounces of semi digested food. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that food would have been found in the stomach of the deceased if he was taking food when he was murdered. To us, the argument seems to be superfluous. What Indra Mohan Singh P. W. 3 stated is that Ram Dulare had just tore off a morsel when Hari Mohan Singh fired shot on him. In other words, Ram Dulare had just started the process of taking his food when the incident took place. This being so, food could not be found in his stomach. The stomach condition of the deceased as found at the time of postmortem does not at all belie the prosecution case. Rather it is in conformity with the ocular version of Indra Mohan Singh P. W. 2 and Sukuri Devi P. W. 3. Another alleged conflict between the ocular version and medical evidence pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants is that as per P. W. 6. I. O. Ram Pal Rawat, he had found food in the month of the deceased at the time of preparation of Panchayatnama. This fact is mentioned also in the Panchayatnama. Another alleged conflict between the ocular version and medical evidence pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants is that as per P. W. 6. I. O. Ram Pal Rawat, he had found food in the month of the deceased at the time of preparation of Panchayatnama. This fact is mentioned also in the Panchayatnama. It has been urged that there is no mention in the postmortem report of the deceased that there was food in his mouth. We find that no cross examination was directed on this point of Dr. Anand Swarup P. W. 4 who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. It appears that the Doctor did not notice the mouth contents of the deceased as there is no mention regarding the condition of teeth jaw and tongue also in the post-mortem report. Really speaking, it cannot be said that there is any contradiction in the ocular version and post-mortem report on this score. Rather the fact that the I. O. had found the food in the mouth of the deceased at the time of Panchayatnama conforms with the ocular version. Ram Dulare deceased had just started partaking food and might have put first bite in his mouth when he was shot dead. Far from there being any conflict between the ocular version and medical evidence, they are in complete harmony. As per the ocular version, in all two shots had been fired. The first shot had been fired by Hari Mohan Singh on Ram Dulare which caused fatal injuries to him and the second one was fired by Satya Mohan Singh on Indra Mohan Singh. P. W. 2, who sustained injuries thereby. P. W. 4 Anand Swarup has clearly stated that the ante-mortem injuries found on the person of the deceased could have been the result of one shot in the posture of his sitting with his left leg bending backward and the right leg hanging down. Similarly, the injury of Indra Mohan Singh, P. W. 2 was also the result of one shot as is clear from his injury report Ex. Ka. 16 proved by P. W. 7 Dr. V. K. Tripathi who had medically examined him. ( 19 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has then complained of the absence of other independent witness. We are of the opinion that the appellants cannot gain any point by raising such an argument. Ka. 16 proved by P. W. 7 Dr. V. K. Tripathi who had medically examined him. ( 19 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has then complained of the absence of other independent witness. We are of the opinion that the appellants cannot gain any point by raising such an argument. No other witness was named in the FIR. Of course, other person could have come at the spot after the incident, but they could not be termed as eye witness of the incident. It was not at all necessary for the prosecution to have multiplied the evidence or to have manufactured fictitious eye witness. The incident took place inside Baithaka of the deceased and Indra Mohan Singh P. W. 2 and Sukuri Devi P. W. 3 are the most natural witnesses of the incident. Indra Mohan Singh P. W. 2 is an injured of the felony and his presence at the spot is beyond doubt. Smt Sukuri Devi P. W. 3 is also a natural witness of the incident as she had brought food for the deceased which he had just started partaking when she herself had sat down to warm herself at the Kaura in the Baithaka itself. It was very natural that she waited till Ram Dulare was to finish his dinner as he could require something else or more to eat. It is also significant to point out that she is equally related to both the sides. There is nothing to presume that she was thick with the prosecution side and could be prompted to give evidence against the appellants falsely. ( 20 ) IN view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that both the appellants, namely, Hari Mohan Singh and Satya Mohan Singh are guilty of the offences for which they have rightly been convicted and sentenced by the Court below. The sentences passed against them also do not call for any interference. We accordingly, dismiss the appeal. The appellants are on the bail. They shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentences passed against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Appeal dismissed.