Judgment M.L.Visa and S.K.Katriar JJ. 1. This appeal by the sole appellant Sambhoo Paswan is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.9.1993 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Case No. 217 of 1992 convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) and R.I. for 2 years under section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences have however been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 11.3.92 at about 5 P.M. informant Anil Choudhary, who is dead now, was sitting at the betel shop of one Udgar Choudhary situate in front of Chandpura High School at village Chandpura, P.S. Nima Chandpura, District Begusarai. Appellant came there and asked the deceased-informant that he was trying to become a hero. The deceased-informant denied this allegation and in turn levelled the same allegation against the appellant. On this, altercation took place between the deceased-informant and the appellant. Thereafter the appellant took out a pistol from his waist and with an intention to commit murder of the deceased informant fired at him causing bleeding injury on the left side of his chest. The deceased-informant after getting down from the betel shop caught hold of appellant and the appellant then again fired from his pistol but this time the shot missed and then the appellant assaulted the deceased informant on his head by the butt of pistol causing another bleeding injury. The deceased informant raised hulla on which neighbouring persons assembled there and the appellant then fled away towards west. The fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of deceased- informant was recorded on the same day at 5.40 P.M. at the place of occurrence by Rajendra Singh (PW 8) who at that time was posted as Officer-in-Charge at Nima Chandpura Police Station and who on receipt of information that there was a firing near Chandpura High School had reached the place of occurrence after recording the information in the Station Diary as Entry No. 168 dated 11.3.1992. About the motive of the occurrence the deceased-informant in his fardbeyan (Ext.2) stated that he had previous enmity with the appellant. On the basis of fardbeyan, a case under section 307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the appellant. About the motive of the occurrence the deceased-informant in his fardbeyan (Ext.2) stated that he had previous enmity with the appellant. On the basis of fardbeyan, a case under section 307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the appellant. Subsequently on 23.3.92 deceased- informant succumbed to injuries in the hospital and section 302 IPC was added to the FIR. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellant under sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The case of the appellant before the court below as it appears from the trend of cross examination of prosecution witnesses was complete denial of charges and his false implication in this case. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. Rameshwar Choudhary (PW 1) has stated that he had heard that appellant had committed murder of deceased informant Anil Choudhary but he did not see any occurrence. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Dinesh Sahni (PW 2), Jagdish Sah (PW 3), Bipin Choudhary (PW 4) and Ram Ishwar Choudhary (PW 7) are said to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Yaduni Choudhary (PW 6) has been tendered. Ashok Kumar Jha (PW 5) is the doctor who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased-informant. Ashok Kumar Sharma (PW 9) is the doctor who on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 11.3.92, examined the deceased informant when he was in injured condition. Rajendra Singh (PW 8) is the I.O. of the case. Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma (PW 9), in his evidence, has stated that on 11.3.92 he was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai, and on that day at about 7.05 P.M. he examined the deceased-informant and found the following injury on his person : (i) Entry wound 1/4" in diameter on left side at the level of 8th inter costal rib fracturing the rib and the left lung was torn. Abdomen was disturbed. According to him, this injury was caused within 12 hours from the time of examination and the injury was grievous in nature and it was caused by "gun shot injury such as pistol". He has proved the injury report which is marked Ext.4. 5. Dr. Abdomen was disturbed. According to him, this injury was caused within 12 hours from the time of examination and the injury was grievous in nature and it was caused by "gun shot injury such as pistol". He has proved the injury report which is marked Ext.4. 5. Dr. Ashok Kumar Jha (PW 5), in his evidence, has said that on 23.3.92 he was posted in Sadar Hospital, Begusarai and on that day at 6 P.M. he conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased-informant and found the following ante mortem injuries on his person : (i) Stitched wound over centre of abdomen (9 number of stitches). These were operative wounds. On dissection there was pus behind the stitches. (ii) One chest drainage tube (medical aid) on left side of lower chest. Anteriorly there was fracture of 7th and 8th left ribs. On dissection left lung was torn and collapsed. The torn was 2" x 2" in size. Chest cavity was filled with altered blood. (iii) There was one opening in the chest posteriorly on left side. (iv) Stomach at one place was repaired. Rigor mortis was present and the death was due to shock and septicaemia produced by above injuries. Time since death was within 18 hours. He has further stated that Injury no.(iii) and part of Injury no.(ii) may be caused by fire arm. He has proved the post mortem examination report (Ext.1). 6 From the evidence of PW 5 and PW 9 it is established that the deceased-informant had received injury on the left side of his chest which was caused by fire arm and which ultimately resulted into his death. So the evidence of these witnesses prove that the death of deceased was homicidal. The time of injury as given by PW 9 in his evidence corresponds to the time of occurrence as given by the prosecution. 7. Dinesh Sahni (PW 2) has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 5 P.M. he had gone to the betel shop of Udgar Choudhary for taking betel where he found the deceased informant sitting there. The appellant came there and after abusing in filthy language asked him that he (deceased) was doing rangdari. The deceased denied the charge and levelled the same against the appellant. The appellant came there and after abusing in filthy language asked him that he (deceased) was doing rangdari. The deceased denied the charge and levelled the same against the appellant. The appellant then pulled up a pistol from his waist and fired at the deceased causing injury on the left side of his chest. The deceased even after receiving the injury caught hold of appellant but the appellant then assaulted the deceased on his head by the butt of pistol and the deceased became unconscious. According to him, the deceased was taken to hospital where he subsequently died. 8. Jagdish Sah (PW 3), in his evidence, has stated that at the time of occurrence at 5 P.M. he had gone to the shop of one Sahdeo Choudhary for purchasing wire and nail and when he reached the road he found the deceased sitting at the betel shop of Udgar Choudhary and thereafter the appellant came there from the northern side and he had some talks with the deceased and thereafter the appellant took out a pistol from his waist and fired at the left side on the chest of the deceased causing bleeding injury. He then raising alarm fled away towards his house. He has further stated that after about 12-13 days the deceased died in the hospital. 9. Bipin Choudhary (PW 4), in his evidence, has stated that at the time of occurrence he was in his flour mill from where he saw the deceased sitting at the betel shop of one Santosh Choudhary and appellant came there from the northern side and shot at the deceased. The deceased thereafter caught hold of appellant but he fell down after some distance and the appellant assaulted him again by the butt of pistol on his head and appellant was released by the deceased and he thereafter fled away. This witness also after closing his shop fled away from there. 10. The deceased thereafter caught hold of appellant but he fell down after some distance and the appellant assaulted him again by the butt of pistol on his head and appellant was released by the deceased and he thereafter fled away. This witness also after closing his shop fled away from there. 10. Ram Ishwar Choudhary (PW 7), in his evidence, has stated that at the time of occurrence he was in his shop when he heard the sound of firing from a pistol and when he came out from his shop he found the deceased holding the left side of his chest in injured condition and the appellant and deceased both were scuffling in front of his shop and thereafter the appellant assaulted the deceased on his head by the butt of pistol and thereafter the deceased fell down and the appellant fled away. According to him, the deceased was taken to the police station and from there to hospital and after 12-13 days the deceased died. 11. Rajendra Singh (PW 8), the I.O. of the case, has stated that on 11.3.92 he was posted as Officer-in-charge of Nim Chandpura Police Station and on that day at about 5.30 P.M. he heard rumours that a firing had taken place near Chandpura High School and he then entered this information in the Station Diary as Entry No.168 dated 11.3.92 and proceeded to the place of occurrence where he reached at 5.40 P.M. After recording the fardbeyan he read over it to the deceased-informant who put his signature in his presence on the fardbeyan. This witness has proved the fardbeyan which is marked Ext.2. He has further stated that on inspection of the body of the deceased informant he found two injuries on his person-one on the left side of the chest which was bleeding injury caused by fire arm and another on the head of deceased informant which was also bleeding but that was lacerated. He prepared the injury certificate and sent the injured to hospital for treatment. He has further stated that he inspected the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of witnesses and submitted chargesheet. About the information of death of deceased informant he has said that he had received the fardbeyan of one Shivnandan Choudhary from town police station. He has proved this fardbeyan which is marked Ext.3. He has further stated that he inspected the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of witnesses and submitted chargesheet. About the information of death of deceased informant he has said that he had received the fardbeyan of one Shivnandan Choudhary from town police station. He has proved this fardbeyan which is marked Ext.3. In cross examination he has said that he found blood stains at the place of occurrence but he did not seize the blood stained earth. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that PW 2, in his cross examination, has said that on hulla about 200 persons had assembled at the place of occurrence but the prosecution did not examine any one of them. The prosecution in this case has examined PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 7 who all are either residents or shop keepers of the same village where the place of occurrence is situated. Under these circumstances, it was not necessary for the prosecution to examine all those 200 persons who had assembled at the place of occurrence. It has been further argued on behalf of the appellant that PW 9, the doctor, who had examined the deceased-informant on the date of occurrence did not find any injury on his head because he has stated that he found only one injury which was on the left side of the chest of the deceased informant. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant this falsifies the case of the prosecution that appellant had assaulted the deceased on his head also by the butt of pistol. it is true that PW 9 has not stated that he found any injury on the head of the deceased but then PW 8 who is the I.O. has clearly stated that when he reached the place of occurrence he found the deceased-informant in an injured condition having two injuries, one on left side of chest and another on his head. It is also true that the injury certificate which was prepared by the I.O. on the date of the occurrence has not been brought on record but then the injury on the head has not been attributed to be the cause of death of deceased-informant. The injury was inflicted on the left side of the chest by firing from pistol had resulted in to the death of the deceased-informant. The injury was inflicted on the left side of the chest by firing from pistol had resulted in to the death of the deceased-informant. So far the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution on this point is concerned, we find that the prosecution witnesses have consistently submitted that it was the appellant who had fired from his pistol causing injury on the left side of the chest of the deceased-informant. The medical evidence further supports the case of the prosecution that injury inflicted on the left chest of deceased-informant subsequently resulted into death. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it stands even then charge under section 302 IPC is not attracted because admittedly the appellant is said to have inflicted only one fire arm injury and the deceased died after 12-13 days. We are unable to accept this argument because injury caused to the deceased was injury by a fire arm and it was inflicted on the chest of the deceased which ultimately resulted into his death. Under these circumstances, the appellant cannot escape the liability of committing murder of the deceased. 13. Considering the entire evidence on record, we find that apart from the fardbeyan (Ext.2) which has now taken the form of a dying declaration, the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have full supported the case of the prosecution which also further finds support from the medical evidence. We, therefore, find that the trial court has rightly held the appellant guilty under sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and in this view of the matter the conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the appellant does not warrant any interference from this Court. 14. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the court below convicting and sentencing the appellant is hereby confirmed.