M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) - The appellant Hari Prasad has been convicted by Sri V. P. Mathur the then Sessions Judge, Fatehpur by the judgement dated 16-6-1980 passed in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 1980 under S. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved, he has preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) ONE Kalloo Lodh was murdered in this incident on 18-10-1979 at about 8 P. M. in village Khargupur Vargala within P. S. Sultanpur Ghosh, district Fatehpur. The prosecution story was that in front of the house of the accused and Chhote Lal there was some open land lying in the form of Parti. At one time it was under the cultivation of the accused but during the consolidation proceedings, the accused was allo-tted another land and this Parti land came to be owned by the Gaon Samaj. The deceased Kalloo and his family members started using this land for keeping their cow dung cakes and it was disliked by the accused. On two occasions prior to the occurrence, he had objected to it but to no effect. The deceased Kalloo Lodh used to work as a labour on a road under construction near Hathgaon and used to return from there at about 7. 30 P. M. on 18-10-1979, in the morning at about 10 or 11 A. M. the accused again broke down the fresh cow dung cakes prepared by the wife of the deceased. Kishun Lal P. W. 2 who is the son of the deceased was present at that time. He protested but the accused did not pay any heed. When Kalloo Lodh returned from his work at about 7. 30 P. M. , his wife and son Kishun Lal P. W. 2 immediately complained to him about the high-handedness of the accused in damaging their cow dung cakes. Kalloo immediately proceeded towards the house of the accused to remonstrate. Kishun Lal P. W. 2 accompanied his father. Both of them reached the door of the house of the accused who was found present there. When Kalloo lodged his protest the accused immediately got infuriated and started hurling abuses on Kalloo. Kalloo asked the accused not to abuse him. He and his son Kishun Lal P. W. 2 withdrew from the door of the accused and came near the well in front of the house of Chhote Lal. When Kalloo lodged his protest the accused immediately got infuriated and started hurling abuses on Kalloo. Kalloo asked the accused not to abuse him. He and his son Kishun Lal P. W. 2 withdrew from the door of the accused and came near the well in front of the house of Chhote Lal. The accused followed him with his gun hurling abuses and he fired on Kalloo from close range. The shot proved to be fatal and Kalloo died then and there. The occurrence was witnessed by a number of witnesses, including Hira Lal P. W. 3, Shiv Narain, P. W. 4 and others besides Kishun Lal P. W. 2 himself who was in the company of his father. The dead body was brought by Kishun Lal, P. W. 2 to his door with the help of the witnesses. He got the FIR scribed by Naresh Bahadur Singh, P. W. 5 and went to the police station where the same was lodged at 11. 30 P. M. Chick was prepared and by means of entry in G. D. a case under S. 302 I. P. C. was registered against the accused. The investigation was taken up as usual. S. I. Umrao Singh was present at the Police Station. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence. Panchayatnama etc. had been prepared by him on 19-10-79 in the morning. The investigation was handed over to and conducted by S. S. I Shiromani Singh Chauhan, P. W. 7. He too reached the spot at about 8 A. M. on 19-10-1979. The dead body was sent for post-mortem through Constables. Post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. J. S. Rai, P. W. 1 on 20-10-1979 at 11 A. M. The following ante-mortem injury was found on the person of the deceased : Gunshot wound of entry 1-3/4" x 1-1/2" x cavity deep with margins inverted and lacerated. Blackening and tattooing was present. This injury was in front of the abdomen on the left side 3/4" at 2 O clock position to the umbilicus. The direction was from left to right and downwards and backwards. One wadding piece and 52 small shots (pellets) were recovered from the body and sealed and handed over to the constable. The stomach was lacerated and empty. The small intestine was also lacerated and empty. The large intestine was lacerated and full of faecal matter. The direction was from left to right and downwards and backwards. One wadding piece and 52 small shots (pellets) were recovered from the body and sealed and handed over to the constable. The stomach was lacerated and empty. The small intestine was also lacerated and empty. The large intestine was lacerated and full of faecal matter. ( 3 ) THE deceased was about 40 years of age and about 1-1/2 days had passed since he died. Death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. ( 4 ) AT the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses out of whom Kishun Lal P. W. 2, Hira Lal P. W. 3 and Siv Narain P. W. 4 were examined as eye witnesses. The accused denied his guilt and pleaded false implication at the instance of one Raj Narain, Ex Zamindar. He also examined Shiv Parsan Lekhpal as D. W. 1 ( 5 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case and the evidence. He accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant. He is now in appeal before this Court. ( 6 ) IT has first been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that there was no source of light at the time of the alleged incident. He tried to support his contention by the fact that source of light is not mentioned in the FIR itself. It has also been pointed out that S. I. Umrao Singh, P. W. 6 did not prepare Panchayatnama in the night and as per his testimony before the Court he could not conduct any proceedings in the night itself because of non-availability of light. The argument does not appeal to us at all. It is significant to point out that the accused, deceased and the witnesses were the residents of the same village who knew each other from before. The incident had a background also that in day time, the accused had damaged the cow dung cakes prepared by the wife of the deceased and when he (deceased) had returned from the work in the evening at about 7. 30 P. M. his wife and son had complained to it in that behalf and he had immediately proceeded with his son to the house of the accused to lodge his protest. 30 P. M. his wife and son had complained to it in that behalf and he had immediately proceeded with his son to the house of the accused to lodge his protest. There had been altercation between the deceased and the accused at the door of the latter and the accused had picked up his hanging on the peg at his door. Hurling abuses, he had followed the deceased up to the well who had retreated there and was protesting against his doing so. It was in this way that the accused had opened fire on the deceased near the well where the deceased had stood. It was not the time of late hours of night or midnight. It was natural that light was there and the fact cannot be ignored, as said above, that the accused, deceased and witnesses belonged to the same village and knew each other very well from before. So far as the non-mention of the source of light in the FIR is concerned, suffice it to say that it is not the encyclopaedia of every minute detail. Rather the absence of mention of the source of light in the FIR indicates that it was a spontaneous document. The non-preparation of Panchyatnama etc. by Umrao Singh. P. W. 6 in the night itself stands very well explained in his testimony. He had reached the spot at about 1 O clock in the night. Indeed, he was required to closely examine the dead body to prepare Panchyat-nama. The presence of the Panchas was also to be procured. There is nothing unusual if he postponed these proceedings till natural light was available the following morning. It cannot lend support to the argument that no light was available at the spot at the time of occurrence. ( 7 ) ANOTHER line of argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that it was a shoot and run case; that the incident did not occur at the time and place as alleged by the prosecution; that as per the post-mortem report large intestine of the deceased was found full of faecal matter which was indicative of the fact that the incident took have been lodged at the concerned Police Station at 11. 30 P. M. whereas the statement of Kishun Lal, P. W. 2 is that he had started from the village to lodge the FIR at about 11. 30 P. M. whereas the statement of Kishun Lal, P. W. 2 is that he had started from the village to lodge the FIR at about 11. 30 P. M. In the inquest report Ex. Ka. 3 it has not been written against the relevant column as to at what time the preparation of inquest report ended. The dead body was received by the Doctor on 19-10-1979 at about 6. 30 P. M. and the papers were received still on the following day on 20-10-1980 at 9. 30 A. M. As per the statement of Dr. J. S. Rai, P. W. 1 the shot must have been fired within a distance of 3 ft but it could not be so as per the testimony of the eye witnesses. ( 8 ) WE propose to examine the worth of the above reasoning suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 9 ) THE distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was about nine kilometres as mentioned in the Chik FIR. The statement of Kishun Lal P. W. 2 is also to the effect that the distance from the Police Station from the village was about 4-5 Kos and that distance had been covered on foot. The distance described by him also comes to about nine kilometres. However, it is not possible to infer from the statement of Kishun Lal P. W. 2 that he reached the Police Station in the morning and the report was ante-timed. It is pertinent to observe that he is a rustic villager who can hardly make out his signatures. The time of his having started from the village to the Police Station at about 11. 30 P. M. has been given by him only by approximation. For a man of rural background like him, time is hardly the essence of life. The statement of S. I. Umrao Singh, P. W. 6 is also there that he had reached the spot at 1 O clock in the night itself. The incident took place at about 8 P. M. and it was after getting scribed report by Naresh Bahadur Singh, P. W. 5 that Kishun Lal P. W. 2 had started for the Police Station to lodge the FIR. The distance of about 9 Km. could very well be covered on foot within about two hours. The incident took place at about 8 P. M. and it was after getting scribed report by Naresh Bahadur Singh, P. W. 5 that Kishun Lal P. W. 2 had started for the Police Station to lodge the FIR. The distance of about 9 Km. could very well be covered on foot within about two hours. It sounds natural that he had reached the Police Station at about 11. 30 P. M. at which time the report was lodged there. So, the statement of Kishun Lal, P. W. 2, who is a rustic villager that he had started for the Police Station from the village at about 11. 30 P. M. cannot lead to the inference that the report had not been lodged at 11. 30 P. M. His statement in this behalf has to be taken logically having regard to his rural background. ( 10 ) SO far as the inquest report is concerned, what is written against the column meant for mentioning the time of concluding the preparation of inquest report (Panchayatnama) is "taftish Jari Hai". We are of the opinion that this endorsement also does not adversely affect the prosecution case. The preparation of the inquest report had been started at 6. 30 A. M. on 19-10-1979 by S. I. Umrao Singh, P. W. 6 who was not the investigating Officer of the case. It has also come in his evidence that he was present at the time of lodging of the FIR and had proceeded to the spot for preparation of Panchayatnama and for the safety of the dead body. It has been explained by him that for want of adequate light, he could not conduct any proceedings in the night itself. It has also come in the testimony of H. C. Deo Shanker Singh, P. W. 8 that Umrao Singh, P. W. 6 was a new Sub-inspector meaning thereby that he was an inexperienced hand. He was not actually entrusted with the investigation of the case. The investigating Officer was S. S. I Shiromani Singh Chauhan, P. W. 7. Having regard to these facts, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution case by the mere fact that S. I. Umrao Singh, P. W. 6 did not mention the time of concluding the preparation of inquest report against the relevant column and only wrote the words "taftish Jari Hai". Having regard to these facts, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution case by the mere fact that S. I. Umrao Singh, P. W. 6 did not mention the time of concluding the preparation of inquest report against the relevant column and only wrote the words "taftish Jari Hai". The defence does not get any point harping on this aspect of the matter. ( 11 ) SO far as the date and time of receipt of the dead body and the papers at the end of the Doctor are concerned, it is pertinent to observe that the same had been taken by Constable Hari Ram with Constable Jalesar from the spot on 19-10-1979. It was also he who had identified the dead body before the Doctor. He filed an affidavit in this behalf in the lower Court on 7-5-1980. The defence chose not to cross-examine him to elicit as to what was the distance of Civil Hospital from the spot and as to by what mode the dead body had been carried by him. There could be valid reasons for the presentation of the dead body before the Doctor on 19-10-1979 at 6. 30 P. M. and the papers on 20-10-1979 at 9. 30 A. M. No adverse inference can possibly be drawn against the prosecution case on this score, Nobody, and for that matter the prosecution, can be taken by surprise by drawing adverse inference in respect of a fact without affording an opportunity to explain the same. Even no cross-examination on this aspect of the matter was directed of Dr. J. S. Rai, P. W. 1 also. The post-mortem had been conducted by him on 20-10-1979 at 11 A. M. May be that he himself asked the Constables accompanying the dead body to hand over the papers to him at the time of the post-mortem. ( 12 ) THE presence of faecal matter in the large intestine of the deceased is also not suggestive of the fact that the incident took place late in the night or in the early hours of 19-10-1979. The presence of faecal matter in the large intestine of the deceased is satisfactorily explained by Kishun Lal, P. W. 2 who is the son of the deceased. He stated that in those days his father was working as a labourer for the construction of a road. The presence of faecal matter in the large intestine of the deceased is satisfactorily explained by Kishun Lal, P. W. 2 who is the son of the deceased. He stated that in those days his father was working as a labourer for the construction of a road. He used to leave the house in the morning and return at about 7. 30 P. M. It was his habit that he used to go to ease himself after returning from his work but on the day of incident, he and his mother had informed him of the days incident of the damage caused by the accused to their dung cakes and he had immediately proceeded to the door of the accused to remonstrate in this behalf. In other words, the deceased had not been able to ease himself before the incident occurred, indeed, the food taken by him in the morning or in day time would have converted into faecal matter which was found present in his large intestine at the time of post-mortem. It is also found that the suggestion of defence to Kishun Lal, P. W. 2 in his cross-examination was that his father was shot dead when he had gone to ease himself in the night. The point that we wish to emphasise is that the deceased had not eased himself by the time the occurrence took place. Of course, satisfactory and convincing oral evidence is there that the incident took place at about 8 P. M. on the spot alleged by the prosecution and the deceased was shot dead by the accused-appellant. To come to the point, the presence of faecal matter in the large intestine of the deceased is not indicative of the fact that the incident took place in the late hours of the night or in the early hours of 19-10-1979. ( 13 ) NOW comes the question of distance wherefrom the shot had been fired. The statement of Dr. J. S. Rai, P. W. 1 is there that the shot must have been fired from within a distance of three ft. The reason is obvious that blackening and tattooing was present around the gun shot wound of entry found on the person of the deceased. Moreover, one wadding piece and 52 small pellets had also been recovered from the body of the deceased. The reason is obvious that blackening and tattooing was present around the gun shot wound of entry found on the person of the deceased. Moreover, one wadding piece and 52 small pellets had also been recovered from the body of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Kishun Lal, P. W. 2 has stated in paragraph 6 of his cross-examination that the shot had been fired by the accused from a distance of about 10-12 hands from his door. Reference has also been made to the testimony of Hira Lal, P. W. 3 who stated that the accused had opened fire covering a distance of about 2-3 paces from his door. It has been stated that in the site plan prepared by the investigating Officer, the deceased received the shot at point shown by letter A and the same had been fired by the accused from point c. The distance between points a and c has been mentioned as 8 paces. The door of the accused is shown by letter d and distance between cand d is shown as 32 paces. It has been urged that having regard to such distances and the statements of witnesses the shot in question could not have been received by the deceased, which was a close range shot, from a distance of within three ft. This argument, to our mind, proceeds from an artificial angle. What is important to note is that the incident started with the going of the deceased with his son Kishun Lal, P. W. 2 to the door of the accused to remonstrate against the action of the la-tter of damaging their dung cakes in the day. The undisplaced testimony of the eye witness namely Kishun Lal, P. W. 2 is that the accused took ill of the objection raised by the deceased and started hurling abuses. He had his gun hanging at the peg of his door. The deceased and this witness retraced a little and reached near the well where both of them stood. The accused followed them with his gun and exchange of hot words continued between the two. Naturally, when the deceased was asking the accused not to abuse him, he was facing him near the well. Reaching there, the accused opened shot from close range. The accused followed them with his gun and exchange of hot words continued between the two. Naturally, when the deceased was asking the accused not to abuse him, he was facing him near the well. Reaching there, the accused opened shot from close range. It is established by the testimony of Hira Lal, P. W. 3 also that exchange of hot words had taken place between the deceased and the accused in the north of the well. There was never a lull or truce between the accused and the deceased right from the start of the incident. The whole episode formed a continuous chain that the deceased with his son went to the door of the accused to remonstrate; that the later started hurling abuses, that the deceased with his son retraced and reached near well and stood there; that the accused with his gun followed him hurling abuses; that the deceased continued to ask the accused to desist from mounting abuses who, reaching near the well, opened shot on the deceased from close range. It is also worthy to point out that the distances have been given by the witnesses Kishun Lal, P. W. 2 and Hira Lal, P. W. 3 by approximation. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination as to what was the actual distance in ft. and inches between the deceased and the accused at the time of shooting. Indeed, truthful witnesses cannot be expected to give distance with exactitude as if the same had been measured by a measuring tape. The perception and description of a thing differs from man to man. It depends on ones calibre, mental status, standard of intelligence and other like factors. Kishun Lal, P. W. 2 and Hira Lal, P. W. 3 both are the persons of rural background who can make out their signatures. The Apex Court has held in the case of State of U. P. v. Sughar Singh AIR 1978 SC 191 (1978 ALL. L. J. 466 : 1978 Cri LJ 141) that when direct evidence of witness is available, inconsistency relating to distances from which gun shots were fired between evidence of medical expert and eye witness is of no significance whatsoever. So what is required is that the eye witness account must substantially tally with the medical evidence on record. L. J. 466 : 1978 Cri LJ 141) that when direct evidence of witness is available, inconsistency relating to distances from which gun shots were fired between evidence of medical expert and eye witness is of no significance whatsoever. So what is required is that the eye witness account must substantially tally with the medical evidence on record. In the present case, the eye witness account substantially tallies with the medical evidence on record that a single shot had been fired by the accused-appellant on the deceased near the well where the deceased had reached and stood asking the accused not to hurl abuses and where the accused had followed him with his gun. Nothing adverse to the prosecution case could be elicited from the eye witnesses in their cross-examination. ( 14 ) THE removal of the dead body from the spot to the door of the deceased before the arrival of the Investigating Officer and inspection of spot by him also does not cast any cloud on the prosecution case. It cannot be ground to doubt the spot where the incident took place. The prosecution case is not affected adversely if, out of respect to the dead body, his son brought it to his door with the help of others. As a matter of fact, the place of occurrence cannot be doubted even as per the own defence suggestion made to S. I. Umrao Singh, P. W. 6 in his cross-examination. The suggestion made to the witness was that blood was found by the side of the road where the Charhi of the deceased was situated. The testimony of the Sub-Inspector is that he recovered blood from near the well at a distance of about 4-5 paces in east-northern side. The Charhi is just in the eastern side of the well at a few paces. Naturally, the blood would have fallen at the place where the deceased had fallen down after receiving the fatal shot. It is also worthy of notice that S. I. Umrao Singh, P. W. 6 had recovered an empty cartridge also at a distance of 5-6 paces from the well towards west-northern side. The same is shown by letter c in the site plan. The recovery of the empty cartridge and blood from the spot substantially conforms to the prosecution version that the incident had taken place just close to the well. The same is shown by letter c in the site plan. The recovery of the empty cartridge and blood from the spot substantially conforms to the prosecution version that the incident had taken place just close to the well. We may also point out that there is no doubt about it being the place of occurrence even as per the testimony of Shiv Narain, P. W. 4 though he was declared hostile by the prosecution. His version is that on hearing the sound of firing, he had gone near the well and had found the accused present there with gun and Kalloo lying injured near the well. The time has been described by him as about 7 P. M. when he was sitting at the door of his house. In the site plan his house is shown just across the road in the eastern side of the well. We have related his version just as a passing reference. The clinching evidence to prove the guilt of the accused is otherwise already there in the form of testimonial assertions of Kishun Lal P. W. 2 and Hira Lal, P. W. 3 who are the most natural witnesses of the incident and wholly reliable. Kishun Lal, P. W. 2 was with his father when he died. It matters not that he is the son of the deceased. Nothing could come out to displace his testimony despite searching cross-examination. Hira Lal, P. W. 3 has given plausible explanation for his presence at the spot that he was sitting at his door when the accused and the deceased were exchanging hot words near the well. He had come up from his house situated at a distance of about ten paces from the well. Gopals house is shown in the site plan. He has described that door of Gopal is only at a distance 1-1/2 paces from his house. Thus he also sounds to be a natural witness of the incident and his testimony has the ring of truth because accused-appellant could not impute any reason against him which he could have prompted him to tender false evidence against him. His name is entered as an eye witness in the FIR also. ( 15 ) WE also think it proper to observe that the theory of false implication put forth by the accused-appellant does not deserve a moments attention. His name is entered as an eye witness in the FIR also. ( 15 ) WE also think it proper to observe that the theory of false implication put forth by the accused-appellant does not deserve a moments attention. It is a case of single accused and single deceased. When more than one persons are implicated in a case, chances of false implication of some of them may be there because the complainant or the witnesses may avail of that opportunity to wreak vengeance against some of their enemies by falsely implicating them. But in a case of a single accused such chances of false implication are negligible. It is wholly unnatural that the complainant would let go the real culprit and would substitute someone else for him falsely without any reason. Shiv Parsan Lekhpal, D. W. 1 has been produced as defence witness. We have carefully examined his evidence but it does not help the accused in his attempt of proving false implication at the instance of Raj Narain Ex-Zamindar. What he has stated is that there was no land recorded either in the name of the accused appellant Hari Prasad or his father Mahesh Prasad. ( 16 ) WE have dealt with above all the arguments and the reasoning urged by learned counsel for the appellant and we do not find any merit therein. There is convincing, satisfactory and clinching ocular testimony to prove the guilt of the accused which is corroborated by the medical evidence. The appellant intentionally committed the murder of Kalloo and he has rightly been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. ( 17 ) FOR the reasons stated above we dismiss the appeal. The appellant Hari Prasad is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment passed against him under S. 302 I. P. C. by learned Session Judge, Fatehpur on 16th of June 1980 in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 1980. Appeal dismissed.