Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Shri R.R.Verma, Vth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T.No.35/90 by which the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, convicted the appellant, Mahiruddin Ansari u/ss 307 & 302/34 IPC, Sahiruddin Ansari and Qayum Ansari u/s 302/34/109 IPC and the appellant, Fakruddin Ansari u/s 302 IPC and all of the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and the appellant, Mahiruddin Ansari was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years u/s 307 IPC. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The short facts giving rise to this prosecution case as alleged that on 26.4.1989 at about 8 a.m. one Sheikh Hamid Khan was going to give SiIot & Lodha to his relative. When he reached near the informant Sheikh Nizams Ban, Sheikh Hamid Khan asked from Fakhruddin Ansari, Mahiruddin Ansari, Saharuddin Ansari and Qayum Ansari as to why they had tied his bullock day before yesterday when there was no crop or vegitable in the bari, due to which there was an altercation and thereafter the appellant, Saharuddin Ansari ordered to catch Sheikh Hamid and to kill him but Hamid Khan threw Silot & Lodha and started fleeing away crying JAAN BACHAO - JAAN BACHAO. The informant was present near his Bari and his father Sheikh Azam Ali was going to take meal after plucking vegitables. The Informant, Sheikh Nizam reached near Datma Mosque and saw Fakhruddin Ansari having one S.B.B.L. gun and Mahiruddin Ansari was holding licensed D.B.B.L gun of Sahiruddin Ansari whereas Sahiruddin Ansari and Qayum Ansari went towards the south from his house. But the father of Informant reached in front of them and Hamid also reached in front of those persons. Thereafter, Sahiruddin Ansari ordered Qayum Ansari to kill them by fire arms, on which Fakhruddin Ansari fired from his S.B.B.L. gun at the father of the informant causing injury on his chest, neck and face, as a result of which informants father fell down and died instantaneously. Mahiruddin Ansari, who was holding D.B.B.L. gun at the relevant time also fired at Hamid Khan causing grievous injury on his face and Hamid also fell down. On halla of the informant, Mustaque Khan, Guljar Khan and lslam Khan came there and thereafter again Mahiruddin Ansari fired from his D.B.B.L. gun on them causing injury. Mahiruddin Ansari, who was holding D.B.B.L. gun at the relevant time also fired at Hamid Khan causing grievous injury on his face and Hamid also fell down. On halla of the informant, Mustaque Khan, Guljar Khan and lslam Khan came there and thereafter again Mahiruddin Ansari fired from his D.B.B.L. gun on them causing injury. The villagers also reached to the spot on Haifa and saw the occurrence. Thereafter the accused persons fled away. Accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged against all the appellants for the offences u/ss 302, 307, 324/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act. The police investigated into the case and submitted chargesheet against all the appellants. After the committment, all the accused persons appeared before the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and the charges for the offences u/ss 302/109, 302/34 and 307 IPC were framed, which was denied by the appellants. 3. The defence case as claimed is that they have been falsely implicated in this case out of enmity and the whole occurrence has been concocted afterthought, as there was no occurrence that took place in the manner as alleged. 4. The prosecution as well as defence adduced evidences and after considering the evidences on record, the learned lower court convicted and sentenced the appellants under the offences as mentioned hereinabove. 5. On being dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court, the appellants preferred this appeal on the ground that the lower court has committed error in convicting the appellants without weighing the evidences on record properly as there was no independent witness and the I.O. did not find blood stain at the place of occurrence as well as the fire shot as alleged cannot be effected from the distance where the appellants said to be present at the relevant time, which is beyond the range of effective firing. There is no doubt that the prosecution has to establish the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 6. There is no dispute that death of Ajam Ali was homicidal caused by fire arm injury. There is also no dispute as regards to the injury caused to Hamid Khan, Mustaque Khan, Guljar Khan and lslam Khan by fire arm. There is no doubt that the prosecution has to establish the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 6. There is no dispute that death of Ajam Ali was homicidal caused by fire arm injury. There is also no dispute as regards to the injury caused to Hamid Khan, Mustaque Khan, Guljar Khan and lslam Khan by fire arm. The doctor, namely, Saroj Kumar, PW-12 held post mortem on the dead body of Ajam Ali Khan and found the ante mortem injury on his person : (1) Fire Arm injury-Pilletes mark scattered over area of 13" diameter situated over forehead, face, brain, neck and front of upper part of chest. Some of the pilletes have been produced abrasion marks and some have gone deeper into the chest cavity with contusion and laceration of several tissues in the track produced by pilletes. Three pilletes on left and six on the right side chest have passed through the anterior chest wall and these pilletes have entered the left and right lung respectively from where they have been recovered causing injury to the lungs. There is presence of blood and blood clots in the chest cavity both sides. The doctor also held the death of the deceased was due to the said injury by fire arm. 7. Dr. Janardan Prasad had examined the injured Md. Guljar, Hamid Khan, Islam Khan and Mustaque Khan and he found various inuries on the person of the said injured causing by fire arm. Thus, it is evident without any doubt that Ajam Ali died instantaneously due to the fire arm injury as well as other injured also sustained fire arm injury at the relevant time. 8. Altogether, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case. PW-1, Mansoor Khan being the eye witness claimed to be present at the relevant time at the place of occurrence and according to him, he reached to the spot on halla raised by Hamid crying Bachao-Bachao. He further deposed that Fakhruddin (accused) who was holding a Single barrel gun fired shot causing injury on the chest of Ajam Ali, as a result of which Ajam Ali fell down and died. He further deposed that Fakhruddin (accused) who was holding a Single barrel gun fired shot causing injury on the chest of Ajam Ali, as a result of which Ajam Ali fell down and died. Thereafter, Hamid also reached there when accused Mahiruddin, who was possessing double barrel gun fired shot causing injury to him and thereafter Guljar, Islam and Mustaque came there running to save Hamid, but accused Mahiruddin again fired shot with his double barrel gun caus ing injuries to Guljar, Islam and Mustaque. He admitted in his cross-examination to be cousin brother-in-law of the deceased. He further admitted that ac cused Fakhruddin had filed a criminal case against him before this occurrence in which he was convicted by the lower court but he has already been acquitted in the appeal. His evidence remained intact in connection with the occurrence in the manne as alleged. 9. PW-2, Jakiruddin also claimed to be the eye witness and according to him he reached to the spot on Halla of Hamid and saw that Ajam Ali, the deceased was also coming behind Hamid, when the accused persons came there and accuser. Fakhruddin fired shot with his gun causing injury to Ajam Ali, who died instantaneously. Thereafter, accused Mahiruddin, who was holding double barrel gun, also fired show causing injury to Hamid who also fell down. Mahiruddin again fired shot causing injury to lslam, Guljar and Mustaque. He stated in his cross-examination that Bari of Ajam Ali (deceased) is situated at a distance of 200 yards from the house of accused. He also claimed in para-9 of his cross-examination that there is no boundary wall near his house. He admitted to have deposed against Fakhruddin in a criminal case in the year 1987. According to him, Ajam Ali (deceased) sustained injury in the front of the house of Abbas and there was also blood at the place of occurrence. There were 100-150 persons assembled at the place of occurrence. 10. PW-3, Md. Islam, one of the injured stated that he reached to the spot on Malta and he saw accused Mahiruddin opening fire to Hamid, who fell down after the injury and thereafter accused Mahiruddin fired shot, which hit to him, Guljar and Mustaque. He fell down and became unconscious. According to him, he had seen the accused Mahiruddin, Hamid, Guljar and Mustaque at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. He fell down and became unconscious. According to him, he had seen the accused Mahiruddin, Hamid, Guljar and Mustaque at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. He also deposed that mosque is situated at a distance of 60-70 yards western from the house of accused persons. He was also treated by the doctor. 11. PW-4, Abbas Khan, claimed to have reached to the spot on Haifa of Hamid crying Bachao-Bachao. According to him, Ajam Ali was going towards eastem side on the said road of the village. Thereafter accused persons also came on the said village road. Accused, Fakhruddin was holding a single barrel gun whereas Mahiruddin was holding double barrel gun. Accused, Qayum and Sahiruddin ordered to kill Ajam Ali and Hamid and thereafter accused Fakhruddin fired shot with his gun of Ajam Ali, who fell down and died. According to him, Ajam Ali died in front of his house. He further stated that Hamid came running to Ajam Ali, but accused Mahiruddin fired shot with his double barrel gun on Hamid which hit him and he also fell down and thereafter Guljar, Mustaque and Islam came there, but again Mahiruddin fired shot with his double barrel gun causing injury to them and thereafter the accused persons fled away towards their house. He proved his signature on the Fardbeyan, Inquest Report and the Seizure list of blood stained earth, Ext. 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3. He stated in his cross- examination that Ajam Ali fell down and died after sustaining injury at the Sahan adjacent to his house. He admitted to have deposed in a criminal case against Fakhruddin. He further stated that his house is situated at a distance of 100 yards from the Mosque. There appears no vital discrepancy in the testimony of this witness in the cross-examination. 12. PW-6 Guljar Khan is also an injured, who claimed in his evidence that accused Mahiruddin fired shot on Islam and also causing injury to him and Mustaque. He had seen Ajam Ali lying dead in front of the house of Abbas. He stated in his cross-examination that accused Mahiruddin fired shot from the front of his house and he (PW-6) sustained injury at the place 2/3 yards away from the house of Abbas. He has not said that the accused Mahiruddin fired shot from his house. 13. He had seen Ajam Ali lying dead in front of the house of Abbas. He stated in his cross-examination that accused Mahiruddin fired shot from the front of his house and he (PW-6) sustained injury at the place 2/3 yards away from the house of Abbas. He has not said that the accused Mahiruddin fired shot from his house. 13. PW-9, Hamid Khan, the injured stated that he was proceeding to Ranchi with Silot & Lodha at the relevant time and when he reached near the Ban of Ajam Ali in village Bhusul where accused Fakhruddin, Sahiruddin, Mahiruddin and Qayum Ansari also came there and there was an altercation in respect of entering of his bullock in their Bari. On which all the accused persons ordered to assault him and thereafter he started fleeing away towards his house and Ajam Ali was also coming behind him. He further stated that they came to the road in between village Bhusul and Darma. When Ajam Ali proceeded towards east for his house and accused Fakhruddin came to the road holding single barrel gun and fired shot on Ajam Ali, as a result of which Ajam Ali fell down and died. Thereafter, he rushed to Ajam Ali when accused Mahiruddin fired shot on him with his double barrel gun hitting on his face, islam, Mustaque and Guljar also came there and accused Mahiruddin repeatedly fired causing injury to them. He stated in his cross-examination that he is not the relative of Ajam Ali, but according to him, he had deposed in a criminal case no. 9/87 against Fakhruddin. He also claimed to have deposed before the police that he was proceeding to Ranchi with Silot & Lodha at the relevant time. It may be mentioned here that the police also seized one Silota from the place of occurrence vide Ext.-4. 14. PW-10, Sheikh Nizam, the informant claimed to be present in his Bari situated in village Bhusul. According to him, Hamid was proceeding to Ranchi with Siiota & Lodha and as soon as he reached in front of his Bad, accused persons also came there when Hamid asked from them as to why his bullock was tied, on which the accused persons chased Hamid for assault. Hamid fled away raising alarm Jan Bachao and he also threw Siiota Lodha there. Hamid fled away raising alarm Jan Bachao and he also threw Siiota Lodha there. In the meantime, his father, Ajam Ali was also proceeding for his house and he was going behind his father and his father came on the road of Mosque. Thereafter, the accused Sahiruddin and Qayum Ansari ordered to kill and then the accused Fakhruddin, who was holding single barrel gun, fired shot on his father hitting on the chest, face and neck, as a result of which his father fell down and died. He further stated that accused Mahiruddin, who was also holding double barrel gun, fired shot on Hamid, causing injury on his face; Thereafter he raised Haifa. Mustaque, Guljar and Islam also came there and again Mahiruddin fired shot causing injury to them. He proved his signature on the Fardbeyan, Ext. 1/11. According to him, Gopinath Mukhiya came at the place of occurrence after 10 minutes of the incident. He also stated that he alongwith his father was present in their Bari when there was an altercation between Hamid and accused persons and there was not any talk or altercation between him, his father and accused persons. He further said that his father fell down after sustaining injury in the Angan of Abbas Ban and the Bari of accused persons are situated nearby. In s.uch circumstances, the presence of the Informant alongwith his father (deceased) at the relevant time, cannot be ruled out. 15. PW-11, Ram Badan Ojha, the Investigating Officer claimed to have visited the place of occurrence and also examined the witnesses. He proved the Inquest report, Ext.3. According to him, the place of occurrence is situated in the village Bhusul near the Bari of accused persons. The place of occurrence is situated outside the Bari adjacent to eastern side. There is a road running east to west between the village Darma and Bhusul and village Darma is situated in southern side of the said road, whereas village Bhusul is situated in the northern side. He had also found blood stained mark in the Sahan of Abbas Khan (PW-4) and the said Sahan is situtated just adjacent north of the house of Abbas, which duly corroborates the evidence of PW-4 and the Informant, PW-10, who are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. The I.G. had also seized the blood stained earth from the placer of occurrence and prepared the seizure list, Ext.4. The I.G. had also seized the blood stained earth from the placer of occurrence and prepared the seizure list, Ext.4. He also seized the said single barrel; and double barrel guns and prepared the seizure list, Ext.5 and 5/1. 16. It is true that accused persons had produced the said guns. The I.O. also seized three arrows from the Bari of accused Sahiruddin and for which the seizure list was prepared, Ext.5/2. According to him, a gun can hit anybody upto the distance of 50 yards. He admitted in his cross-examination that he has not sent the said blood stained earth for chemical examination. But non- examination of the blood stained earth by the Chemical Examiner wouid not be sufficient to disbelieve the whole story of the prosecution, when admittedly the deceased as well as the injured sustained fire arm injury and blood must have oozed out where the deceased fell down. He further stated that the house of Abbas is situated at a distance of 50 yards from the Mosque, 17. All the accused persons/appellants have been examined u/s 313 Cr. P.C. and they have denied the allegation. The defence also examined as many as three witnesses and all the three defence witnesses deposed that the pillet fired from a gun can be effective only at a distance of 35/36 yards. 18. It is obvious that PWs.-1, 2, 4 and 10 are eye witnesses of the occurrence whereas PWs.-3, 6 and 9 are the injured being caused in the said occurrence and they can also be said to be the eye witnesses on the point of occurrence. All the eye witnesses and the injured witnesses are consistent in their evidence to support the prosecution case. Two guns, one being single barrel and other being double barrel were seized from the appellants and both guns belonging to the appellants were found to be effective as per report of the Expert vide Ext.9. The doctors, who held post mortem and examined the injured and found the injuries on the person of the deceased as well as the injured being the fire arm injuries. 19. It is pertinent to note here that there is a specific case of the prosecution that Hamid was proceeding towards Ranchi with Silota & Lodhaand when he was chased by the Appellants he threw the said Silota and Lodha. 19. It is pertinent to note here that there is a specific case of the prosecution that Hamid was proceeding towards Ranchi with Silota & Lodhaand when he was chased by the Appellants he threw the said Silota and Lodha. The I.O. also claimed to have seized one Silota from the place where the incident took place and he prepared the seizure list, Ext.4/1 which leads to conclusion that the occurrence took place in the manner as alleged. 20. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that there is no such occurrence took place in the manner as alleged and there is no independent witness examined from the side of the prosecution. It is also submitted that Gopi Nath Mahto, Mukhiya, who is said to be the eye witness of the occurrence has not been examined by the prosecution as well as all the witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution are related and interested witnesses and as such the prosecution case becomes doubtful and the witnesses are not reliable. But, at this stage, I would like to mention that I.O. himself admitted in his evidence that he had not examined Gopi Nath Mahto, Mukhiya u/s 161 Cr.P.C. His name also does not figure in the chargesheet in the column of the witnesses and as such the prosecution has rightly not examined Gopi Nath Mahto. Though non-examination of Gopi Nath Mahto will not be sufficient to discard the whole prosecution case, inasmuch as, there are so many eye witnesses as well as injured witnesses who supported the prosecution case consistently which also finds the corroboration with the medical evidence. It has already been settled that relative is not equivalent to interested witness. A witness may be called interested when he or she derives some benefit as a result of litigation in the decree in civil cases or in seeing accused person punished. A witness who is natural one and is the only possible witness in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be interested. Moreover, the witnesses being the relations of the deceased by itself does not make their evidence unreliable. In a murder trial, the relationship of the prosecution witness to the deceased is not a sufficient ground for discrediting their testimony when they are natural and possible witnesses at the relevant time. Hamid Khan (PW-9) decied to be relative of the deceased. Moreover, the witnesses being the relations of the deceased by itself does not make their evidence unreliable. In a murder trial, the relationship of the prosecution witness to the deceased is not a sufficient ground for discrediting their testimony when they are natural and possible witnesses at the relevant time. Hamid Khan (PW-9) decied to be relative of the deceased. All the eye witnesses as well as the injured are the natural and only possible eye witnesses in the circumstances of the instant case. 21. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that Mustaque Khan, who was said to be injured in the said incident has not been examined by the prosecution and no explanation has been assigned. But, from perusal of the record, it appears from the order dated 30.11.1995 that he had already died. Moreover, other injured, PWs-3, 6 and 9 have been examined in the case and their evidence on the point is consistent. It is also argued that there is no motive assigned by the prosecution as to why the appellants committed such crime. But, it is the settled principle of law that the failure of prosecution to prove the motive does not discredit the entire prosecution to the occurrence. It only casts a duty on the court to scrutinise the evidence particularly of the eye witnesses with care. In the instant case, the evidence of eye witnesses seems to be very particular, specific and corroborative with the medical evidence. 22. There are four eye witnesses in the instant case they are quite consistent and to the point about the occurrence as well as three injured witnesses who can also be an eye witnesses on the point and so this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants has also got no substance. 23. The learned counsel for the appellants further argued that there is a change of pface of occurrence and actually the occurrence did not take place at the piace of occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution as the I.O. seized blood stains from Chabutra as well. 23. The learned counsel for the appellants further argued that there is a change of pface of occurrence and actually the occurrence did not take place at the piace of occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution as the I.O. seized blood stains from Chabutra as well. But, it is quite clear from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution that such Chabutra is also situated nearby adjacent to the wall of house belonging to the appellant, Sahiruddin and the place of occurrence is said to be adjacent to the Bari of accused persons/appellants, It is clear from the prosecution case that besides Ajam Aii (deceased), four other persons also sustained fire arm injuries at the relevant time and the doctor, who examined the injured, also found blood oozing out from their injuries and as such it is clear that place of occurrence, as claimed by the prosecution cannot be said to be different. 24. The learned counsel further vehemently urged in course of argument that the appellants said to have fired from front of their houses on Ajam Ali who was present at a distance of 150-200 yards and as such fire resorted to by the appellants was beyond the firing range as the I.O. admitted that the firing resorted to by the accused will be effective upto 50 yards and so the whole prosecution story becomes suspicious and cannot be believed. But, the Investigating Officer admitted in his evidence that the distance of mosque from the house of Abbas is about 50 yards and there is specific evidence that the appellants having gun in theft hands also reached to the road of the said Mosque when Ajam Ali, the father of the informant was proceeding to his own house by the said road and the Informant, Nizam, PW-10 was also proceeding behind his father at the relevant time and so there is no specific (sicfinding ?) that Fakhruddin or Mahiruddin had fired shot with their guns from a distance of 150- 200 yards. There is no dispute that Ajam Ali succumbed to his injuries caused by fire arm as well as other injured sustained injuries by fire arm. The doctor, who held post mortem on the dead body of Ajam Ali, admittedly recovered nine pilletes from the body of Ajam Ali. Thus, such submission of the learned counsel on this score is also without substance. 25. The doctor, who held post mortem on the dead body of Ajam Ali, admittedly recovered nine pilletes from the body of Ajam Ali. Thus, such submission of the learned counsel on this score is also without substance. 25. It is further argued that there is an allegation to cause injury by fire arm resulting instantaneous death of Ajam Ali, but no charge u/s 27 of the Arms Act has been framed by the lower court, which creates a total confusion of the whole prosecution case. It is true that the charge u/s 27 of the Arms Act has not been framed by the lower court, but there is no doubt that Ajam Ali, deceased died due to injury caused by fire arm. Moreover, two guns belonging to the appellants have also been seized by the I.O. at the relevant time and there is no material to show that both guns have not been used, rather the Expert (PW-14) found both the guns effective and no prejudice shown to have been caused to the appellants due to non framing of charge. 26. In the above facts and circumstances, in my view, the whole prosecution cannot fail in absence of non framing of charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon the cases reported in AIR 1991 S.C. 1316 , AIR 1976 S.C. 2263 , AIR 1978 S.C. 59 , 1996{1) East Cr.Cases, page-50 and AIR 1998 S.C. page-201. But, the facts of each case are quite distinguishable to the instant case. It is true that the blood stained earth collected by the I.O. from the place of occurrence could not be sent to the Chemical Examiner, but obviously there is no denial about the death of Ajam Ali as well as the injury caused to the four injured sustaining injury by fire arm at the relevant time and place of occurrence. 27. It is worth mentioning at this stage that the occurrence took place at 8 a. m. as the murder was committed on the broad day light in the presence of several witnesses and all the eye witnesses are very much specific and corroborative in respect of the occurrence. The ocular evidence has fully been corroborated by the medical evidence in the instant case. The ocular evidence has fully been corroborated by the medical evidence in the instant case. Hence, in my view, the whole prosecution case cannot be falsified due to non-examination of blood stained earth. No doubt, there are some discrepancies/contradictions in the evidence of witnesses, but it is well settled that minor discrepancies regarding minute details of incident including the sequence of evidence and overt acts are possible even in the version of truthful witnesses. In fact, such discrepancies are inevitable. If, on the other hand, these witnesses have given evidence with mechanical accuracy that must have been arisen to contend that they were giving tutored version. In the instant case, as noticed above, all the eye witnesses as well as the injured are quite accurate in respect of the occurrence which has fully been supported by the medical evidence and there is nothing worth to discard their testimony. When there is specific deposition by the eye witnesses and the injured eye witnesses which has been corroborated with the medical evidence, conviction for the offence of murder with aid of other sections is fully justified. 28. Thus, considering the whole facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the evidence on record, there is no doubt in holding that the prosecution has established the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellants for the offences charged and passed sentences accordingly. 29. In the result, I find no merit in the appeal. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court does not require to be interfered and the same is affirmed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. M.Y.Eqbal, J. 30 I agree.