Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. The sole appellant Sipahi Sah is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5-9-1991 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rohtas, Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 1990 convicting and sentencing him to R.I. for life under Section 302 of IPC and R.I. for 7 years under Section 27 of Arms Act. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of prosecution in short is that on 3-2-1989 at about 6.15 p.m. the Informant Lallan Prasad (PW-2) went to Nokha Police Station taking the dead body of his father Mukha Sah and got FIR (Ext. 1) lodged there stating therein that on the same day in the morning the appellant asked Janeshwar Sah (PW-4), the younger brother of Informant, to give rice to the wife of appellant on which Janeshwar Sah (PW-4) had replied that after asking from his father, he would tell whether the rice was available or not. On the same day in the evening, the appellant came and enquired why the rice was not given on which Janeshwar Sah replied that his father had not returned from Nokha. The appellant then hurled abuses and also gave him threatening for assault on which Janeshwar Sah out of fear closed the shop and came to his house and in the meantime, his father reached and Janeshwar Sah told him the aforesaid facts. The father of Informant then went to appellant for enquiring the matter and some altercation between the appellant and father of Informant took place but that was pacified by the neighbours. When the father of Informant returned from his shop the appellant armed with a country-made gun came to the house of Informant and again started hurling abuses. The father of Informant came out of his house and went near bailghara and the appellant then fired from his gun causing injuries on the upper portion of the back of father of Informant as a result of which he fell down. He was brought on a bus to Nokha Hospital but the moment he was taken out from the bus near the clinic of one Dr.Tulsi, he died there. The Informant then taking the dead body of his father went to the Police Station and lodged the FIR. The Police prepared inquest report (Ext. He was brought on a bus to Nokha Hospital but the moment he was taken out from the bus near the clinic of one Dr.Tulsi, he died there. The Informant then taking the dead body of his father went to the Police Station and lodged the FIR. The Police prepared inquest report (Ext. 3) of the dead body and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and visited the place of occurrence on the same day at about 7.30 p.m. The Informant during the course of investigation filed a protest petition (Ext. 2) in the Court of C.J.M., Rohtas at Sasaram stating therein that at the time of occurrence one Jagnarain Singh was also with the appellant who exhorted the appellant to fire and at his instigation the appellant had fired on his father but after the death of his father, he had become nervous, therefore, while lodging the FIR he could not disclose the name of Jagnarain Singh. He further stated that in his re-statement he had already named Jainarain Singh also and on this basis the Police had already prayed for issuance of process against Jainarain Singh. The Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and Jainarain Singh under Sections 302/34 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act. The Court below framed charges under Section 302 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act against the appellant and under Section 107 read with Section 302 of IPC against Jagnarain Singh but after trial found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. Co-accused Jagnarain Singh was found not guilty and he was acquitted. 3. The case of appellant before the Court below was complete denial of charges and his false implication in this case. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses in this case. Lallan Prasad (PW-2) is the Informant, Janeshwar Sah (PW-4) is the brother of Informant whereas Kanti Devi (PW-3) is the wife of Informant and Ram Janam Sah (PW-1) is the samadhi of deceased. Dr.Rajendra Kumar (PW-5) had conducted the autopsy on the dead body and Samir Ahmad (PW-6) is the I.O. of this case. 5. (PW-5), Dr. Lallan Prasad (PW-2) is the Informant, Janeshwar Sah (PW-4) is the brother of Informant whereas Kanti Devi (PW-3) is the wife of Informant and Ram Janam Sah (PW-1) is the samadhi of deceased. Dr.Rajendra Kumar (PW-5) had conducted the autopsy on the dead body and Samir Ahmad (PW-6) is the I.O. of this case. 5. (PW-5), Dr. Rajendra Kumar, in his evidence has stated that on 4-2-1989 he was posted as Civil Assitant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Sasaram and on that day at 9-20 a.m. he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mukha Sah and found a circular wound 1 cm. in diameter with charred and inverted margin on the left side of umbilical region which was wound of entry and a lacerated circular wound 6 cms. in diameter with everted margin on the back in the right lumber region which was wound of exit. He has further stated that on dissection the spines of 3rd, 4th and 5th lumber vertebra were found broken, upper part of lliac bone near the sacro lliac joint was broken and peritoneum wall punctured near the side of entry and the abdominal cavity was full of blood clot whereas masocolon was damaged at three places and large bowel was damaged at two places. According to him, all the aforesaid injuries were caused by fire-arm which may be a gun and were caused between 9-36 hours from the time of examination and the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to the aforesaid injuries which were sufficient to cause death. The evidence of doctor shows that the deceased Mukha Sah died of injuries caused by fire-arm which may be a gun and the time of his death as given by this witness corresponds to the time of occurrence as stated by the prosecution. 6. Lallan Prasad (PW-2), the Informant has stated that on 3-2-1989 the appellant had asked his younger brother Janeshwar Sah (PW-4) to give rice to his wife. 6. Lallan Prasad (PW-2), the Informant has stated that on 3-2-1989 the appellant had asked his younger brother Janeshwar Sah (PW-4) to give rice to his wife. His younger brother had told that his father had gone to Nokha and on return of his father he will ask from him whether rice was available or not and the appellant on the same day at about 4.00 p.m. came to his shop and asked his younger brother why he had not supplied rice on which his younger brother replied that his father had not returned and appellant then abused him and gave threatening to assault and his younger brother Dineshwar @ Janeshwar Sah then closed his shop and returned to his house. After some time his father returned from Nokha and then Janeshwar Sah told him about the aforesaid facts. The father of Informant then went to the house of appellant enquiring him why he got his shop closed and appellant then abused and gave threatening to assault him also but the neighbours pacified the matter and his father then returned to his house. The appellant and co-accused Jagnarain Singh followed his father and came to the house of Informant and started hurling abuses on which the father of Informant came out from his house. The Informant, his brother Janeshwar Sah (PW-4), his wife Kanti Devi (PW-3) and Ram Janam Sah (PW-1) also came out from the house and father of Informant asked the appellant and Jagnarain Singh why they were abusing him on which co-accused Jagnarain Singh exhorted the appellant to kill and then appellant fired shot hitting the father of Informant, who fell down and the appellant and Jagnarain Singh fled away. The Informant and others took the deceased to Hospital but in the way when they reached near the clinic of Dr. Tulsi, the father of Informant died. The Informant then took the dead body of his father on a thela to Nokha Police Station where he lodged the FIR. Ram Janam Sah (PW-1), Kanti Devi (PW-3) and Janeshwar Sah (PW-4) supporting the case of prosecution have stated that the appellant opened fire from his gun hitting the father of Informant, who after receiving injuries fell down and subsequently on the same day he died. Ram Janam Sah (PW-1), Kanti Devi (PW-3) and Janeshwar Sah (PW-4) supporting the case of prosecution have stated that the appellant opened fire from his gun hitting the father of Informant, who after receiving injuries fell down and subsequently on the same day he died. They all have said that at the time of occurrence the appellant along with co-accused Jagnarain Singh had come to the house of Informant and started abusing and when the deceased came out of the house and enquired from appellant and his companion why they were abusing him, the co-accused Jagnarain Singh exhorted the appellant to fire on which the appellant fired from his gun hitting the deceased. On the point of firing by appellant from his gun and causing injuries to the deceased the evidence of these witnesses is consistent. 7. Sagir Ahmad (PW-6), the I.O. of this case, has stated that on 3-2-1989 he had recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.1) of Informant, prepared inquest report (Ext. 5) of the dead body and visited the place of occurrence at about 7.30 p.m. According to him, the place of occurrence is a bailghara which is situated adjacent north to the house of Informant and there is a narrow lane adjoining to bailghara and he found blood stains on the wall of bailghara and he seized blood-stained earth and prepared a seizure list. His evidence that he found blood stains near the wall of bailghara situated adjacent north to the house of Informant corroborates the case of prosecution on the point of place of occurrence. 8. Learned Counsel on behalf of appellant has argued that there is contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and in their earlier statements made during the course of investigation. 8. Learned Counsel on behalf of appellant has argued that there is contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and in their earlier statements made during the course of investigation. According to him (PW-1) has stated that the deceased was taken to the Hospital by his son but this statement was not given by him earlier which has been corroborated by I.O. The Informant in his evidence has stated that the appellant on the date of occurrence had come to his house abour 7.00 p.m. but the time of arrival of appellant at his shop on that day in the evening was not stated by him to the I.O. The Informant has stated that when his father came out of his house, he, his wife (PW-3) and (PW-4) also came out of his house but this statement was not given by him earlier and similarly he had not stated earlier that co-accused Jagnarain Singh asked the appellant to fire. About Janeshwar Sah (PW-4), it has been stated that earlier he had not stated that the appellant had given him threatening and he had not given the time when the appellant came to his house in the evening and this witness had not earlier told that he had told his father and brother about the threatening given by the appellant. About Kanti Devi (PW-3), it has been argued that the I.O. (PW-6) has admitted that she had not stated earlier that the appellant had fired from his gun on the deceased and she had not stated that when the deceased came out from his house, she along with others also came out. All these points were raised before the Court below and the Court below after considering these points came to a finding that so far the contradictions in the statements of Kanti Devi (PW-3) are concerned, she cannot be held as eye-witness but contradictions in the evidence of other proseuciton witnesses and in their earlier statements are minor contradictions. In agreement with the findings of the Court below, we find that suggestion about contradicitons in the statements of (PW-1), (PW-3) and (PW-4) are in respect of minor contradictions which do not affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. About Kanti Devi (PW-3), the I.O. (PW-6) has stated that she had earlier given statements that the deceased died when he reached near the clinic of Dr. About Kanti Devi (PW-3), the I.O. (PW-6) has stated that she had earlier given statements that the deceased died when he reached near the clinic of Dr. Tulsi and his dead body was taken to the Police Station. This part of evidence gives support to the case of prosecution that the deceased died on the date of occurrence and his dead body was taken to the Police Station. 9. The next point argued on behalf of appellant is that it is the case of prosecution that blood-stained soil was collected from the place of occurrence and a seizure list was prepared and it was sent for chemical examination but the prosecution has neither produced the seizure list nor any chemical examination report of blood- stained soil alleged to have been seized from the place of occurrence which vitiates the investigation. It is true that seizure list prepared for the blood-stained earth has not been produced in this case but I.O. (PW-6) in his evidence has stated that the blood-stained earth was seized and a seizure list was prepared and this fact is mentioned in para 6 of the case diary but the seizure list was not available. For some reasons if the seizure list of blood-stained soil was misplaced and could not be brought on record, it cannot be a ground to consider that the entire investigation has vitiated. The death of deceased by injuries caused by a fire-arm has not been disputed in this . view of the matter if the seizure list for blood stained earth and the chemical examination report of the same have not been brought on record it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the appellant. The last point argued on behalf of appellant is that the prosecution witnesses who have claimed themselves as eye-witnesses to the occurrence are closely related to each other and their names do not find mention in the FIR. It is true that in the FIR name of any witnesses is not mentioned but only on this account the evidence of prosecution witnesses who immediately after the occurrence were examined during the course of investigation cannot be discarded. About the witnesses being closely related, it is well settled principle of law that the evidence of such witnesses cannot be disbelieved only on this count. About the witnesses being closely related, it is well settled principle of law that the evidence of such witnesses cannot be disbelieved only on this count. The occurrence is said to have taken place outside the house of deceased and the witnesses are none else but the sons, daughter-in-law and samadhi of deceased. Ram Janam Sah (PW-1) has said that his son has been married to the daughter of deceased and on the date of occurrence, he had gone to the house of deceased and had reached there at 12.00 Oclock in the noon and at the time of occurrence, he was sitting in the dalan of the house of deceased. The eye-witnesses to the occurrence are related to deceased and their presence at the place of occurrence which is outside their house, at the time of occurrence is quite natural. In this view of matter, the argument advanced by the Counsel of appellant that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses claimed to be eye-witnesses is not trustworthy because they are closely related to each other cannot be accepted. Moreover, the deceased or any of his family members did not have any enmity with the appellant. In view of this fact, there is no reason for the sons and samadhi of the deceased to depose falsely against the appellant. We, therefore, find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts that it was the appellant who fired from his gun causing the death of deceased. 10. In the result, the appellant is dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the Court below is hereby confirmed. The appellant is directed to surrender before the Court below to serve out the sentences passed against him. D.P.S.CHOUDHARY, J. 11 I agree.