Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. This appeal by sole appellant is directed against judgment and order dated 30th September, 1991 passed by IVth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 697/87 convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life u/s 302 IPC and RI for 3 years u/s 27 of Arms Act. Both the sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 14.12.86 the informant Umesh Sao (PW 2) along with his father Fakira Sah (deceased) after purchasing fertilizer in market was returning to his village. His father was ahead of him. At about 4.45 pm before sun set. when the informant and his father reached a pucca road situate east of their village the appellant armed with a country made pistol came out from an abandoned hut belonging to one Sia Saran Singh situate towards west of the road. The appellant surrounded the father of informant from front and fired on his chest. Father of informant after receiving injury on his chest tried to run away but he fell down and died on the spot. The informant and Sita Ram Singh (PW 3) chased the appellant but he managed to escape after giving them threatening with the pistol. On hearing the sound of firing Dularchand Jamadar (PW 5), Suresh Paswan (PW 1) and others came there and they also saw the appellant running away. About the motive of occurrence it is stated that on the same day in the morning an altercation between the father of informant and appellant had taken place over the matter of throwing garbage and appellant at that time had given threatening to the father of informant that he would kill him. The informant along with Village Chowkidar went to the police station on the same day at about 8.30 pm and got the FIR recorded. Chandrika Prasad (PW 6) the then officer- in-charge of Dhanurwa P.S. under whose jurisdiction the place of occurrence was lying, took up the investigation of the case, visited the place of occurrence, found the dead body of father of informant at the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report (Ext. 5), seized a bag of fertilizer, blood stained earth and a bullet from the place of occurrence, prepared seizure list (Ext. 5), seized a bag of fertilizer, blood stained earth and a bullet from the place of occurrence, prepared seizure list (Ext. 2), recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet u/s 302 I.P.C. and 27 of Arms Act against the appellant. After the commitment of the case to the court of Sessions the appellant was found guilty after framing of charges u/s 302 IPC and 27 of Arms Act. The defence of appellant as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, before the court below was that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 3. In order to prove its case altogether seven witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Suresh Paswan (PW 1) and Dularchand Jamadar (PW 5) have been declared hostile. Umesh Sao (PW 2) is the informant. Sita Ram Singh (PW 3) is an eye witness to the occurrence. Dr. R.P. Shrivastava (PW 4) is the doctor who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Constable Amar Nath Ghosh (PW 7) is a formal witness who brought a bullet (Material Ext. I) in court from Malkhana. Chandrika Prasad (PW 6) is the I.O. 4. Dr. R.P. Shrivastava (PW 4) in his evidence has stated that on 15.12.86 he was posted as Tutor in Forensic Medicine at Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna and on that day at about 11.30 am he held post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found a lacerated wound 3/4" x 1/2" x chest cavity deep with charred inverted margins below the inner and of left collar bone and on dissection underneath the injury the left chest wall in the first inter coastal space, the plura and the upper bone of left lung were pierced in one straight line. One alongeted bullet was found lodged in the lung tissues which was taken out and preserved. According to him injuries were antemortem and were caused by a fire arm and death was caused by these injuries and time elapsed since death was within 24 hours from the time of examination. He has proved post mortem examination reprot (Ext. 6). From the evidence of this witness it appears that the death of deceased was homicidal and the time of death corresponds with the time as alleged by prosecution. 5. He has proved post mortem examination reprot (Ext. 6). From the evidence of this witness it appears that the death of deceased was homicidal and the time of death corresponds with the time as alleged by prosecution. 5. Umesh Sao (PW 2), the informant, has stated that on 14.12.86 at about 5.00 pm he along with his father was returning from market with fertilizer and his father was moving 20 steps ahead of him and when they reached Masaurhi-Patna Road near a math the appellant armed with a pistol came out from a hut situate by the side of road and fired on the chest of his father from front and his father being injured in a pool of blood tried to run away but he fell down after some distance towards west, of the road. He and Sita Ram Singh (PW 3) chased the appellant but the appellant giving them threatenings by pistol fled away. His father died on the spot. On hearing the sound of firing villagers came there and the informant told them about the occurrence. The informant then along with village Chaukidar went to the police station where he lodged the case. He has admitted that appellant is his cousin. Sita Ram Singh (PW 3) supporting the evidence of informant has stated that at the time of occurrence he was in his mathia and he saw the informant and the deceased coming and deceased was carrying a bundle on his head and he was ahead of informant, who was following him and when the deceased and informant reached near the hut of Sia Saran Singh the appellant came out from that hut and suspended the deceased and fired from a country made pistol on the chest of the deceased and after receiving injury the deceased started running towards south but he fall down at a place situate west of the road and died there. He and informant chased the appellant who was running towards eastern direction but the appellant giving them threatening by showing them pistol fled away. According to him two villagers after hearing the sound of firing came there. He has further stated that in the morning on that day some altercation had taken place between the deceased and the appellant. He and informant chased the appellant who was running towards eastern direction but the appellant giving them threatening by showing them pistol fled away. According to him two villagers after hearing the sound of firing came there. He has further stated that in the morning on that day some altercation had taken place between the deceased and the appellant. The defence has drawn attention of this witness towards some statements said to have been given by this witness earlier but nothing regarding any of his statements has been put to I.O. to bring any contradiction in his earlier statements and his evidence. Chandrika Prasad (PW 6) the I.O. in his evidence has stated that on 14.12.86 when he was posted at Dhanurwa Police Station the informant came to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. 1). He inspected the place of occurrence and found the dead body of deceased lying there having injury with blood on the chest and he then prepared inquest report (Ext. 5). He also seized a bundle of fertilizer and blood stained soil and prepared seizure list (Ext. 2). He also received a bullet which was extracted from the wound of deceased by doctor. According to him the place of occurrence is western side of Masaurhi road and there is an abondoned hut belonging to Sia Saran Singh situate towards east of road having two doorsone opening towards north and another towards southand he found blood stains on road at a distance 15 steps from this hut. From this place to a place up to 115 steps there were prints of feet stained with blood and blood drops in abundant number. The dead body of deceased was found lying 12 steps from the western edge of road and at that place also blood in abundant quantity was found. His evidence supports the case of prosecution that after receiving the injury the deceased tried to run away but he fell down after some distance. The evidence of informant and Sita Ram Singh (PW 3) fully supports the case of prosecution. Their evidence further finds support from the medical evidence that the deceased died of injuries caused by fire arm. 6. The evidence of informant and Sita Ram Singh (PW 3) fully supports the case of prosecution. Their evidence further finds support from the medical evidence that the deceased died of injuries caused by fire arm. 6. The defence has drawn the attention of informant whether during the course of investigation he has stated that at the time of occurrence he was coming along with his father from market after purchasing fertilizer, when he reached near a road the appellant came out from a hut armed with a pistol, the appellant by surrounding his father from front fired on his chest resulting into his death etc. and the informant has replied in affirmative. 7. The I.O. Chandrika Prasad (PW 6) has admitted that on re-examination of informant during the course of investigation he has not recorded his statements in details and has simply stated that the informant supported the case as made out in the Fardbeyan. On this score the learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has submitted that the evidence of informant cannot be believed. We are unable to accept this argument. It is true that the I.O. should have recorded the statements made by informant during the course of investigation in detail but because I.O. instead of doing so simply recorded in the case diary that informant supported his earlier version given in the Fardbeyan, it cannot be said that the evidence of informant suffers from any contradiction. According to the I.O. when the informant was fully supporting his earlier version he did not consider it necessary to again repeat the same statements in case diary and therefore after examination of informant he simply mentioned that the informant fully supported his case as made out in the Fardbeyan. In this view of the matter the argument of learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant on this has got no substance. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that in this case the I.O. did not seize the clothes which the deceased was wearing at the time of alleged occurrence and even the blood stained earth which is said to have been collected by the I.O. was not sent to chemical examiner and in this way the investigation is vitiated and therefore the case of the prosecution becomes quite doubtful. He has relied upon two decisions, one in the case of Lakshmi Singh and others V/s. State of Bihar ( AIR 1976 SC 2263 ) and another in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Mfthilesh Rai [ 1990 (1) B.L.J. 555 : 1990 (2) PLJR 285]. It is true that in this case blood stained earth seized by the I.O. from the place of occurrence was not sent to chemical examiner but then the death of deceased by injuries caused by fire arm has not been challenged and the evidence of informant and PW 3 has fully supported that the appellant had fired at the chest of the deceased by a country made pistol causing injury which resulted into death. In view of this explicit evidence led on behalf of the prosecution and also in absence of any prejudice caused to the appellant by not sending the blood stained earth collected from the place of occurrence it does not make the case of the prosecution unreliable. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State citing a decision in the case of Baleshwar Mandal V/s. State of Bihar ( AIR 1997 SC 3471 ) has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the case of the prosecution has amply been proved by the evidence of prosecution witnesses, mere fact that I.O. did not send the blood stained earth collected from the place of occurrence to the chemical examiner will not be a ground for disbelieving the case of the prosecution. The next point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the informant in his fardbeyan has stated that when the appellant was chased by him and PW 3, the appellant managed to escape-by brandishing a country made pistol whereas in his evidence the informant has admitted that the country made pistol was meant for loading only a single cartridge and when he had found that appellant had already fired at his father he must have known that the pistol had become unloaded- after fire and there was no occasion for him to be scared by the pistol alleged to have been shown to him and PW 3 by appellant while chasing him and creates doubt that the appellant had fired at the deceased and thereafter he ran away. No doubt the informant in his fardbeyan has stated that appellant managed to escape after brandishing a pistol but he in his evidence has nowhere stated that appellant could not be apprehended because he and PW 3 were scared that appellant may fire on them also. He has clearly stated that he and PW 3 chased the appellant but the distance between them and appellant gradually increased during the chase and finally the appellant managed to escape. Lastly, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the informant in his evidence has stated that he and his father had taken meal on the day of occurrence at about 11-12 hours in the day but the doctor found partly digested food in the stomach of the deceased and the doctor in his evidence has admitted that normally the food leaves the stomach in the partly digested stage in 3-4 hours which shows that death of the deceased must have occurred sometime between 3 PM to 4 PM whereas case of the prosecution is that occurrence took place at about 4.45 pm and this fact falsifies the case of the prosecution. We find that this point was raised before the court below also and after discussing it in details, the court below observed that the time of digestion of food depends upon the quality of food taken but notwithstanding this fact if the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is accepted even then there will be hardly a difference of less than one hour on the point of time of death if calculated on the basis of time taken in digestion of food, which is a marginal difference. We find that the doctor has also given an estimated time of digestion of food and this marginal difference is not affecting the merit of the case of the prosecution which has been proved by oral evidence and is supported by medical evidence. 9. Corsidering the evidence on record we find that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who fired at the deceased by a country made pistol resulting in his instantaneous death. The appellant has therefore been rightly found guilty by the court below and the judgment and order of the court below convicting and sentencing the appellant does not require any interference by this Court. 10. The appellant has therefore been rightly found guilty by the court below and the judgment and order of the court below convicting and sentencing the appellant does not require any interference by this Court. 10. In the result this appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the court below is hereby confirmed. As the appellant is on bail his bail bond is dancelled and he is directed to surrender before the court below for serving out the sentence. B.P.Sharma, J. 11 I agree.