Judgment 1. The sole appellant who is the nephew of the deceased Brahamdeo Singh resident of Jalalpur within the Maranchi Police Station in the District of Patna, has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 3-9-1994 by which he has been convicted under S. 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The deceased got property at his in-laws place at village Khairya P.S. Halsi, district Munger and he was residing there along with his family members. 3. The prosecution case is that on 10-3-1992 during the day time the appellant whois nephew of the deceased came at village Khairya and touched the feet of elders. Thereafter at about 3-30 p.m. he went to the Khalihan where deceased was present. The informant Gayatri Devi daughter in-law of the deceased (P.W. 7) also followed him and noticed that the appellant took out a pistol from his person and fired at the deceased which caused injury, he fell down in the Khalihan and thereafter the appellant fled away and the villagers witnessed the occurrence. The appellant is alleged to have committed the offence due to the land dispute. 4. The injured was taken to Government Hospital Lekhisarai for treatment. There informant Gayatri Devi lodged a furdbeyan (Ext. 3) at 7 p.m. which was recorded by A.S.I. of Lakhisarai Police Station. The doctor at Lakhi Surai hospital after having noticed the serious condition of the deceased advised that the injured be taken to P.M. C.R. or Mokoma Hospital and thereafter the informant and other family members proceeded with the injured and in the way at Panchmahal the deceased died and thereafter the informant again lodged the furdbeyan before the Panchmahal P.S. (Ext. 5) on the same day at 11-45 p.m. Both the fardbeyans were forwarded to the Halsi P.S. within the district of Munger for registering a case and on the basis of earlier fardbeyan, recorded at Lakhisarai the Halsi P.S. registered a case under Ss. 307 and 324 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. Later on after the information about the death S. 302 of the IPC was also added. The investigation was entrusted to Syed Israt Hussain (P.W. 8) who visited the place of occurrence on 11-3-1992 at about 8-30 a.m. and arrested the appellant who was apprehended and kept confined by the villagers. Later on after the information about the death S. 302 of the IPC was also added. The investigation was entrusted to Syed Israt Hussain (P.W. 8) who visited the place of occurrence on 11-3-1992 at about 8-30 a.m. and arrested the appellant who was apprehended and kept confined by the villagers. He conducted the major portion of the investigation and thereafter he was transferred and the investigation was entrusted to P.W. 9, Naresh Pd. Singh, who completed the remaining part of the investigation and thereafter submitted charge sheet. 5. After cognizance and commitment the appellant was put on trial and it ended in the conviction and sentence of the appellant as indicated above. 6. The defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to long dispute as a matter of fact he was not present in the village and later on he was apprehended and brought in the village Kheraiya and was falsely implicated in the present case. 7. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in support of its case out of whom, P.W. 7 the daughter-in-law of the deceased and P.W. 6 Mukesh Singh, the grand son of the deceased and son of P.W. 7 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 1 Rajendra Pd. Singh is the son of the deceased and husband of P.W. 7 and he is not a witness on the point of occurrence. He has stated that after hearing hulla and sound of firing, he came to the Khalihan and found his father lying in injured condition. P.W. 6 and 7 disclosed him that appellant fired at the deceased and injured him. Thereafter he along with his wife and others took his father for treatment at Lakhisarai Sadar Hospital and thereafter when he was taking him to Patna for treatment he died in the way. P.W. 2 Shivratan Singh is the cousin of the appellant and nephew of the deceased and he is witness on the point that after hearing the sound of firing he went to the Khalihan and found the appellant running away with revolver and he was being chased by the villagers. P.W. 3 Ramswarup Singh is witness on the point that he also reached after the occurrence and found the injured lying on the ground and the appellant was soon running away. P.W. 3 Ramswarup Singh is witness on the point that he also reached after the occurrence and found the injured lying on the ground and the appellant was soon running away. P.W. 4 the widow of the deceased is a witness on the point that on hearing the sound of firing she went to the Khalihan and found her husband lying injured on the ground. Her grand son and daughter-in-law disclosed that the appellant has fired at her husband and thereafter the appellant was apprehended by the villagers. P.W. 5 Madan Mohan Pandey has also stated that after hearing hulla he came to the place of occurrence and P.W. 7 disclosed the name of the appellant as assailant. The appellant was seen running away and with the help of the villagers he was apprehended. P.W. 8 Syed Israt Hussain and P.W. 9 Naresh Pd. Singh are the investigating officer. P.W. 10 Chandeshwar Pd. Singh has recorded the fardbeyan at Panchmahal Police Station (Ext. 5) and P.W. 11 Dr. Ramesh Kumar Sinha has held the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 11-3-1992 at 8-40 a.m. and has proved the postmortem report Ext. 7. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the manner ofoccurrence as the version given by the eye witnesses is not supported by the medical evidence. P.W. 6 who claims himself to be the witness was not named in the first information report. The evidence of P.Ws. 2, 6 and 7 are not reliable. He has also submitted that the other witnesses on the part of seeing the appellant running away or on the point of arrest of the appellant have been examined at a very belated stage and as such their evidence should not be accepted. 9. As stated above, P.Ws. 6 and 7 are the only eye-witness of the occurrence and they are related to the deceased and they are also related to each other. P.W. 7 the informant has stated in the Court that on the date of occurrence who was in her Khalihan and her son and deceased father-in-law were also there. The appellant came and fired which caused injury as a result of which her father-in-law fall down and the appellant fled away. However, he was chased by the villagers and was apprehended with the pistol. The appellant came and fired which caused injury as a result of which her father-in-law fall down and the appellant fled away. However, he was chased by the villagers and was apprehended with the pistol. The injured was firstly treated at Lokhisari Hospital and thereafter on the advice of the doctor while he was being taken away to P.M.C.H. in the way he died. She has stated that one Pancha Devi has executed a deed of gift with regard to certain land. The said Pancha Devi was of her Khandan and because of this reason the appellant was annoyed. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that her evidence differs from the earlier version given in the fardbeyan. Earlier she has stated that the appellant came and touched the feet of the elders and then proceeded to Khalihan and the informant also followed him. In Court she has stated that she was present in Khalihan and the appellant came and fired as there is material contradiction, her evidence is fit to be rejected. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid submission. The first information report is not a encyclopedia. In the Court as well as in the earlier statement she has stated that the occurrence took place in Khalihan where she was also present with her deceased father-in-law. Whether she came in the Khalihan following the appellant or she was present there from before is not of much importance and on this ground her evidence cannot be discarded. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the Court she has stated that the firing caused injury on the left side of back whereas in fardbeyan she has stated that firing caused injury in the stomach and this shows that she is not a witness on the point of occurrence. He has further drawn our attention to the statement made by her in paragraph 10 of her cross-examination wherein she has stated that nephew of the deceased was not armed with pistol. So far as this submission is concerned the same is without any substance. She has stated in the said paragraph that the appellant has covered something in towel. He went near the deceased and fired. Than she went near him and found her father-in-law lying in injured condition. So far as this submission is concerned the same is without any substance. She has stated in the said paragraph that the appellant has covered something in towel. He went near the deceased and fired. Than she went near him and found her father-in-law lying in injured condition. Similarly there is no variance in her statement made in the FIR and the Court regarding the place where the injury was caused. In FIR she has stated that appellant fired from close range and the fire arm was touching the stomach at the time of firing. In Court she has stated that firing caused injury to the deceased. In FIR she has not stated on which part of the body the injury was caused. Thus there is no contradiction in her evidence on this point. 11. P.W. 6 is the grand son of the deceased and son of P.W.1 and P.W.7. He has stated that he was present in the Khallhan when the appellant arrived and fired at the deceased and thereafter the appellant was apprehended on chase by the villagers. He has admitted in cross-examination that he has not seen the pistol in the hand of the appellant. The appellant came from southern side and proceeded towards the grand father and, thereafter, there was a sound of firing and the appellant started running away. No doubt the aforesaid statement shows that he had not actually seen firing at the deceased by the appellant but he is a witness on the point that appellant came there, proceeded towards the deceased and then there was sound of firing and the deceased fell down. The aforesaid statement clearly shows that it was the appellant who came and there was a sound of firing and the deceased fell down. He has stated that his father and mother (informant) had taken the deceased for treatment at Lakhisarai and therefrom while he was being taken to Patna for treatment in the way at Panchmahla he died. If the name of P.W. 6 is not mentioned in the first fardbeyan that does not mean that the witness P.W.6 was not present. In the second fardbeyan which was lodged on the same date the witness is named as eye witness. Thus his evidence cannot berejected on the said ground. 12. P.Ws. If the name of P.W. 6 is not mentioned in the first fardbeyan that does not mean that the witness P.W.6 was not present. In the second fardbeyan which was lodged on the same date the witness is named as eye witness. Thus his evidence cannot berejected on the said ground. 12. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 have clearly stated that when they reached at Khalihan they found the deceased lying in the injured condition. The name of the appellant was disclosed by the eye witnesses and the appellant was chased and apprehended by the villagers including P.W. 5 Madan Mohan Pandey. P.W. 2 is related to the appellant and the deceased. There is no reason for him to implicate the appellant. He has supported the fact that the injured was taken to Lakhi-Sarai and thereafter on the advice of the doctor he was being taken to Patna and in the way at Panchmahla he died. He has given full description of the occurrence and has stated that the appellant was chased and caught by the villagers. The other witnesses P.Ws. 3 and 5 have also supported the factum of running away of the appellant soon after the occurrence and his apprehension. There is nothing in their evidence to discard their testimony. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant however, submitted that their evidence is to be rejected as they have been examined at belated stage. P.W. 8 Israt Hussain the I.O. has stated that he has conducted the investigation till 15-4-1992 and thereafter he was transferred and P.W.9 Naresh Pd. Singh took up investigation of the case and examined the aforesaid witnesses. No doubt there is some delay in examining the said witness during investigation but on this ground their consistent evidence cannot be rejected when there is nothing on record to show any reason to implicate the appellant. P.W.1 is son of the deceased. P.W. 4 is the widow of the deceased. They have also stated that soon after the occurrence they reached there and name of the appellant was disclosed by P.Ws. 6 and 7. There is nothing to discard their evidence except that they are related to the deceased. 14. No doubt P.Ws. 1, 4, 6 and 7 are related witnesses but on this ground their evidence cannot be rejected. Their evidence is to be examined with care and caution. 6 and 7. There is nothing to discard their evidence except that they are related to the deceased. 14. No doubt P.Ws. 1, 4, 6 and 7 are related witnesses but on this ground their evidence cannot be rejected. Their evidence is to be examined with care and caution. We have examined their evidence and there is no reason to reject their evidence. 15. P.W. 11 is the Doctor Ramesh Kumar Sinha who held postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries :- (i) Rigor mortis was present in all the four limbs.(ii) 3/4" Eliptical wound of entry margin charred and blacken and inverted on left side of back at the level of left scapula.(iii) 1/2" x 1/4" wound of exit margin ragged inverted. The doctor has opined that the injury was caused within 6 to 36 hours. He has opined that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage caused by gun shot injury and the weapon used was firearm. 16 It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the occurrence took place at 3.30 p.m. on 10-3-1992 and the postmortem was held on the next day at 8.30 a.m. within 20 hours whereas the doctor has opined that the death was caused within 6 to 36 hours. The opinion of the doctor with regard to the age of injury is not conclusive. It is only an opinion based on estimation. This apart the opinion of the doctor does not falsify the prosecution case. 17. The investigating officer visited the place of occurrence and found blood near the place of occurrence in the khalihan. No doubt the seizure list has not been produced but this is a mistake on the part of the investigating officer and on this ground alone the evidence of the witness cannot be rejected. In our view the evidence of eye witnesses is reliable and is supported by the medical evidence and objective finding of the investigating officer. 18. The trial Court has wrongly acquitted the appellant of the charge under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act as no sanction is required for the prosecution of the offence under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act as held by this Court in catena of cases. 18. The trial Court has wrongly acquitted the appellant of the charge under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act as no sanction is required for the prosecution of the offence under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act as held by this Court in catena of cases. However, there is no appeal against the acquittal before this Court, the order of the appellants acquittal under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act is not interfered with. 19. In the result there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.Appeal dismissed.