Judgment A.K.VERMA, J. 1. The appellant Harihar Thakur has filed this appeal from jail against the judgment and order dated 11th August, 1997 passed by 4th Additional Session Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial case No. 204/93/ 6/97 whereby the learned Additional Session Judge convicted the appellant Harihar Thakur under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life under section 302 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for two years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The sentences are to run concurrently. 2. Miss. Sony Srivastava Advocate bad been appointed as amicus-curiae in order to assist the Court in hearing of this appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution is that accused appellant Harihar Thakur had instituted a case against deceased Karmadeo Thakur, father of information Satyendra Thakur in respect of a house and land, in which deceased Karmadeo Thakur had succeeded and due to it accused appellant Harihar Thakur was annoyed. On 27-12-1992 at about 7.30 p.m. informant Satyendra Thakur was sitting in his Baithka alongwith his father Karmadeo Thakur (deceased) and they were listening to the news bulletin of 7.30 p.m. along with informant and his father, Sharwan Singh (P.W. 9) of his village and Madan Thakur (P.W. 2) brother of the informant were also sitting in the Baithka. In the meant time accused Harihar Thakur armed with pistol, Bhajan Thakur armed with lathi, Ram Raj Thakur uparmed alongwith four unknown persons came to the Baithka of the informant and accused Bhajan Thakur assaulted the informant with lathi and the four unknown persons assaulted him and his brother with fists and lathi. Accused Harihar Thakur was abusing the informant and others and threatening them and then accused Harihar Thakur fired his pistol on the forehead of the father of the informant as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious. Thereafter the accused-persons went inside the house of the informant and took away boxes containing clothes ornaments etc. On hearing the sound of firing the people of the village came there and thereafter the accused-persons fled away making firing from their fire-arms. The informant and others took Karmadeo Thakur (father of the informant) to Nabinagar Hospital for treatment. Subsequently Karmadeo Thakur died as a result of the injuries caused to him by the accused. On the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. The informant and others took Karmadeo Thakur (father of the informant) to Nabinagar Hospital for treatment. Subsequently Karmadeo Thakur died as a result of the injuries caused to him by the accused. On the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 5) the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 6) was drawn in this case. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the case. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. 4. The defence of the accused is that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 5. In this case 11 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and one witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. 6. P.W. 9 Sharwan Singh has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 7 Gupteshwar Pd. Singh and P.W. 8 Ram Naresh Thakur are the witnesses of the inquest report and their signatures on the inquest report are Ext. 3 and 3/1, P.W. 10 is Dr. T.N. Shukla, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Karmadeo Thakur. He has stated that on 28-12-1992 he was posted at Sadar Hospital at Aurangabad as Civil Assistant. Surgeon and he had held post-mortem examination on the dead bodv of Karmadeo Thakur and found the following antemortem injuries on his persons: 1. The eye ball of his right side was not found and nasal cavity of his right side was open and through it the brain material looked smashed with blood peripheral tissues. 2. On dissection the nasal bones were fractured and his septum was lacerated and the frontal bone was pierced from bottom and brain material was found lacerated with its meninges. 3. Two pellets were recovered from the dissection of the brain material which was preserved. 4. All chambers of heart were dissected and his right side of it was empty. Stomach contained digested food material and his bladder was full. He has stated that in his opinion the death was due to the above injuries and shock and hemorrhage caused by the fire-arm weapon such as pistol. A carbon copy of the post-mortem examination report had been marked as Ext. 4 in this case. The case of the prosecution is that accused Harihar Thakur had fired pistol on the forehead of Karmadeo Thakur father of information. The evidence of P.W. 10 Dr. A carbon copy of the post-mortem examination report had been marked as Ext. 4 in this case. The case of the prosecution is that accused Harihar Thakur had fired pistol on the forehead of Karmadeo Thakur father of information. The evidence of P.W. 10 Dr. T.N. Shukla supports the case of the prosecution. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Cri. Appeal No. 503 of 1989 (Udho Mahto Appellant v. The State of Bihar-respondent) reported in 1993 (2) P.L.J.R. 133, that post-mortem report by itself is not substantive evidence and it is the evidence of the Doctor in Court which is a substantive evidence and post-mortem report can became substantive evidence only when the case is covered by Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act or when it is brought on the record in accordance with Section 294 of the Code. In the present case the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased has been examined as a witness (P.W. 10). 7. P.W. 11 is Hiralal Choudhary the I.O. of this case. According to him on 27-12-1992 he was posted at Nabinagar Police Station as Sub-Inspector of Police and at 9.30 p.m. a Sanha was entered at Nabinagar Police Station that one person had sustained bullet injury and he was being treated in Government Hospital Nabinagar and on the basis of this information he (P.W. 11) went to the Government Hospital and recorded fardbeyan (Ext. 5) of Satyendra Thakur. Ext. 6 is the formal F.I.R. of this case. He has stated that he took up the investigation of the case and recorded further statement of the informant and he had found the injured Karmadeo Thakur on the western verandah of the Nabinagar Hospital in unconscious state and he prepared the injury report. He has also said that he had found injury bandaged from head to forehead up to nose of Karmadeo Thakur. Further, according to him the place of occurrence of his case is the house of informant Satyendra Thakur in village Panchmo. He has said that sufficient blood was found by the side of the chawki which he had seized in presence of two witnesses and he had prepared the seizure list (Ext. 7). Inquest report of the deceased Karmadeo Thakur had been marked Ext. 8 in this case. He has said that sufficient blood was found by the side of the chawki which he had seized in presence of two witnesses and he had prepared the seizure list (Ext. 7). Inquest report of the deceased Karmadeo Thakur had been marked Ext. 8 in this case. The fact that the I.O. had found blood at the place of occurrence supports the case of the prosecution and also proves the place of occurrence. 8. P.W. 4 is Makunti Devi. Accordbig to her time of occurrence was half past 7 Oclock in the evening and her father-in-law was sitting on the chawki in the Baithka. She has said that she was cooking food in Dhaba and at that time Harihar Thakur went to the Baithka and fired pistol on the forehead of her father-in-law and at that time Bhajan Thakur and Ram Raj Thakur were also with Harihar Thakur and there were four unknown persons with them and thereafter those unknown persons went inside the house and took away box. According to her own statement she was cooking food in Dhaba when accused Harihar Thakur had come to the Baithka and fired pistol at her father-in-law. It does not look probable that she had been the occurrence as she was cooking food in Dhaba at the time of occurrence. In the circumstances, her (P.W. 4) evidence is not worthy of reliance. 9. P.W. 5 is Devanti Devi daughter-in-law of the deceased Karmadeo Thakur. She has stated that it was half past 7 Oclock in the evening and at that time she was sitting with her mother- inlaw in the verandah inside the house and her father-in-law was sitting outside in the verandah on a chawki. According to her, Sharwan Singh, Madan Singh and her husband were also there and they were listening to the news and in the meantime she heard the sound of abuses and then she peeped and saw that Harihar Thakur had touched pistol on the forehead of her father-in-law and then there was a firing and her father-in-law fell down form the chawki. She has also said that Ram Raj Thakur and Bhajan Thakur were also with Harihar Thakur and there were four unknown persons who were armed with pistol. She has further said that thereafter all the accused-persons went inside the house and took away the box. She has also said that Ram Raj Thakur and Bhajan Thakur were also with Harihar Thakur and there were four unknown persons who were armed with pistol. She has further said that thereafter all the accused-persons went inside the house and took away the box. She has stated that there was sufficient blood below the chawki and her father-in-law died. Her statement that sufficient blood was found near the chawki is supported by the evidence of I.O. (P.W. 11 Hiralal Choudhary). She has stated that there was land dispute with the accused-persons and therefore they had committed the murder. According to fardbeyan of the informant Satyendra Thakur also, accused Harihar Thakur had land dispute with the deceased Karmadeo Thakur. P.W. 3 is Jagti Devi wife of deceased Karmadeo Thakur. According to her also the time was half past 7 Oclock in the evening and her husband was sitting in verandah on a chawki and at that time Satyendra Sharwan and Madan were also with him and radio was on. She has said that she heard bulla and she came out with her daughter-in-law and saw that Harihar Thakur, Ram Raj Thakur, Bhajan Thakur and four other persons were there and Harihar Thakur fired pistol on the head of her husband and he fell down from chowki. She has further said that lantern was burning in the Baithka. According to her accused-persons entered into the house and took away three boxes. It was argued by the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant that the lantern which was the only source of identification had not been seized by the I.O. when the deceased alongwith others were listening to the evening news bulletin of the radio at 7.30 p.m. It is expected that there must have been some source of light. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved on the ground that the I.O. had not seized the lantern. There is nothing in the cross examination of P.W. 3 Jagti Devi and P.W. 5 Dewanti Devi to disbelieve their evidence. 10. P.W. 6 is Satyendra Thakur the informant of this case. He has supported the prosecution on case as stated in his fardbeyan. There is nothing in the cross examination of P.W. 3 Jagti Devi and P.W. 5 Dewanti Devi to disbelieve their evidence. 10. P.W. 6 is Satyendra Thakur the informant of this case. He has supported the prosecution on case as stated in his fardbeyan. He has said that the occurrence is of 27-12-1992 at 7.30 p.m. and at that time he was sitting in his Baithka with his father Karmadeo Thakur (deceased Sarwan Singh (P.W. 9) Madan Thakur (P.W. 2) and a lantern was burning there and the news bulletin of 7.30 p.m. was going on. He has further said that at that time accused Harihar Thakur armed with pistol, Bhajan Thakur armed with lathi and Ram Raj Thakur alongwith 4 unknown persons came there, who were armed with pistol. According to him (P.W. 6) accused Harihar Thakur threatened them. He has stated that Harihar Thakur touched pistol on the forehead of his father and fired it as a result of which his father fell down from the chawki and there was sufficient bleeding. The fact that blood had fallen at the place of occurrence is supported by the evidence of P.W. 11 Hiralal Choudhary the I.O. of this case who has said that there was sufficient blood by the side of the chawki which he seized in presence of two witnesses and prepared the seizure list (Ext. 7). The medical evidence of P.W. 10 Dr. T.N. Shukla who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Karmadeo Thakur also supports the evidence of P.W. 6 Satyendra Thakur the informant. He (P.W. 6) has further said that Bhajan Thakur had assaulted him with lathi and other four persons had assaulted him and his brother Madan Thakur with fists. Further according to him Harihar Thakur ordered Bhajan Thakur to take away the articles of the house on which Bhajan Thakur along with unknown persons went inside the house and took away boxes and clothes etc. He has said that on hearing the sound of firing people of the village came and then the accused-persons fired on which the villagers fled away and thereafter the accused-persons went away with the articles. He has stated that he went near his father to see him and he found him unconscious and thereafter the people of the village assembled and he and villagers took his father to Nabinagar. He has stated that he went near his father to see him and he found him unconscious and thereafter the people of the village assembled and he and villagers took his father to Nabinagar. According to him the Daroga came to Nabinagar Government hospital and recorded this fardbeyan Ext. 2 is his signature on his fardbeyan. He has said that the doctor referred his father to Sadar Hospital and then they went to Aurangabad Sadar hospital and his father was admitted there. He has stated that during the treatment his father died on 28-12-1992. Further according to him inquest report of his father was prepared at Aurangabad before him on which he had signed. According to him the reason of occurrence is land dispute between his father and Harihar Thakur. This witness has been cross-examined at length by the defence but nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence. 11. P.W. 1 is Kariman Singh. He is a witness of seizure list. He has said that on 28-12-1992 police had seized blood soaked earth from the Baithka of deceased Karamadeo Thakur before him ?nd seizure list was prepared and he (P.W. 1) and Surendra had signed on it Ext. 1 and 1/1 are the signatures on the seizures list (Ext. 7). 12. P.W. 2 is Madan Thakur son of deceased Karmadeo Thakur. He has stated that the occurrence is of 27-12-1992 at 7.30 p.m. and at that time he was sitting on the paddy bag of his Baithka and Satyendra Thakur (P.W. 6) Sarwan Singh (P.W. 9) and his father Karmadeo Thakur (deceased) were also sitting there and they were listening to provincial news bulletin. According to him his father was sitting on a chawki and a lantern was burning in the verandah. He has said that in the meantime Harihar Thakur armed with revolver came to verandah and Rambhajan Thakur armed with lathi and Ramraj Thakur and four unknown persons armed with pistols also came. According to him accused Harihar Thakur warned them and on hearing the sound the ladies of the house came out. He has said that Harihar. He has said that in the meantime Harihar Thakur armed with revolver came to verandah and Rambhajan Thakur armed with lathi and Ramraj Thakur and four unknown persons armed with pistols also came. According to him accused Harihar Thakur warned them and on hearing the sound the ladies of the house came out. He has said that Harihar. Thakur touched revolver on the forehead of his father and fired and his father fell down from the chawki and then on direction of Harihar Thakur, Ram Bhajan Thakur, Ram Raj Thakur and four unknown persons went inside the house and took away three boxes containing clothes ornaments etc. Further according to him the dacoits fled away making firing. He has said that his father was taken to Nabinagar and the doctor asked to take him to Aurangabad and they took him Aurangabad where the Doctor declared him dead. He has stated that blood had fallen at the place of occurrence. According to him also the reason of murder was land dispute. There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence. 13. D.W. 1 is Surajdhan Singh. He has stated that he has seen the house of Satyendra Thakur and Bhajan Thakur and they live in the same angan and one house. He has said that Karmadeo Thakur father of Satyendra Thakur was murdered. According to him Dukhan Thakur had brought up Bhajan Thakur, and Dukhan Thakur was uncle of Bhajan Thakur and he had given his land and house to Bhajan Thakur. He has further said that the attachment of the property of Bhajan Thakur was done in that house and he (D.W. 1) had gone after 4 to 5 days of attachment and had seen that the door and Chaukhat had been uprooted and on enquiry he learnt that attachment had been done at the house of Bhajan Thakur. Admittedly he had not seen the alleged attachment of the property of Bhajan Thakur. He has said in his cross-examination that Dukhan Thakur had not executed the land in favour of Bhajan Thakur before him and he was not present at that time. When Dukhan Thakur had not given the land to Bhajan before him, how he can say that Dukhan Thakur had given his land and house to Bhajan Thakur. He has said in his cross examination that he was not present at that time. When Dukhan Thakur had not given the land to Bhajan before him, how he can say that Dukhan Thakur had given his land and house to Bhajan Thakur. He has said in his cross examination that he was not present at that time. He has further said in his cross examination that Bhajan Thakur had called, him for giving evidence. He has also said in his cross-examination that Bhajan Thakur is his brother. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution it cannot be inferred from the evidence of this witness (D.W. 1) that the accused has not committed the offence as alleged. 14. The above evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused Harihar Thakur has committed the offences as alleged. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is maintained. There is no merit in this criminal appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. 15. Miss Soni Srivastava, Advocate who appeared in this criminal appeal as amicus curiae may be paid her fee by the council for Legal Aid and Advice, Patna High Court, Patna. N.RAI, J. 16 I agree.