Y. R. TRIPATHI, J. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2-9-1980 passed by Shri Bhanwar Singh, the VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra, whereby he convicted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC, and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The facts leading to this appeal are a few and lie in narrow compass. 3. The informant Basudeo is a permanent resident of village Arabkhurd P. S. Sirsaganj of District Mainpuri. At the time of the incident he alongwith his brotbrother Bastiram and his family was residing in Kheragarh town of District Agra in a rented house belonging to one Wahidan. About 8 days prior to the incident Bastiram had got the appellant Prem Jatav arrested under Arms Act for his being in possession of unlicensed fire arms. A day prior to the incident, in the evening. Prem Jatav met the informant in inebriated condition in front of a liquor shop and told him to convey his brother Bastiram that he had not done good by creating enmity with him and that he shall have to repent for this throughout his life. Bastiram had gone to one of his relations on the morning of that day. On the day of incident, it is said that around 6 p. m. when Rakesh aged about 11 years, son of Bastiram after taking his meal was playing on the pathway to the east of his house, the appellant enticed him away to the north towards Khanpur on the path way and after taking him off the path way shot him dead beneath a Neem tree standing on the border of the field of one Megh Singh of village Kheragarh and fled away. Prabhu PW-6 a resident of village Nagla Udaiya, who worked as Mistri in Kheragarh town at that time was easing in a nearby wheat field at a distance of 15-20 paces from the scene of incident, saw the appellant shooting the deceased and fleeing. One Laxman Das P. W. 1, who was present on the temple situated in his field lying at a distance of 300-400 yards towards south west of the field of Megh Singh saw the appellant fleeing with a tamancha in his hand. One Laxman Das P. W. 1, who was present on the temple situated in his field lying at a distance of 300-400 yards towards south west of the field of Megh Singh saw the appellant fleeing with a tamancha in his hand. One Fateh Singh P. W. 2, who while going to Kheragarh from his village Khanpur had just before the incident come across the appellant and was urinating near the scene of incident also saw the appellant shooting the deceased. On hearing the bang of fire arm, Basudeo P. W. 5, who was present inside his house came out of his house and on learning about his nephew Rakesh having been murdered, rushed to the spot where Laxman Das P. W. 1, Fateh Singh P. W. 2 and Prabhu P. W. 6 who were already present there told him about the complicity of the appellant in the incident. Basudeo P. W. 5 without losing any time proceeded to the Police Station Kheragarh which lies at a distance of one kilometer from there and made an oral report of the occurrence which was taken down by Jai Dev Singh P. W. 3 then posted there as Head constable. Jai Dev Singh P. W. 3 also registered a case vide G. D. No. 24 at 18. 45 (Ext. Ka-2) S. I. , Ram Charan Singh P. W. 8, who was posted as Station Officer and was present at the Police Station swung into action. He held the inquest and after completing usual formalities despatched the dead body for its post-mortem examination, which was conducted on 18-2-1980 at 4. 30 p. m. by Dr. S. P. Misra, P. W. 4 who was then posted as Medical Officer, District Hospital Agra. According to Dr. Misra the deceased was aged about 11 years. He was of average built. He found rigor mortis present in both upper and lower etremitis. The post-mortem staining was also found present on the back. Decomposition had not set in by then. According to Dr. Mishra the deceased has died a day before. Dr. Mishra found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased : (i) Fire arm entrance wound on the right side back of chest 1/2" x 3/10" x chest cavity deep 3/4" below the right scapula lower angle and 4" outer to vertebrae column, linear margins inverted, contused, blackening, tattooing seen around the wound margins. Dr. Mishra found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased : (i) Fire arm entrance wound on the right side back of chest 1/2" x 3/10" x chest cavity deep 3/4" below the right scapula lower angle and 4" outer to vertebrae column, linear margins inverted, contused, blackening, tattooing seen around the wound margins. No scorching seen. (ii) Abrasion 4/10" x 4/10" on the right side back of chest 4" below the apex of posterior axillary fold. (iii) Fire arm exit wound on the left side front of chest 3-1/2" x 2-1/2 x chest cavity deep. Portion of the heart protruding margin everted contused. No Blackening, tattooing and scorching seen. The injury is 1" below the outer end of left clavicle. (iv) Lacerated wound 3" x 2-1/2 "x bone deep on the back of left hand just below the wrist. No blackening. tattooing, scorching seen. 2nd and 3rd metacarpal bones seen fractured. 4. On internal examination right hand side 7th rib and left hand side 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs of the deceased were found fractured and his left side of sternum and right side spleen were ruptured. 5. After due investigation a charge-sheet was presented against the appellant, which culminated into his trial. The case of the appellant was that of denial and false implication as a result of his enmity with the police. 6. The prosecution during the course of trial produced Laxman Das P. W. 1, Fateh Singh P. W. 2, Basudeo P. W. 5, Prabhu P. W. 6, all witnesses of facts, Head Constable Jai Dev Singh P. W. 3 the scribe of the chick report and the G. D. , Dr. S. P. Misra P. W. 4, Medical Officer, who held autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased. Constable Suresh Chand P. W. 7 who alongwith one Tundi Lal had taken the dead-body to the mortuary for its post-mortem examination and S. I. Ram Charan Singh P. W. 8, the Investigation Officer. 7. The defence also examined one Ramesh Chand as D. W. 1 and Vishwanath Das as D. W. 2 to prove that Prabhu had earlier sworn in an affidavit denying his having seen any incident as also the fact of the appellant having enmity with the police. 8. 7. The defence also examined one Ramesh Chand as D. W. 1 and Vishwanath Das as D. W. 2 to prove that Prabhu had earlier sworn in an affidavit denying his having seen any incident as also the fact of the appellant having enmity with the police. 8. The learned trial Court on appraisal of the evidence led before it concluded about the complicity of the appellant in the incident and having held him guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid, dissatisfied from which the appellant has preferred this appeal. 9. We have heard Sri P. N. Misra, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned A. G. A. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the conclusions of the trial Court on the grounds that the motive assigned for the commission of offence is too feeble to have impelled the appellant to commit the crime and that the evidence relied upon consisting of the testimonies of pocket witnesses of the police is highly incredible and untrustworthy. He has also highlighted the inconsistencies between the oral and medical evidence. 11. It has first of all been urged that the motive assigned to the appellant for commission of offence is neither proved, nor appears to be convincing. According to the prosecution 8 days prior to the incident Bastiram brother of the informant had got the appellant arrested for being in possession of unlicensed arms. This fact also finds place in the FIR which was lodged with promptitude at an earliest opportunity after the incident. Basudeo, P. W. 5 who is the real brother of Bastiram, the person allegedly instrumental to the arrest of the appellant under Section 25 Arms Act, has deposed about this fact. Jai Dev Singh P. W. 3, who was then posted at P. S. Kheragarh as Head Constable has also corroborated him on this point and his evidence goes unchallenged. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. has simply denied about Bastiram being instrumental to his arrest under the Arms Act. He has not denied about his having been arrested under the Arms Act about 8 days prior to the incident. The fact thus remains that the appellant had been arrested under the Arms Act by the Police of Kheragrah. P. C. has simply denied about Bastiram being instrumental to his arrest under the Arms Act. He has not denied about his having been arrested under the Arms Act about 8 days prior to the incident. The fact thus remains that the appellant had been arrested under the Arms Act by the Police of Kheragrah. The evidence also shows that Bastiram father of the deceased had played some role in the said arrest. It was, therefore, but natural for the appellant to have nursed grudge against Bastiram. The motive thus set up by the prosecution besides being proved by cogent evidence was sufficient to supply animus to the appellant to commit the crime complained of. It would also be found that Basudeo P. W. 5 has stated that a day prior to the incident the appellant had met him before a liquor shop in the town of Kheragarh and had asked him to convey to his brother that by creating enmity he had not done good and that he shall have to weep throughout his life. The statement of Basudeo P. W. 5 has neither been challenged nor any suggestion has been thrown that the appellant did not issue such threat. This itself goes to show that the appellant had taken the role of Bastiram in his arrest very seriously and had also an intention to harm him so as to make him realise the blunder he had committed. The motive thus assigned to the appellant has been fully proved by the prosecution and to our mind, it was sufficient to impel the appellant to commit the murder of Rakesh son of Bastiram. 12. It was next contended that the evidence led by the prosecution consists of pocket witnesses of the police and besides being inconsistent with the medical evidence is incredible and unreliable. Our attention has been drawn towards the relevant portions of the statement of Laxman Das P. W. 1, Fateh Singh P. W. 2 and Prabhu P. W. 6 on this point. Laxman Das P. W. 1 has admitted being prosecution witness in two cases in which he had seen the incident but has denied the suggestion of his being the pocket witness of the police. Laxman Das P. W. 1 has admitted being prosecution witness in two cases in which he had seen the incident but has denied the suggestion of his being the pocket witness of the police. Fateh Singh P. W. 2 has stated that he does not remember as to whether or not he has appeared as a witness in State v. Punjab Singh and State v. Ram Singh. He however has denied his being a pocket witness of the police. Prabhu P. W. 6 has admitted his having once been prosecuted for gambling. Being a witness in an incident which one has seen does not make him untrustworthy and unreliable. Similarly there is also no rule of law that if some one has been prosecuted for an offence he cannot be a witness of any incident taking place in his view and no credence shall be attached to him. Laxman Das P. W. 1 and Prabhu P. W. 6 are aged about 50 years and Fateh Singh P. W. 2 appears to be of 36 years of age and if in their life-time they appeared or were cited as witnesses in one or two cases, it does not lead to a presumption that they are either pocket witnesses of the police or persons of impeachable character. Their evidence in this case has thus to be viewed in the context of facts and circumstances deposed by them and has to be adjudged in that context to find out whether it is reliable or not. Laxman Das P. W. 1 has not deposed about his having seen the actual incident. He has simply stated that at the time of incident he was present at the temple situated in his field which lies at a distance of 300-400 yards towards south- west of the place of incident. He has also stated that one or two minutes after he heard the bang of the fire arm, he had seen the appellant from a distance of about 20 paces while he was fleeing with a tamancha from the north of the temple where he was present. Fateh Singh P. W. 2 a resident of village Khanpur has stated that while he was going to Kheragarh to make household purchases he had come across the appellant on his way near the place of incident. He had also seen the deceased in the company of the appellant. Fateh Singh P. W. 2 a resident of village Khanpur has stated that while he was going to Kheragarh to make household purchases he had come across the appellant on his way near the place of incident. He had also seen the deceased in the company of the appellant. He has further stated that after the incident of shooting he had seen the appellant fleeing. He though appears to be a chance witness, but is found to have accounted for his presence on the spot satisfactorily and no motive is shown for his giving false evidence in this case. 13. Then there is evidence of Prabhu P. W. 6, who worked as a Mistri and resided in Kheragarh town at the time of occurrence. He has stated that at the time of incident he was easing in a field nearby the place of occurrence and was present at a distance of about 20-25 paces when he saw the appellant shooting the deceased and fleeing. Basudeo P. W. 5 who is uncle of the deceased has stated that at the time of incident he was present inside his house and after hearing the bang of fire arm he had come out and rushed to the place of incident, where he found his nephew Rakesh murdered. He has also stated that Laxman Das P. W. 1 and Fateh Singh P. W. 2 were present there at that time and had told him to have seen the appellant shooting the deceased. The evidence of Fateh Singh P. W. 2 and Prabhu P. W. 6 finds support from the evidence of Laxman Das P. W. 1 and Basudeo P. W. 5 in so far as Laxman Das had immediately after the incident seen the appellant fleeing from the direction of the place of occurrence with a tamancha and Basudeo P. W. 5 has stated about Fateh Singh P. W. 2 and Prabhu P. W. 6 having revealed the name of the appellant to him immediately after the incident. In this case the incident is said to have taken place around 6 p. m. in the day light of which the FIR was lodged at Police Station Kheragrah, which lies at a distance of one kilometer at 6. 45 p. m. i. e. only after 45 minutes of the incident. In this case the incident is said to have taken place around 6 p. m. in the day light of which the FIR was lodged at Police Station Kheragrah, which lies at a distance of one kilometer at 6. 45 p. m. i. e. only after 45 minutes of the incident. The promptitude with which the FIR has been lodged not only lends credence to the prosecution case but also rules out any deliberation and cooking of a false case against the appellant. The eye account of the incident given by Fateh Singh P. W. 2 and Prabhu P. W. 6 when viewed in the perspective of prompt FIR gives further assurance to the truthfulness of the prosecution case ruling out completely the chance of false implication of the appellant. We thus find no valid reason to hold the testimonies of Laxman Das P. W. 1. Fateh Singh P. W. 2 and Prabhu P. W. 2 unreliable or unbelievable and the learned trial Court thus, to our mind, has committed no error in relying upon it. 14. It was then next contended that some of the ante-mortem injures found on the person of the deceased being caused other than by fire arm go unexplained belying the manner and fashion in which the incident is said to have taken place. True, that an abrasion and lacerated wound were also found on the person of the deceased at the time of post-mortem examination, but these injuries could have been sustained by the deceased by fall on a hard substance also. The medical evidence though rules out these injuries having been received by light fall on the ground but no where the medical evidence of Dr. Mishra P. W. 4 rules out completely about these injuries having been caused by fall. From the oral account given by Prabhu P. W. 6 it is found that the appellant had first made the victim to stand at some distance from him and then had shot at him. Naturally on sustaining the gun shot injury the victim must have fallen on the ground with force and there is nothing improbable if the victim sustained his ante- mortem injuries 2 and 4 on such fall. Naturally on sustaining the gun shot injury the victim must have fallen on the ground with force and there is nothing improbable if the victim sustained his ante- mortem injuries 2 and 4 on such fall. Thus the aforesaid ante-mortem injuries 2 and 4 on the person of the deceased in no way go to bely the oral account of the incident given by Fateh Singh P. W. 2 and Prabhu P. W. 6. Presence of blackening and tattooing around Injury No. 1 which is entry point of fire arm wound also suggest that Injury No. 1 had been caused hardly from a distance of 2-3 feet and there was, therefore, every likelihood of the injured deceased having fallen on the ground with force sustaining thereby his ante-mortem injuries 2 and 4. 15. We shall fail in our duty if we leave the defence version undiscussed. Emphasis was laid by the learned Counsel for the appellant on certain affidavits allegedly sworn in by Basudeo P. W. 5 and Prabhu P. W. 6 before their evidence in Sessions Court, whereby they are said to have disowned the prosecution version. The defence has examined one Ramesh Chandra D. W. 1 an Advocate to prove that he had identified the signature of Prabhu on one such affidavit, but his evidence does not show that he knew Prabhu. He himself has stated that on the basis of identification of Prabhu by his clerk Tulsi, he had identified him. From his evidence, thus, it is borne out that he did not know Prabhu from before. His clerk has not come forward to prove the identity of Prabhu. The affidavit thus alleged to be sworn by Prabhu P. W. 6 is not proved and has rightly been ignored. Then a suggestion was also thrown to Basudeo P. W. 5 that he too had sworn an affidavit 18 Kha disowning the prosecution case, but he has denied the suggestion and no positive evidence has been led to prove the same. There is thus nothing to show that any of the aforesaid witnesses had ever sworn any affidavit allegedly attributed to them. There is thus nothing to show that any of the aforesaid witnesses had ever sworn any affidavit allegedly attributed to them. A futile attempt was then made by the appellant by producing Vishwanath Das as D. W. 2 owner of the Bharattlent House where he is employed, to prove that the police personnel prior to the incident had taken certain goods on hire and when he demanded rent they falsely implicated him under Arms Act and when he was released on bail in that case, he was implicated in the present case. It would be found that the appellant was merely working as a Munim in the Tent House of which Vishwanath Das is the owner. The appellant thus could not have taken any independent decision and if at all he had demanded any rent from police personnel he must have done so at his masters instructions. There was therefore no reason for the police personnel to have felt annoyed with him over his conduct. If at all they had any grievance on account of demand of rent being made from them they would have felt sore over the conduct of Vishwanath Das D. W. 2 who was the owner of Bharat Tent House. 16. Thus on an overall consideration of the entire evidence on record, we find that the learned trial Court on proper appraisal of oral as well as circumstantial evidence has rightly concluded about the incident having taken place in the manner and fashion as alleged by the prosecution. 17. In view of what has been said above, we find that the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant are devoid of any merit and the learned trial Court has in totality of the evidence rightly held the appellant having committed the offence. We accordingly endorse the conclusion of the learned trial Court and hold Rakesh, a boy of 11 years of age. The sentence awarded to the appellant being the minimum for the offence is also fully justified. 18. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. 19. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the C. J. M. Agra for compliance of this order. He shall submit his compliance report at the earliest. Appeal dismissed. .