JUDGMENT S.N. JHA & B.N.P. SINGH, JJ.:- The sole appellant of this appeal, Bakhauri Yadav, has been convicted for committing the murder of Ballabh Singh, a resident of village Santanbigha, district Nalanda at village Nehusa near Duba Khandha within Harnaut Police Station of Naland district on 27.8.98 at 9.30 A.M. 2. The occurrence was reported by Balram Prasad (hereinafter, the informant) employee of deceased Ballabh Singh. He stated in his Fardbayan before S.I. Janardan Singh of Harnaut P.S. on 27.8.98 at 1 P.M. that he along with the deceased left village Missi for Rajgir in the morning at 8 A.M. On the way they met Guhan Prasad of village Missi who was going to Harnaut Bazar and all of them proceeded together. When they reached village Nehusa near Duba Khanda at 9.30 A.M. they were accosted by the appellant and one Om Prakash @ Barelal Yadav who were armed with country made pistols. Ballabh Singh tried to remonstrate imploring them not to kill him and whatever will be decided in the Panchayat will be acceptable to him. This, however, did not cut any ice on them. Barelal Yadav fired first shot which hit his left eye followed by the appellant who fired on his chest. Ballabh Singh fell down smeared with blood and soon expired. When the informant tried to move the accused started brandishing pistols and threatened him with dire consequences if he would narrate the incident. Saying this they fled away towards village Nehusa Bigha. The informant stated that the occurrence was result of enmity with the accused. 3. The above Fardbayan was reduced to writing by S.I. Janardan Singh. After forwarding it to the Police Station, where it was registered as Harnaut P.S. Case No. 141 of 1998, he took up investigation himself. He held inquest in presence of one Rajmani Prasad and said Guhan Prasad who put their signatures on the inquest report, and sent the body for post mortem. He also seized different articles from the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of Guhan Prasad. He made over investigation to the Officer-in-Charge, Harnaut P.S., S.I. Mritunjay Kumar Singh, on 31.8.98 on the direction of the Superior Officers. Mritunjay Kumar Singh completed the investigation and submitted chargesheet against the appellant showing the said Om Prakash Yadav @ Barelal Yadav as absconder. 4. He made over investigation to the Officer-in-Charge, Harnaut P.S., S.I. Mritunjay Kumar Singh, on 31.8.98 on the direction of the Superior Officers. Mritunjay Kumar Singh completed the investigation and submitted chargesheet against the appellant showing the said Om Prakash Yadav @ Barelal Yadav as absconder. 4. At the trial which followed, the prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove its case, the witnesses on facts being P.Ws. 1 to 5, 7 and 8, out of them P.W.1 Guhan Prasad, P.W.2 Ram Tahal Prasad and P.W.7 Balram Prasad, the informant himself, were examined as eye witnesses. It may be mentioned here that Ram Tahal Prasad did not claim to have seen actual killing. He stated that he heard the• sound of gunfire and saw the appellant and On Prakash Yadav fleeing away from the place of occurrence. P.W.4 Nand Kishore Prasad also stated to have seen the appellant and Om Prakash Yadav fleeing away soon after the occurrence. While P.W.3 Kumar Kishore Mandal, P.W.5 Ramanand Prasad @ Ram Nandan and P.W.8 Nawal Kishore Singh claimed to have learnt about the occurrence from others. Besides them, the doctor who held post mortem, namely Dr. Sita Ballabh Sharan, was examined as P.W.6 and the two investigating officers i.e. Janardan Singh and Mritunjay Kumar Singh were examined as P.Ws.9 and 10. The appellant also examined two witnesses in defence, namely, D.W.1 Parmanand Prasad and D.W. 2 Dhanraj Paswan. While D.W. 1 was examined to discredit the evidence of P.W. 2 Ram Tahal Prasad that he looks after the cultivation of his (Parmanand Prasad) land at Nehusabigha, D.W.2 Dhanraj Paswan stated that he had heard the sound of gun-fire and seen 2-3 persons fleeing away whom he could not identify. 5. At the end of trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code awarding sentence of life imprisonment; also, under Section 27 of the Arms Act awarding sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment thereunder. 6. We have gone through the evidence on record oral as well as documentary and heard counsel for the appellant and the State at length, and we are satisfied that the prosecution has fully proved its case and the appellant's conviction does not warrant any Interference by this Court. 7. 6. We have gone through the evidence on record oral as well as documentary and heard counsel for the appellant and the State at length, and we are satisfied that the prosecution has fully proved its case and the appellant's conviction does not warrant any Interference by this Court. 7. The informant supported the Fardbayan version and P.W.1, Guhan Prasad, who was with the deceased and the informant at the time of occurrence fully supported the informant. He stated that on the day of occurrence he left for Harnaut at 8 A.M. when he reached Nehusa Math he met Ballabh Singh and Balram Prasad who on way to Rajgir en route Harnaut and three of them proceeded together. When they reached near Duba Khanda, appellant and Barelal Yadav surrounded Ballabh Singh with pistols in their hand and started threatening. Ballabh Singh implored them not to kill him saying that he would abide by the verdict of the panchayati. On this Barelal Yadav stated that there was no use for any Panchayati and they had come to kill him. Saying this, he fired on his left eye. Immediately thereafter, Bakhauri, the appellant herein, fired from his pistol on his chest causing his instantaneous death. The accused thereafter threatened him (Guhan Prasad) with dire consequences and fled to Nehusa village. The Police Sub-Inspector came after the incident and recorded the statement of Balram Prasad. Inquest report was prepared on which he put his signature as witness. The Sub-Inspector also seized articles of the deceased, such as, Dhoti, Kurta, Ghee, umbrella, which were kept in a bag. 8. Dealing with the evidence of RW.1 Guhan Prasad it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that in his statement before the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he had stated that he came to learn the name of the appellant from Balram Prasad. Though the witness denied this, S.I. Janardan Singh his evidence stated so, and it was accordingly submitted that reliance cannot be placed on evidence of Guhan Prasad. The submission appears to be attractive but on closer consideration is devoid of any weight. As indicated, S.I. Janardan Singh was divested of investigation on 31.8.98 on the direction of the superior officers whereafter the investigation was taken over by Officer-in-Charge i.e. P.W.10 Mritunjay Kumar Singh. The submission appears to be attractive but on closer consideration is devoid of any weight. As indicated, S.I. Janardan Singh was divested of investigation on 31.8.98 on the direction of the superior officers whereafter the investigation was taken over by Officer-in-Charge i.e. P.W.10 Mritunjay Kumar Singh. He too recorded statement of P.W.1 Guhan Prasad on 4.9.98 vide paragraph 75 of the case diary as per which Guhan Prasad categorically stated that the crime was committed by the appellant Bakhauri Yadav and am Prakash Yadav @ Barelal Yadav and that he knew both of them because they happened to come to village Missi off and on account of relationship there. Unfortunately, attention of P.W.10 was not drawn to this statement either in the examination-in-chief or cross-examination. It appears to us; from the manner in which S.I. Janardan Singh was divested of charge of this case after four days, that he was not making fair investigation, that is why investigation was handed over to S.I. Mritunjay Kumar Singh. In the circumstances it would be difficult to rely on the omissions in recording of the statements of witnesses; we would rather prefer to rely on his evidence in Court which is in conformity with his statement which he made before S.I. Mritunjay Kumar Singh on 4.9.98 vide paragraph 75 of the case diary. The evidence of Guhan Prasad being otherwise consistent we find no ground to discard his evidence on account of so called discrepancy with the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is to be kept in mind that evidence of Guhan Prasad is otherwise consistent with the earliest version i.e. Fardbayan version as well as the informant's version in Court. Being an independent witness and in the company of the deceased and the informant, travelling together, he was most competent witness on the point of occurrence and, therefore, there being striking similarity between their evidence, we find it safe to rely on his evidence. It may be mentioned that in the cross-examination of these two witnesses it was suggested that they had killed the deceased for money which he was carrying. Though nothing turns on the 'suggestions' to the witness, such suggestion impliedly supports the prosecution case that P.W.1 Guhan Prasad was in the company of not only the deceased but also the informant. 9. Though nothing turns on the 'suggestions' to the witness, such suggestion impliedly supports the prosecution case that P.W.1 Guhan Prasad was in the company of not only the deceased but also the informant. 9. The evidence of Guhan Prasad, P.W.1, and the informant, P.W. 7, finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.4 Nand Kishore Prasad who saw the appellant and Om Prakash Yadav fleeing away from the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. As a matter of fact, to the same effect is the evidence of P.W.2 Ram Tahal Prasad, who claimed to be present near the place of incident, getting cultivation done in his field, when he heard the sound of gun-fire and looking in that direction, saw the appellant and Om Prakash Yadav fleeing away. However, as pointed out on behalf of the appellant, statement of P.W.2 Ram Tahal Prasad was recorded by the Investigating Officer after three months of the occurrence on 30.11.98. There also appears to be conflict with the evidence of D.W.1 Parmanand Prasad who denied that his lands of village Nehusa Bigha were being cultivated by Ram Tahal Prasad. Therefore, it may not be safe to rely on his evidence. But there being consistent evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 corroborating each other, which finds support from the evidence of P.W.4, we do not think ignoring the evidence of P.W.2 affects the prosecution case in any manner. 10. As a matter of fact, the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 finds enough corroboration from the medical evidence too. It may be recalled that according to both P.Ws. 1 and 7, Om Prakash fired first on the left eye of the deceased followed by the appellant who fired on the chest, which is consistent with the findings of the doctor in the post mortem as under:- "(i) One lacerated wound with black and inverted margin 1/4" in diameter situated in left eye (wound of entry) (ii) One lacerated wound with inverted margin 1" in diameter situated near right ear (wound of exit) (iii) One lacerated wound with black and inverted margin 1/4" in diameter situated in epigastric region (wound of entry) (iv) One abrasion 3" x 2" on right palm." It is apparent that injury nos. (i) and (ii) were result of the same shot fired by Om Prakash Yadav @ Barelal Yadav, while injury no. (iii) was caused by the appellant. (i) and (ii) were result of the same shot fired by Om Prakash Yadav @ Barelal Yadav, while injury no. (iii) was caused by the appellant. It is relevant to mention here that the bullet remained embedded inside the stomach was removed by the doctor, kept in safe custody and it was ultimately produced in Court as material ext. No. VI. The doctor explained that epigastric region is situated in the upper part of the stomach and part of the stomach. The epigastric region, therefore, being close to chest, injury no.3 is fully consistent with the prosecution case of the appellant firing shot on the chest. Part (s) of the body cannot be described while describing the occurrence with exactitude and, therefore, the injury on the epigastric region is in no way inconsistent with the ocular evidence. 11. Both the Investigating Officers, P.Ws. 9 and 10, found blood mark at the place of occurrence. The former, in fact, seized blood stained earth. He also seized the belongings of the deceased which he was carrying in his bag, such as, one kilo Sudha ghee in a pouch, four littis (an indigenous home made eatable) gamchha, dhoti, kurta and a pair of half shoes. Except ghee and littis and kurta which were reported to have been eaten by rats, other articles were produced as material exhibits. Having gone through their evidence, we are satisfied that the prosecution has not only proved the place of occurrence but also that the deceased was on journey to Rajgir. He belonged to village Santanbigha, apparently he had gone to village Missi from where he left for Rajgir en route Harnaut. It is, therefore, natural that he was carrying belongings of daily use. The recovery of these articles, in our opinion, supports the prosecution case that the deceased left village Missi for Rajgir on the day of occurrence. 12. As indicated above, the appellant examined two witnesses in his evidence. While, D.W.1 respectively tried to discredit the evidence of P.W.2, D.W.2 gave a negative evidence that he could not identify the assailants whom he saw fleeing away, which in no way affects the prosecution case. 13. 12. As indicated above, the appellant examined two witnesses in his evidence. While, D.W.1 respectively tried to discredit the evidence of P.W.2, D.W.2 gave a negative evidence that he could not identify the assailants whom he saw fleeing away, which in no way affects the prosecution case. 13. It would thus appear that the prosecution case is based on the ocular evidence of witnesses out of whom at least two saw the occurrence and their version finds corroboration from the medical evidence as well as objective finding of the Investigating officers and in facts and circumstances we are satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the conviction of the appellant does not require any interference. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.