Judgment C.M.Prasad, J. 1. The sole appellant Bihari Mahto @ Kubra stands convicted under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, R.I. for six months. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine of R. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 6 months. However, the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution commenced with the fardbeyan (Ext-3) of the informant Surendra Prasad (PW 8), the Son of deceased Brahmdeo Prasad Yadav. The fardbeyan was recorded by S.I. Sandhyarani Mehta of Noorasarai Police Station on the 7th August, 1998 at 9.00 a.m. at the place where the dead body was lying. The informant stated in his fardbeyan that his father (the deceased) was cultivating a 3 Katha plot of land belonging to one Hira Sah of Murarpur, Biharsharif for the last 10 years on theka. In the relevant year, he had grown jhalra crop for use as fodder for the cattle. He further stated that, that day (7.8.1998) at 8.00 a.m he (the informant) along with his father (deceased) has gone to cut the jhalra crop and after cutting the crop, they were preparing the bundles of the same, at which time appellant Bihari Mahto @ Kubra came there and he asked them as to why they were not getting that land exchanged with his (appellants) land. At this, the deceased replied how he could get the land exchanged, when he was not the owner of the same. The informant says that on his fathers (deceaseds) such reply, the appellant threatened him (the deceased) and saying that he (the informant) would show the consequence immediately, he went to his cabin situated in front of the field and came back with a pistol and taking aim on the deceased, fired from his pistol hitting the deceased below his neck and above chest. At that time, the deceased was carrying bundle of jhalra crop on his head and receiving the fire-shot, he stumbled and fell down in the adjacent parti field of Ramanandan Gope (PW 5). After shooting the deceased, the appellant fled away towards the village. At that time, the deceased was carrying bundle of jhalra crop on his head and receiving the fire-shot, he stumbled and fell down in the adjacent parti field of Ramanandan Gope (PW 5). After shooting the deceased, the appellant fled away towards the village. The informant went to his father (the deceased) immediately and he saw that the deceased had received a fire shot injury below his neck and above chest and he had died. The informant also stated in his fardbeyan that his father had also received a long cut injury on his left palm and he guessed that the injury might have occurred in deceaseds attempt to ward off the fire shot hitting below neck and above chest or it might have also occurred from the sickle (hasua) which the deceased was carrying for cutting the jhalra crop. The informant named Krishna Gope (PW 2), Naresh Prasad (PW 3), Ramdeo Gope (PW 6) and some others as witnesses to the occurrence. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the formal FIR (Ext-4) was recorded at Noorsarai Police Station, being Noorsarai P.S. Case No. 161 of 1998 and, on completion of investigation, the appellant was tried and convicted by the impugned judgment dated 28th September, 2000 of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif passed in S.T. No. 663 of 1998/32 of 1999. 3. As many as eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution in this case. PW 8 Surendra Prasad is the informant, PW I Chhotan Yadav, PW 2 Krishna Prasad, PW 3 Naresh Prasad, PW 5 Ram Nandan Prasad and PW 6 Ramdeo Gope are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW 7 Kanti Devi is deceaseds wife who had come to the p.O. on learning about the murder of her husband (the deceased). PW 4 Bijendra Yadav is a witness on the point of preparation of inquest report of the dead body of the deceased. PW 10 Krishna Nandan Prasad is the seizure witness in whose presence the I.O. had seized blood soaked soil from the P.O.PW 9 Dr. Prabhat Kumar is the doctor who held the P.M. Examination on the dead body of the deceased. PW7 II Bhola Prasad Singh is the I.O. of the case. 4. For appreciating the ocular evidence, it is proper to discuss the doctors evidence first. The doctor (PW 9) deposed that on 7.8.1998 at. Prabhat Kumar is the doctor who held the P.M. Examination on the dead body of the deceased. PW7 II Bhola Prasad Singh is the I.O. of the case. 4. For appreciating the ocular evidence, it is proper to discuss the doctors evidence first. The doctor (PW 9) deposed that on 7.8.1998 at. 10.55 a.m., he had conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries : (i) Rigor mortis agsence in upper limbs. (ii) Rigor mortis present in lower limbs. (iii) One lacerated wound on right side of chest near the sterno clavicular joint 1" x 1/2" x cavity deep margin of wound blackened, charred and inverted into the wound of entry. (iv) On lacerated wound of left hand of dorsal size. 1 1/2" x 1" x 1/4" size. On dissection, brain and brain matter intact, chest and thorasic cavity full of blood, fluids and clots, right side of lung perforated, right subclavical ar- tilary and vein ruptured. Right and left chambers of heart empty. Abdomen stomach intact contained 2-3 ozs of semi digested food materials. Liver, spleen, both kidneys, small and large intestine intact. Bladder half full. In the opinion of the doctor the death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage, caused by above noted injuries. Time elapsed since death was within 24 hours. The doctor also deposed that a metallic substance resembling bullet was extracted from the wound. At para-2 of the cross- examination, the doctor stated that two injuries caused on the deceased were caused by /two different shots. He also deposed that complete digestion takes place in six hours. He further deposed at para-5 that rigor mortis appears jn the dead body after 3 hours of death. It first appears in the upper limbs and it expands in the whole body within 18-36 hours and then it starts vanishing/disappearing from upper limbs after 12 hours. 5 The evidence of I.O. who inspected the P.O. is also important to be discussed before the discussion of the ocular evidence is taken up. The I.O. (PW 11) stated that on 7th August, 1998 at 8.15 a.m. he learnt through rumour that one man had been killed by fire shot in village Doiya in front of Chimni Bhatta Road. 5 The evidence of I.O. who inspected the P.O. is also important to be discussed before the discussion of the ocular evidence is taken up. The I.O. (PW 11) stated that on 7th August, 1998 at 8.15 a.m. he learnt through rumour that one man had been killed by fire shot in village Doiya in front of Chimni Bhatta Road. He said that on the basis of that information, he recorded a Sanha (S.D. Entry) and with Constable No. 1005 reached, the P.O. situated in village Doiya. He says that the informant Surendra Kumar (PW 8) was present there whose fardbeyan was recorded by Probationary S.I. Sandhya Mehta. After recording the Jardbeyan, the same was read over the and explained to him and finding it correct, he put his signature on it. The Jardbeyan is Ext-3. Then he says that a formal FIR was. recorded. The formal FIR is Ext-4 He further says that he took up investigation and prepared the inquest report through carbon process which was signed by witnesses Ramdeo Gope and Bijendra Singh. The inquest report is marked Ext. 5. At para-5 of his evidence, he mentions about the P.O. saying that it was a 3-katha plot and the land belonged to the Hiralal Sah of Sondih and that the deceased was cultivating that land on batai and he had grown jhalra crop over it. The crop was found standing on the land and a portion it was found cut. The I.O. also mentions that the land of appellant situated adjacent south of that land. He also mentions that by the side of that jhalra crop land, the land of Ram Nandan Gope (PW 5) is situated and in the north-western corner of that land, copious blood was found and it was disclosed to him that the deceased had stumbled and fallen there. He also mentions that some spot of blood was also found in the jhalra crop land and that at a distance of about 150 yards from there, the cabin of the appellant is situated. At para 6 he deposed that he had seized blood soaked soil from the P.O. and he prepared the seizure-list. The seizure-list is Ext. 6. Then he says that he had sent the dead body for P.M. Examination and after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet. At para 6 he deposed that he had seized blood soaked soil from the P.O. and he prepared the seizure-list. The seizure-list is Ext. 6. Then he says that he had sent the dead body for P.M. Examination and after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet. At paras-17, 18 and 20, the I.O. has stated that witnesses Chhotan Gope (PW 1), Krishna Prasad (PW 2) and Ram Nandan Prasad (PW 5) had not stated before him that at the time of occurrence when they saw the occurrence, they were in their fields working there. But on perusal of the case diary, it appears that witness Krishna Prasad has stated at para-6 of the case diary that at the time of occurrence, he was working in his field situated nearby. It appears that the defence did not confront the witness to this part of statement in the case diary and the I.O. simply gave a denial of the evidence of the witness who deposed that at the time of occurrence he was ploughing his field. As to the omissions as stated by the I.O. in respect to witnesses Chhotan Gope and Ram Nandan Prasad, it appears that the Investigating Officer has simply recorded their statement on the point of having seen the occurrence and he did not care to record their statement on the point as to where they were at that time. Moreover, these omissions are not substantial in nature to affect the case of prosecution in any manner. 6. The informant (PW 8) deposed that, at about 8.00 a.m. while he, along with his father (the deceased) had gone to cut jhalra crop and while they were tying bundles of the crop after cutting it, the informant came there and he asked his father (the deceased) as to why he was not getting the land exchanged with his (informants) land, whereupon the deceased replied that the land did not belong to him. The informant further deposes that on deceaseds such reply the appellant stated that he would show him the consequence and then he went to his cabin and came back with pistol and fired shot on the deceased. At that time, the deceased was carrying bundle of crop on his head and receiving the shot, he stumbled and fell down and died. Thereafter the appellant fled away towards west. At that time, the deceased was carrying bundle of crop on his head and receiving the shot, he stumbled and fell down and died. Thereafter the appellant fled away towards west. The informant names Ram Nandan Prasad (PW 5), Krishna Prasad (PW 2), Naresh Yadav (PW 5), Ramdeo Yadav (PW 6), Chhotan Yadav (PW 1) and Krishna Nandan Prasad (PW 10) as the witnesses who had seen the occurrence. He says that the fardbeyan was recorded which was read over to him and then he put his signature over the same. He also deposed that after the occurrence, his mother (PW 7) had come to the field and he had disclosed before her that the appellant had shot the deceased and then he had fled away. At para-5 he said that the owner of the land was of Sohdih. At para-7 he deposed that his father (the deceased) was cultivating the land since last 10-12 years and sometimes he cultivated it on payment of money and sometimes on share of crop. At para-9 he stated that about half an hour of the alleged occurrence he and his father (the deceased) had told the appellant that he should talk before purchasing or exchanging the land with the owner of the land. At para-22, he admits that witness Ramdeo Gope (PW 6) is his uncle and Ram Naresh Gope (PW 3) is his cousin. At para-30 of his cross-examination, he says that the deceased was shot from a distance of 1 cubit and that only one shot was fired. At para- 32, on his attention being drawn towards his fardbeyan, he admits that he had stated that the injury on deceaseds left palm might have occurred while the deceased might have tried to ward off the firearm injury caused near his chest or during fall, it might have also been caused by means of sickle (hasua) which the deceased carried for cutting the crop. At para-38 he says that 6-7 persons had come to the P.O., but he himself had not sent anybody to the police station and at para-39 he says that later on the chaukidar had come with police. Thus, the informant corroborates the prosecution case on all the material points and there is nothing to discredit his testimony on any count. 7. Thus, the informant corroborates the prosecution case on all the material points and there is nothing to discredit his testimony on any count. 7. PW 1 says that at the time of occurrence, he was in his field situated nearby and he had gone to look after his field at which time he saw that the appellant fired shot at deceased Brahmdeo Yadav who had not agreed to appellants demand for exchanging the land. This witness had identified the appellant in the dock. This witness was aged 75 years on the date of his deposition on 1st February, 1999 and he stated at para 2 of his cross-examination that due to his old age, there was some deficiency in hearing and eye sight. Due to this evidence, learned counsel for the appellant argued that since this witness had deficient eye sight, it cannot be believed that he could have seen the occurrence from nearby field. But this has to be considered that while deposing in Court from the witness box this witness has clearly identified this appellant who was standing in the dock at a distance. Therefore, it appears that he had sufficient eye sight to identify persons and objects from some distance, hence, the claim of the witness to have seen the appellant cannot be disbelieved. At para-10 of his cross-examination, he deposed that his field situated just after 2 toparas (plot or portion of plot). At para-17 he says that the appellant is a Kubara (hunch back from his birth. This witness appears to be a reliable witness. 8. PW 2 Krishna Prasad has also seen the occurrence while he was ploughing the field and the gives cogent and reliable details of the occurrence. He also stated that hearing the sound of firing from his field, he had rushed to the P.O. and he had seen the deceased fallen and blood coming out of his body. At para-4 of his evidence he deposes that his field situated at a distance of 300 bamboos from the P.O. and that one bamboo was equivalent to 5 cubits. The appellants counsel argued from this that the distance will become 1500 cubit and from that distance, the occurrence could not have been seen so clearly. At para-4 of his evidence he deposes that his field situated at a distance of 300 bamboos from the P.O. and that one bamboo was equivalent to 5 cubits. The appellants counsel argued from this that the distance will become 1500 cubit and from that distance, the occurrence could not have been seen so clearly. No doubt, as guessed the distance is a bit more but this witness has not stated the distance on any exact measurement and it is his guess work. Considering his evidence as a whole, he appears to have seen the occurrence. 9. PW 3 Naresh Prasad has also stated that he was working in the field situated close to the P.O. field and he saw that the appellant shot at the deceased. At para-2 he has said that his field is situated at a distance of six bamboos from the P.O. field. He says that he had heard the sound of only one shot and on going to the P.O. land he had seen that blood was coming out from below the neck and above the chest of the deceased. He is also a reliable witness on the point of occurrence. 10. PW 5 Ramnandan Prasad says that at the time of occurrence, he was ploughing his field. According the case of the prosecution, the deceased, on receiving the fire shot had stumbled and fallen in the field of this witness. This witness says in his examination-in-chief that after receiving fire shot at the hands of appellant, the deceased had fallen in his field and he died there. He also says that when the deceased had not acceded for exchange of the land, the appellant went to his cabin, came back with a pistol and shot at the deceased. There is nothing in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony on any material point. 11. PW 6 Ramdeo Gope says that he had gone to look after his field and when he was returning from there at about 8.00 a.m., he saw that the appellant, taking a pistol from his cabin shot at the deceased as a result of which the deceased died. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that at para-9 of the cross- examination, this witness has stated that the P.O. land would not be visible from his field. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that at para-9 of the cross- examination, this witness has stated that the P.O. land would not be visible from his field. But this witness has not claimed that he saw the occurrence from his field; rather he says that he saw the occurrence while he was returning from his field. Therefore, when this witness was returning and he was in the way, there was every likelihood that he had seen the occurrence. At para-18 of his cross-examination, he says that he had seen the injury situated below theneck and above the chest. This witness is also a reliable witness. 12. PW 7 is deceaseds wife. She is not an eye-witness to the occurrence and she simply deposed that on learning that her husband had been killed, she came to the P.O. weeping the found her husband dead. She also deposed that her son (the informant) had disclosed to her that the appellant had shot the deceased and thereafter he fled away. 13. The appellant has deposed at para-30 of his cross- examination that the deceased had been shot from a distance of about one cubit. The doctor (PW 9) while mentioning the wound of entry as injury No. (iii) mentions that the margin of the wound was blackened. This corroborates the informants ocular evidence that the fire was made from a close distance. 14. In this case, the time of occurrence is 8.00 a.m. and the P.M. Examination was conducted same day at 10.55 a.m. i.e. after 2 hours and 55 minutes of the occurrence. The doctor mentions that rigor mortis was absent in upper limbs and rigor mortis was present in the lower limbs. The doctor deposed at paras 5 and 6 that rigor mortis appears in the dead body after three hours of death and it appears first in the upper limb and expands in the whole body within 18 to 36 hours and then it starts vanishing/disappearing from upper limb after 12 hours. According to the doctor, there was no rigor mortis in the upper limb and it was present in the lower limb. According to the doctor, there was no rigor mortis in the upper limb and it was present in the lower limb. Referring to the doctors evidence that rigor mortis starts disappearing after 12 hours of death and it starts disappearing first from the upper limb, learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the rigor mortis had disappeared in the upper limb, which according to the doctor disappears only after 12 hours of death, the death of the deceased had taken place at least 12 hours before the time of P.M Examination and not 2 hours and 55 minutes. When the evidence of the doctor about appearing and disappearing of the rigor mortis within the time frame as stated by the doctor is taken as a conclusive material for deciding the time of death, a vital infirmity would appear. But the time as said by the doctor for appearing and disappearing of rigor mortis cannot be accepted as conclusive material for deciding this matter.There are some exceptions also. Modis "Medical Jurisprudence" 21st Edition at page 171, mentions about the cases in which rigor mortis developed and disappeared within an hour and half after death. It is also mentioned by Modi that when rigor mortis sets in early, it passes quickly and vice versa. Thus, the possibility of setting and passing off rigor mortis within a shorter period cannot be ruled out. In this case, there is consistent and reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution through witnesses that the appellant had shot at the deceased causing injury on him and thus killing him. The P.M. Examination has been done after 2 hours and 55 minutes. In view of unassailable ocular evidence, the evidence of the doctor as pointed out by the appellants counsel that rigor mortis disappears after 12 hours only, cannot be considered to affect the prosecution case adversely. 15. The doctor has also found one lacerated wound on the left hand on dorsal side of the deceased. At para-2 he deposed that 2 injuries were caused by two different shots. According to the prosecution case, only one shot was fired. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that when according to the doctor the 2 injuries on the deceased were caused by different shots, the prosecution story of there having been only a single shot is falsified. At para-2 he deposed that 2 injuries were caused by two different shots. According to the prosecution case, only one shot was fired. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that when according to the doctor the 2 injuries on the deceased were caused by different shots, the prosecution story of there having been only a single shot is falsified. No doubt, the doctor says that the two injuries were caused by 2 different shots, but the situation as given by the informant at the time of assault is that at the time of assault, the . deceased was carrying bundle of crop on his head. The fatal injury causing the death of the deceased was found on the place below the neck and above the chest of the deceased. Therefore, in such a situation, the injury on deceaseds left hand having been caused by the same shot cannot be ruled out. Hence, in such circumstances, there does not appear to be any vital infirmity to dislodge the prosecution case on this point only. 16. The appellants lawyer also argued that PW 6 admits at para-22 of his evidence that witness Ramdeo (PW 6) is his uncle and Naresh Prasad (PW 3) is his son. Referring to their evidence, it was argued that these witnesses are closely related and they are interested witnesses. No doubt, they may be interested due to relationship, but only this cannot be a ground for brushing aside their evidence. Whatever is required is that evidence of such witnesses is to be examined with great care and caution. The evidence of these witnesses have beexr examined with care and caution and there does not appear to be any infirmity in their evidence to discredit their testimony. 17. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence, as discussed above, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt. The charges have been proved. In such view of the matter, 1 do not feel any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. 18. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Aftab Alam, J. 19 I agree.