V. N. SINGH, J. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30-1-1981 passed by Sri R. C. Gupta, the then IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur (arising out of S. T. No. 582 of 1979, under Section 302 IPC, P. S. Banda, District Shahjahanpur), by which, he held appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that, Satish Singh lodged FIR on 12-9-1979 at 10. 00 a. m. at Police Station, Banda District Shahjahanpur that, in connection with the murder of Zalim Singh, Laljeet Singh and others were accused. Nanhey Singh brother of the complainant was a witness in that case. Laljeet Singh and Seth Pal Singh appellant belonged to the same family. As Nanhey Singh brother of the complainant, in the said murder case was witness, Seth Pal Singh was annoyed with the complainant and others. 3. Narvir Singh Pradhan and few members of the Gram Samaj permitted Bhikham Das, a saint to cut one of the big branch of a mango tree situated in the open land belonging to Gram Samaj. One day prior to the occurrence, one branch was cut in the evening. Saint Bhikham Das directed deceased Chhotey Singh and his brother Nanhey Singh to collect the foliage fallen down due to cutting of branch of mango tree. Next day i. e. , 12-9-1979 at about 8. 00 a. m. deceased Chhotey Singh alongwith his brother Nanhey Singh began to collect the said foliage. Appellant Sethpal Singh came there armed with gun and directed them not to collect the foliage, stating that, he will collect. Nanhey Singh told that, what right he has got to collect. Appellant fired his gun towards the brother of complainant, due to which, Chhotey Singh received injuries. Nanhey Singh escaped. Chhotey Singh died on the spot. At the time of occurrence Kuber Singh (father), Satish Singh (brother) and Raghunath Singh were sitting on a cot in front of the house of the complainant. They did not chase the accused due to fear. 4. During investigation, Panchnama Ext. Ka-5, Chalan Lash Ext. Ka-6, Photo lash Ext. Ka-7 and site plan Ext. Ka-8 were prepared. Fard recovery Ext. Ka-9 regarding empty cartridge was also prepared. 5. Dr. They did not chase the accused due to fear. 4. During investigation, Panchnama Ext. Ka-5, Chalan Lash Ext. Ka-6, Photo lash Ext. Ka-7 and site plan Ext. Ka-8 were prepared. Fard recovery Ext. Ka-9 regarding empty cartridge was also prepared. 5. Dr. P. K. Gupta conducted the autopsy on the dead-body of Chhotey Singh and following ante-mortem injuries were found : (1) One gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x. 2 cm x neck muscle (sterna mastoid) deep on the right side neck, laterally and middle of neck. Directions -front of back ward and upwards with inverted margins. (2) Ten small round gunshot wounds of Entry. 2 cm x. 2 cm x chest cavity deep mentioned separately forward, with inverted margins. (a) 8 wounds on the right side of chest one 2 cm below the middle right clavicle, seven (7) around and below and lateral to the right nipple more on the lateral side. Upper wound deep upto lung tissue of the upper lobe with laceration of lung anteriorly. Four shots had lacerated the middle lobe of the right lung anteriorly, three shots lacerated lower lobe of right lung anteriorly and laterally. (b) Two gun shot wounds of entry on the left side, one at the level of 4th intercostals space near sternum lacerating the right artium of heart anteriorly 2nd at 4 cm lateral to the xiphisteornum, lacerating the lower left lobe of lung anteriorly. (3) Five gun shot wounds shape of Entry 0. 2 cm x 0. 2 cm x abdominal cavity deep (described separately below) (with inverted margins) (a) Three shots on the abdomen near umbilicus lacerating peritoneum and the small intestine at three places. (b) Two shots were present at the lower abdomen just above the pubic symphysis and lacerating the urinary bladder anteriorly. Direction-front to backwards. (4) (a) Two gun shots of oval in shape of entry. 2 cm x 0. 3 cm x through and through on the left upper arm in the middle anterior-laterally with inverted margins (2. 5 cm apart) (b) With two wounds of exit with inverted margins of the size of. 4 cm x. 4 cm x through and through on the latero posterio aspect of left upper arm 3 cm apart with everted margins 4 cm back (posterior) to the wounds of entry at same level. Direction-anterior-posterior. (5) (a) one gun shot of oval in shape. 4 cm x. 4 cm x through and through on the latero posterio aspect of left upper arm 3 cm apart with everted margins 4 cm back (posterior) to the wounds of entry at same level. Direction-anterior-posterior. (5) (a) one gun shot of oval in shape. 2 cm x. 3 cm x through and through with inverted margins on the right upper arm, anterior-laterally on the upper part (deltoid region ). (b) one wound of exit with everted margins. 4 cm x. 4 cm through and through, 3 cm posterior wound of exit at same level. Direction-anterior-posterior. (6) One gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x. 2 cm x through and through, and one is muscle deep on the left thigh. (a) (i) Two gun shot wounds of Entry. 2 cm x. 2 cm through and through on the anterior-lateral aspect of left thigh in the middle with enverted margins. (ii) one wound of exit with everted margins. 4 cm x. 4 cm x through and through on the posterio-lateral aspect of left thigh at the level of entry. (b) one gun shot wound of Entry. 2 cm x. 2 cm x muscle deep at the anterior aspect of lower third of left thigh with inverted margins. (7) Three gun shot wounds of Entry. 2 cm x. 2 cm x muscle deep on the right thigh, upper part anteriorly with inverted margins. 6. After investigation, a charge-sheet Ext. Ka-11 was submitted against the appellant. 7. Appellant denied the charge. He contended that, he was not present on the spot. He had no knowledge about the case of Jalim Singh. He was not annoyed with the family members of the deceased Chhotey Singh. He has been falsely implicated due to enmity. He further contended that Daroga Ji Ranveer Singh has gone to his house and empty cartridge and house holds goods were taken from his house and Daroga Ji got his 10-12 cattles sent to the cattle pond. This information was given by his wife, when he came back. 8. Prosecution examined P. W. 1 complainant Satish Singh (eye-witness), P. W. 2 Nanhey Singh (eye- witness), P. W. 3 Dr. P. K. Gupta, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead-body of deceased Chhotey Singh. P. W. 4 Constable Muneshwar Dayal, who prepared the chik report Ext. This information was given by his wife, when he came back. 8. Prosecution examined P. W. 1 complainant Satish Singh (eye-witness), P. W. 2 Nanhey Singh (eye- witness), P. W. 3 Dr. P. K. Gupta, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead-body of deceased Chhotey Singh. P. W. 4 Constable Muneshwar Dayal, who prepared the chik report Ext. Ka-1 and made entry in the G. D. at serial No. 15 as well as proved Ext. Ka-3. He also gave the formal evidence regarding deposit of the sealed bundles in the Malkhana of P. S. Banda by S. I. Sri Ranveer Singh, P. W. 5 S. I. Sri Ranveer Singh Investigating Officer P. W. 6 Head Constable Bijendra Singh, who proved the FIR Ext. Ka- 13, lodged by Kuber Singh father of the deceased Chhotey Singh against accused Sethpal Singh and others at P. S. Banda. On 22-11-1979. 9. P. W. 7 is Ballistic Expert Sri B. Rai, who submitted his report Ext. Ka-15. 10. Although no oral evidence was led by the appellant, but documentary evidence like, seal specimen dated 3-9-1980 Ext. Kha 1, Extract of statement of Nanhey Singh Ext. Kha-2, Specimen of seal dated 14- 11-1980 Ext. Kha-3 and Ext. Kha-4. Copy of application in S. T. No. 412 of 78 dated 5-3-1979 Ext. Kha-5, copy of Bail application dated 20-11-1979 Ext. Kha-6 and copy of order dated 27-10-1979, 14-11-1979 and 20-11-1979 Ext. Kha-7 have been filed in his defence. 11. After hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge held appellant guilty, hence this appeal. 12. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant Sri P. N. Misra and learned A. G. A. 13. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the appellant that motive has not been proved. The occurrence in which altercation took place in 1974 between appellant and family members of complainant was a very small matter. Moreover, cognizance was not taken by the police in that case. 14. Regarding murder of Jalim Singh it has also been argued that, a copy of the application dated 5-3- 1979 Ext. Kha-5 shows that Nanhey Singh, although cited as prosecution witness, was discharged and not examined. Moreover, complainant and Nanhey Singh admitted during the cross-examination that, Nanhey Singh was not examined before the Court and was discharged. It is also proved that, witness was discharged before the occurrence, therefore, there was no question of any annoyance. 15. Kha-5 shows that Nanhey Singh, although cited as prosecution witness, was discharged and not examined. Moreover, complainant and Nanhey Singh admitted during the cross-examination that, Nanhey Singh was not examined before the Court and was discharged. It is also proved that, witness was discharged before the occurrence, therefore, there was no question of any annoyance. 15. Moreover in the case, where there is direct evidence, motive has no importance. 16. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the appellant that FIR is ante timed and it was not written at the time alleged by the prosecution. From the perusal of the inquest report Ex. Kha-6 and Photo lash Ext. Ka-7, it is clear that, in these papers, crime number and section has been mentioned. As such contention of learned Counsel for appellant has no force, because these papers were prepared on the same day and inquest report was prepared at 1. 30 p. m. on same day. 17. It has also been argued by learned Counsel for appellant that, according to the statement of Investigating Officer Ranveer Singh, he put his seal over the envelope, while over envelope B. R. Singh has been printed instead of R. V. Singh. 18. Investigating Officer Ranveer Singh deposed in the Court, that even with the help magnifying glass he was not in a position to say, whether R. V. Singh is written or not. Argument of the learned Counsel for appellant is that it creates doubt. The Court checked the seal with the help of magnifying glass and found that, over the seal Ext. Ka-5 words r v sin g and h has been written. Word "g" is in broken condition and is not legible and over Ext. Kha-4 word R. V. Singh has been written, and word g is in broken conditions. As such the contention of the learned Counsel for appellant has no force that seal does not belong to Investigating Officer R. V. Singh. 19. It has been argued that, according to the prosecution empty cartridge was recovered on 12-9-1979 by the Investigating Officer at the time of spot inspection and fard Ext. Ka-9 was prepared. As such the contention of the learned Counsel for appellant has no force that seal does not belong to Investigating Officer R. V. Singh. 19. It has been argued that, according to the prosecution empty cartridge was recovered on 12-9-1979 by the Investigating Officer at the time of spot inspection and fard Ext. Ka-9 was prepared. But it was not sent to Sadar Malkhana and it was kept in the Police Station and when on 29-4-1980 gun of the accused was recovered, then cartridge was fired by the gun and cartridge and gun of the accused, both were sent on 23-4-1980 for examination to Ballistic Expert by Constable C. P. Shanker Lal. 20. The argument of the learned Counsel for appellant is that keeping of recovered cartridge in Malkhana of Police Station, till the recovery of the gun, creates doubt in prosecution story. 21. It has also been argued that, evidence of the Ballistic Expert to the effect that empty cartridge was fired, from the licensed gun of the accused, cannot be relied upon. 22. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the decision in Summan Singh v. State of U. P. , 1985 Allahabad Criminal Rulings, page 35, in which, it has been held that, empty cartridge and gun of the accused remained at the Police Station for more than four months and were not sent to Sadar Malkhana. It creates doubt whether alleged empty cartridge found by the Investigating Officer at the place of occurrence was sent to Ballistic Expert for comparison with gun of the accused. As such it is not safe to place any reliance on the opinion of Ballistic Expert. 23. It has also been argued by learned A. G. A. that, decision of Summan Singh (supra) is not applicable in the present case, because in that case, rifle and two empty cartridges which were recovered, were not sent, while in the present case only empty cartridge was recovered from the place of occurrence on 12- 9-1979. The gun was recovered later on 21-4-1980. 24. In this connection, contention of the Investigating Officer is material, who deposed in the Court that according to his knowledge, due to recovery of empty cartridge, no offence is made out. 25. The gun was recovered later on 21-4-1980. 24. In this connection, contention of the Investigating Officer is material, who deposed in the Court that according to his knowledge, due to recovery of empty cartridge, no offence is made out. 25. It has also been argued by learned A. G. A. that Investigating Officer Ranveer Singh has stated that, gun was recovered on 21-4-1980 from the possession of accused. This statement of the Investigating Officer was not challenged by the accused/appellant. 26. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the reply of question No. 13 recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. in which, it has been alleged by accused that on 21-4-1980 Daroga Ji arrested him alongwith gun, but gun was not sealed before him and the fire was also made by the gun at the Police Station. 27. As such it is clear that accused/appellant has admitted the recovery of gun on 21-4-1980. 28. As per the statement of constable Shanker Lal in Para 2 of the affidavit dated 23-9-1980 that he carried empty cartridge and single barrel gun No. 3545-74 from Police Station Malkhana to Sadar Malkhana and from there to Ballistic Expert. The statement of the Constable has not been challenged. 29. In this connection, Ballistic Expert Sri B. Rai has stated that on 24-4-1980 Constable Shankar Lal brought two sealed bundles having seal intact and corresponding to specimen of seal, which contained single barrel gun No. 3545-74 and empty cartridge. According to the statement of Sri B. Rai, disputed cartridge was fired from single barrel gun No. 3545-74. 30. In such circumstance, argument of the learned Counsel for appellant has no force. 31. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for appellant that from the perusal of the ante-mortem injuries, it appears that, injuries of deceased could not be caused by one fire. 32. In this connection, statement of Dr. P. K. Gupta is material, who deposed that, total wounds of the deceased could be possible from a single fire. 33. From perusal of the injuries (wounds) it is clear that, wounds may be possible by a single fire. 34. As such the argument of the learned Counsel for appellant has no force. 35. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for appellant that, according to Dr. 33. From perusal of the injuries (wounds) it is clear that, wounds may be possible by a single fire. 34. As such the argument of the learned Counsel for appellant has no force. 35. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for appellant that, according to Dr. P. K. Gupta the deceased had not eased, before the death, while according to the statement of P. W. 1 Satish Singh, he alongwith the deceased had gone to ease at 5 a. m. 36. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for appellant that according to Dr. P. K. Gupta the deceased had not eased, before the death, while according to the statement of P. W. 1 Satish Singh, he alongwith the deceased had gone to ease at 5 a. m. 37. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the statement of Dr. Gupta, who admitted that semi digested food in the paste form and solid food takes two hours in conversion in to paste form. 38. The argument of the learned A. G. A. is that, opinion of Dr. Gupta is based on the fact that, faecal matter was present in the large intestine of the deceased and on this basis alone, it cannot be said the statement of P. W. 1 Satish Singh is incorrect that deceased has gone to ease before his death. 39. Page 216 of Chapter 4 of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by H. W. V. Cox, Sixth Edition, 1997, is material, in which, in this connection, it has been laid down as follows : "much confusion has arisen over the interpretation of the state of the stomach and its contents in relationship to the stage of digestion of the last meal eaten before death. In average conditions, a swallowed meal will remain in the stomach for about 2 hours then begin to be released into the duodenum. However, there are marked variations in this time from person to person and even in the same person at different times. Also the nature of the meal is important as a fatty meal tends to be retained longer. The lesson to be learnt from these facts is that, if death has occurred anything other than in sudden, unexpected fashion, no reliance whatsoever can be placed upon the quantity or state of digestion of gastric contents. Also the nature of the meal is important as a fatty meal tends to be retained longer. The lesson to be learnt from these facts is that, if death has occurred anything other than in sudden, unexpected fashion, no reliance whatsoever can be placed upon the quantity or state of digestion of gastric contents. However, if a person has been suddenly killed without any warning or previous state of apprehension or fright, it can be assumed that the normal process of digestion were continuing right up to the point of death and therefore, the amount and nature of the contents will be in their usual physiological state. However, even this normal state can be subject to personal variation and only broad interferences can be drawn. " 40. In such circumstance, the argument of the learned Counsel for appellant has no force because digestion system differs from person to person. 41. It has been argued by learned Counsel for appellant that according to the statement of witness Nanhey Singh, he covered the body of deceased by Dhoti, but said Dhoti has not found by the doctor conducting post-mortem. 42. Argument of the learned A. G. A. is that, P. W. 2 Nanhey Singh has deposed that, Dhoti was thrown in the river. This fact has not been challenged by the accused. 43. As such, this argument of learned Counsel for appellant has no force. 44. It has also been argued by learned Counsel for appellant that, P. W. 1 has stated that, firing took place at about 7. 30 a. m. while according to the FIR occurrence took place at about 8. 00 a. m. The argument of the appellant is that it creates doubt in the prosecution story. 45. P. W. 1 Satish Singh has stated that, he has mentioned in the FIR that, firing took place at 8. 00 a. m. It appears that due to certain confusion above mentioned statement was made by the complainant. Moreover in the FIR it has been mentioned that, occurrence took place near about at 8. 00 a. m. As exact time has not been mentioned, hence the prosecution case cannot be doubted on this ground. 46. It has been argued that, no independent witness has been cited or produced by the prosecution. Witnesses are interested because they are brothers of the deceased, therefore, no reliance can be placed on their statements. 47. 00 a. m. As exact time has not been mentioned, hence the prosecution case cannot be doubted on this ground. 46. It has been argued that, no independent witness has been cited or produced by the prosecution. Witnesses are interested because they are brothers of the deceased, therefore, no reliance can be placed on their statements. 47. Argument of the State Counsel is that occurrence took place in front of the house of the deceased. As such presence of brothers of the deceased was probable and possible. At 8. 00 a. m. there was no question of possibility of presence of other witnesses in front of the house of the complainant. As such, merely because no independent witness has been cited or produced, prosecution case cannot be thrown out. But it is true that when independent witness has not been produced and only interested witnesses have been produced then the statement of all the interested witnesses should be scrutinized and appreciated with caution. 48. Witnesses P. W. 1 Satish Singh and P. W. 2 Nanhey Singh (brothers of the deceased) have supported the prosecution story and there is nothing to disbelieve them. Moreover, there is no motive for false implication of the appellant. 49. It has also been argued that blood was not found on the place of occurrence. 50. In this connection, witness P. W. 2 Nanhey Singh has stated that dead-body was covered by dhoti. It may be possible that, blood might have been soaked in dhoti. 51. In this connection, statement of Satish Singh is material, who deposed in his cross-examination that dhoti contained the blood stains. 52. In such circumstance, argument of the appellant has no force. 53. It has been argued by learned Counsel for appellant that death might have been taken place in the night and in this connection attention of the Court has been drawn towards the statement of Dr. Gupta, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, who deposed that, death is possible at 3-4 a. m. in the night of 11/12-9-1979. 54. In this connection, statement of Dr. Gupta is material, who deposed that, it will take two hours for conversion of food into paste form. He also admitted that, semi digested food means good in the paste form. 54. In this connection, statement of Dr. Gupta is material, who deposed that, it will take two hours for conversion of food into paste form. He also admitted that, semi digested food means good in the paste form. If the death would have taken place in the night at 3-4 a. m. then, semi digested food has not been found and stomach would have been found empty. 55. In this connection, opinion given at page 216 of Chapter 4 of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by H. W. V. Cox, Sixth Edition, 1997, referred above, is also material. 56. In view of the fact that, FIR is prompt, it is a broad day light incident, Ballistic Expert has supported the prosecution story, medical evidence corroborates the prosecution story, there is no motive for false implication, no ground for disbelieving the statement of Satish Singh and Naney Singh, we are of the view that there is no justification for interference in the judgment of learned trial Court. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. The criminal appeal is dismissed. 57. The accused/appellant Seth Pal Singh is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. C. J. M. , Shahjahanpur, is directed to get the appellant arrested and to send Jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him. Appeal dismissed. .