U. S. TRIPATHI, J. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 3-3-1981, passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 369 of 1980, convicting appellants Badshah, Sri Ram, Mahendra and Ram Bharosey under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 394 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and RI for a period of seven years under Section 394 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story, briefly stated was that appellants Badshah and Mahendra were cousin brothers and residents of village Bhudiya, P. S. Paraur, district Shahjahanpur. Appellant Ram Bharosey was cousin brother (fathers sisters son) of appellant Badshah while appellant Sri Ram was brother in law of appellant Ram Bharosey. Appellants Ram Bharosey and Sri Ram were residents of another village Samaichipur. 3. Some three years before the occurrence of this case Nawab real brother of appellant Mahendra was murdered. Puttu fathers sisters husband of Nakshatra Pal (PW 1) and Harpal brother of Puttoo were facing trial regarding said murder of Nawab. On the date of occurrence of this case the above case was pending in the trial Court, Rangi Singh deceased uncle of Nakshatra Pal (PW 1) was doing Pairvi on behalf of Puttoo and Harpal in the said murder case. This was not cherished by the appellants. 4. On the evening preceding the date of occurrence, Rangi Singh deceased asked Nakshatra Pal (PW 1) to go to Consolidation office at Jalalabad on the next morning. It was over heard by appellant Mahendra, who was standing near them and had his house adjacent to the house of Nakshatra Pal (PW 1 ). 5. On the morning of 21-1-1980, Rangi Singh deceased and Nakshatra Pal Singh (PW 1) proceeded to Jalalabad. Rangi Singh deceased was having his licensed gun and bandolier of cartridges with him. At about 10. 00 a. m. when they reached near village Malookpur, Hukum Singh (PW 4) and Chhotey Singh met and accompanied them. When they further proceeded about one kilo meter a head from village Malookpur and reached near Arhar field of Ajudhi at about 10. 30 a. m. appellants Badshah, Ram Bharosey, Sri Ram and Mahendra emerged out from Arhar field. 00 a. m. when they reached near village Malookpur, Hukum Singh (PW 4) and Chhotey Singh met and accompanied them. When they further proceeded about one kilo meter a head from village Malookpur and reached near Arhar field of Ajudhi at about 10. 30 a. m. appellants Badshah, Ram Bharosey, Sri Ram and Mahendra emerged out from Arhar field. Appellant Badshah and Ram Bharosey were having single barrel 12 bore guns and appellant Sri Ram and Mahendra were having country made pistols. The appellants exhorted to kill Rangi Singh as he was doing Pairvi of Puttoo and Harpal and all the appellants simultaneously fired on Rangi Singh deceased. Sustaining injuries Rangi Singh fell down in Arhar field. Nakshatra Pal (PW 1) raised alarm. Appellant Badshah loaded his gun again and fired towards Nakshatra Pal (PW 1) and others but they receded back and escaped injury. The appellants broke out the gun of Rangi Singh and took away bandolier of cartridges. Thereafter the appellants ran away towards west. Appellants Ram Singh, Hukum Singh and other witnesses came to Rangi Singh and found him dead. His injuries were bleeding. Nakshatra Pal (PW 1) remained near the dead body for about quarter to an hour and thereafter came to Jalalabad, where he got prepared report Ext. Ka-1 from one Ram Mahesh and lodged the same at the police station Jalalabad at 1. 30 p. m. Chick FIR Ext. Ka-2 was prepared by Head Constable Ramesh Chandra Sharma (PW 2) who made an endorsement of the same at GD Ext. Ka-3 and registered a case under Section 302/394 IPC against the appellants. 6. The investigation of the case was taken up by Shri Ved Pal Singh, IO, who visited the spot, conducted inquest of the dead-body of the deceased, prepared inquest report Ext. Ka-5 and other relevant papers. He sealed the dead-body and handed over to Constable Veerpal Singh (PW 5) for taking it to mortuary. He inspected the place of occurrence prepared site plan and also took into possession in the blood stained and simple earth from the spot. 7. The autopsy on the dead-body of Rangi Singh deceased was conducted on 22-1-80 by Dr. He sealed the dead-body and handed over to Constable Veerpal Singh (PW 5) for taking it to mortuary. He inspected the place of occurrence prepared site plan and also took into possession in the blood stained and simple earth from the spot. 7. The autopsy on the dead-body of Rangi Singh deceased was conducted on 22-1-80 by Dr. M. L. Tandon (PW 6), who found three gun shot wounds of entry and five gun shot wounds of exit on the person of the deceased and cause of death shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The doctor prepared post-mortem report Ext. Ka-4. 8. The I. O. completed the remaining investigation and submitted charge sheet against the appellants. 9. Cognizance of the case was taken up by the Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 10. All the appellants were charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 394 IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty and contended that they were falsely implicated on account of enmity. 11. The prosecution in support of its case examined Nakshatra Pal (PW 1), Head Constable Ramesh Chandra Sharma (PW 2), Ram Singh (PW 3), Hukum Singh (PW 4), Constable Veerpal Singh (PW 5) who filed affidavit and Dr. M. L. Tandon (PW 6 ). Learned Counsel for the appellants before the trial Court admitted the genuineness of documents prepared by the Investigating Officer. 12. The learned Sessions Judge on considering the evidence of the prosecution held that the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants. With these findings he convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. 13. Aggrieved with their above conviction and sentence the appellants have come up in this appeal. 14. Appellant Mahendra died during pendency of the appeal, therefore, the appeal preferred by him stood abated. 15. We have heard Sri P. N. Misra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Apul Misra for the appellants Badshah, Sri Ram and Ram Bharosey, learned AGA for the respondent and have perused the entire evidence on record. 16. The death and cause of death of Rangi Singh deceased is not disputed. The ocular witnesses Nakshatra Pal (PW 1), Ram Singh (PW 3) And Hukum Singh (PW4) stated that fire arm injuries were caused on the deceased and on account of above injuries he died on the spot. 17. Dr. 16. The death and cause of death of Rangi Singh deceased is not disputed. The ocular witnesses Nakshatra Pal (PW 1), Ram Singh (PW 3) And Hukum Singh (PW4) stated that fire arm injuries were caused on the deceased and on account of above injuries he died on the spot. 17. Dr. M. L. Tandon (PW 6), who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased stated that he found following ante-mortem injuries on the person of deceased: - (1) Gun shot wound of entry 3 cm x 1. 5 cm x cranial cavity deep on the left side head 4 cm above left ear in vertical direction. Margins inverted. Blackening present. Direction from left to right and down wards. (2) Gun shot wound of exit 1. 5 cm x 1 cm x cranial cavity deep right side face 4 cm outer to and below outer side right eye. Margins everted. No blackening. It communicated to injury No. 1. (3) Gun shot wound of exit 1 cm x. 8 cm x cranial cavity deep on right side face 1. 5 cm to right of injury No. 2. Margins everted. (4) Gun shot wound of exit 1 cm x. 8 cm x cranial cavity deep through and through communicating to injury No. 1 on right side of face 1 cm left of injury No. 2. (5) Gun shot wound of entry 3 cm x 1. 5 cm x abdominal cavity deep on the left side of abdomen 2 cm above and outer to left anterior superior illiac spine. Margins inverted, blackening around the wound present. Direction from left to right and up wards. (6) Gun shot wound of exit 3 cm x 2. 5 cm to abdominal cavity deep on the right side of the abdonment 7 cm above umbilicus at eleven O clock position. Margins everted and intestines were coming out of wound. No blackening present. (7) Seven gun shot wounds of exit in area of 14 cm x 12 cm on right side lower part chest and upper abdonmen 11 cm below right nipple at 6 O clock position. Margins everted. Ranging from smallest size of 1 cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep to the largest 1. 5 cm x 1. 5 cm x abdominal cavity deep with everted margins communicating injury No. 5. No blackening present. (8) Gun shot wound of entry 0. Margins everted. Ranging from smallest size of 1 cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep to the largest 1. 5 cm x 1. 5 cm x abdominal cavity deep with everted margins communicating injury No. 5. No blackening present. (8) Gun shot wound of entry 0. 8 cm x 0. 7 cm x muscle deep on the front of the right elbow margins inverted. Direction from left to right and back ward. No blackening was present. He further stated that internal examination showed that there was fracture of frontal, parietal, both temporal bones zygomatic and maxilla under injury No. 1 to 3. One big metallic pellet was recovered from muscles on right side face. Membranes and brain were lacerated and contained two big metallic pellets on right side along with wadding piece. Base of skull was fractured. One big metallic pellet was recovered from muscles from the joint of right elbow. 11th rib on right side was fractured. 2 big metallic pellets along with wadding pieces were recovered from muscles on right side of abdominal wall. Peritoneum was lacerated and contained about 6 ounce blood and one big metallic pellet along with wading piece was recovered. Stomach contained semi digested fluid material. Large and small intestines and liver were lacerated. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 18. The appellants has not challenged the above medical evidence and, therefore, it is established that Rangi Singh deceased died on account of gun shot injuries on his person. 19. The date, time and place of occurrence is also not disputed. According to the prosecution the occurrence took place on 21-1-80 at about 10. 30 a. m. in the Arhar field of Ajudhi at a distance of about one Kilometer from village Malookpur. The ocular witnesses stated that gun shot injuries were caused on the deceased at the said place and on the said date and time. The IO visited the spot on the same day and found dead body of Rangi Singh deceased lying in the Arhar field of Ajudhya Prasad besides river Bahbul as mentioned in the inquest report Ext. Ka- 5, the genuineness of which was admitted by the Counsel for the accused before the trial Court. The I. O. also recovered the blood from the said place. The appellants have not challenged the above date, time and place of the occurrence. Ka- 5, the genuineness of which was admitted by the Counsel for the accused before the trial Court. The I. O. also recovered the blood from the said place. The appellants have not challenged the above date, time and place of the occurrence. Presence of dead body, blood on the spot established the place of occurrence as such the date, time and place of occurrence have also been established. 20. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the presence of prosecution witnesses Nakshatra Pal (PW 1), Ram Singh (PW 3) and Hukum Singh (PW 4) on the spot is doubtful. That the trial Court has discarded the evidence of Hukum Singh (PW 4) and ocular testimony is in contradiction with the medical evidence and therefore, the complicity of appellants is not proved. 21. The motive alleged by the prosecution was that some three years before the occurrence of this case Nawab Singh, the real brother of appellant Mahendra was murdered in which Puttoo and Har Pal were facing trial and at the time of occurrence of this case the above murder trial was pending in the trial Court. That Rangi Singh was doing Pairvi on behalf of Puttoo and Harpal as they were his relatives and this was not cherished by the appellants and was cause of murder of the deceased. The appellants have not disputed the murder of Nawab Singh, however, they denied that Rangi Singh was doing Pairvi on behalf of Puttoo and Harpal in the said case, but Nakshatra Pal (PW 1) has categorically stated about it. He was nephew of Rangi Singh deceased and was knowing what Rangi Singh was doing. Puttoo Singh was Foofa (fathers sisters husband) of the witness and, therefore, he must be knowing as to who was doing Pairvi on behalf of his relative. Therefore, the prosecution has established the motive. 22. In order to prove the manner of occurrence and complicity of appellants in the murder of the deceased, the prosecution relied on the ocular testimony of Nakshatra Pal (PW 1), Ram Singh (PW 3) and Hukum Singh (PW 4 ). It has to be considered whether these witnesses were present on the spot and had seen the occurrence and their testimony is worthy of credence. 23. It has to be considered whether these witnesses were present on the spot and had seen the occurrence and their testimony is worthy of credence. 23. Nakshatra Pal (PW 1) the nephew of Rangi Singh deceased after stating inter se relationship of the appellants and motive as discussed above further stated that on the evening preceding to the date of occurrence Rangi Singh deceased asked him to go to Consolidation office at Jalalabad. On the morning of occurrence he along with Rangi Singh proceeded to Jalalabad. In the way, Ram Singh (PW 3) met and accompanied them. Rangi Singh was having his licensed gun and bandolier of cartridges. Hukum Singh (PW 4) and Chhotey Singh met them near village Malookpur and accompanied them. When they reached near the Arhar field of Ajudhi about one Kilometer ahead to village Malookpur, Rangi Singh was about 15 paces ahead to them. The appellants emerged out from Arhar field of Ajudhi. Appellants Badshah and Ram Bharosey were having single barrel 12 bore gun and Sri Ram and Mahendra were having country made pistols. Saying that Rangi Singh was doing Pairvi on behalf of Puttoo and Harpal and he should be killed, all the appellants simultaneously fired on the deceased due to which he sustained injuries and fell down in the Arhar field. He raised alarm and appellant Badshah again loaded his gun and fired towards him. He receded back and escaped injury. The appellants broke out the gun of Rangi Singh and took away his bandolier of cartridges. He remained for about quarter to an hour at the spot and thereafter came to Jalalabad, where he lodged the report. 24. Ram Singh (PW 2) stated that on the date of occurrence he Rangi Singh and Nakshatra Pal were going to Jalalabad in the way Hukum Singh and Chhotey Singh also met. At about 10. 30 a. m. when they reached near Arhar field of Ajudhi, Rangi Singh was about 10-15 paces ahead to them. The appellants emerged out from Arhar field of Ajudhi. Appellant Badshah and Ram Bharosey were having single barrel gun and the remaining appellants were having country made pistols. The appellants saying that Rangi Singh was doing Pairvi of Puttoo Singh fired on him. Rangi Singh fell down. When they raised alarm appellant Badshah again loaded his gun and fired towards them. Appellant Badshah and Ram Bharosey were having single barrel gun and the remaining appellants were having country made pistols. The appellants saying that Rangi Singh was doing Pairvi of Puttoo Singh fired on him. Rangi Singh fell down. When they raised alarm appellant Badshah again loaded his gun and fired towards them. The appellants broke out the licensed gun of Rangi Singh and ran away with his bandolier of cartridges. 25. Hukum Singh (PW 4) stated that on the date of occurrence at about 10. 30 a. m. he was going to village Andpur from village Malookpur and when he reached on the southern Mend of Arhar field of Ajudhi he saw that appellants came out of Arhar field. Badshah and Ram Bharosey were having guns and the remaining appellants were having country made pistols. They fired on Rangi Singh, who fell down on the spot. 26. Nakshatra Pal (PW 1) is the nephew of Rangi Singh deceased. On the evening preceding to the date of occurrence Rangi Singh asked him to go to Jalalabad in the next morning. The witness clarified in his cross-examination that he had also got to file a compromise from Nihal in Consolidation Office at Jalalabad. Therefore, he agreed to accompany Rangi Singh to Jalalabad. He further clarified that when Rangi Singh asked him to go to Jalalabad appellant Mahendra over heard their talks as he was standing near them and his house is adjacent to their house. In this way the witness has occasion to accompany Rangi Singh to Jalalabad. It is not dispute that the place of occurrence falls in the way to Jalalabad and, therefore, the witness had occasion to be present at the place of occurrence. It is true that Nakshatra Pal (PW 1) had not sustained injuries. It is clear from the evidence of the witness that the appellants had no grudge with him as they had annoyance with Rangi Singh who was doing Pairvi on behalf of Puttoo and Harpal accused in the murder case of Nawab Singh and appellants had no motive to kill Nakshatra Pal (PW 1 ). Moreover the witness had explained the absence of injury on him that when appellant Badshah reloaded his gun and fired towards him and other witnesses he receded back and escaped injury. Therefore, there is sufficient explanation for the absence of injury on the person of the witness. 27. Moreover the witness had explained the absence of injury on him that when appellant Badshah reloaded his gun and fired towards him and other witnesses he receded back and escaped injury. Therefore, there is sufficient explanation for the absence of injury on the person of the witness. 27. It was further pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the witness admitted in his cross-examination that after lodging report at Jalalabad at 1. 30 p. m. he did not return to his house and proceeded for Shahjahanpur on the next day. That the dead body of Rangi Sing reached Jalalabad at 1. 30 p. m. and it remained at Jalalabad for the night, while the report of the occurrence was lodged at 1. 30 p. m. and the I. O. came to the spot thereafter and according to the affidavit of Head Constable Veerpal Singh the sealed dead-body of Rangi Singh was handed over to him and he brought it directly to Shahjahanpur. Thus this shows that the witness was not present on the spot. The above mistaken statement of witness does not make his presence on the spot doubtful as the dead-body of the deceased was dispatched from the spot at 5. 00 p. m. and there was no question of its reaching at the police station at 1. 30 p. m. Thus the above statement is mistaken and it does not affect the veracity of the witness. 28. It was also pointed out that Nakshatra Pal (PW 1) was real nephew of Rangi Singh deceased and was interested witness. There is no presumption that the close relative would always be an interested witness. The mere claim that the alleged eye-witness of the occurrence are close relatives, were interested witness is an usual plea invariably repeated and is found to be reiterated in this case too. But as mentioned above the presence of the witness at the time of occurrence was probable and, therefore, his relationship with the deceased does not come in the way of his reliability. 29. Ram Singh (PW 3) stated that on the date of occurrence he was going to Jalalabad to purchase cloth and in the way he met with Rangi Singh and Nakshatra Pal (PW 1) and was with them at the place of occurrence. 29. Ram Singh (PW 3) stated that on the date of occurrence he was going to Jalalabad to purchase cloth and in the way he met with Rangi Singh and Nakshatra Pal (PW 1) and was with them at the place of occurrence. It was suggested that he was nephew of Puttoo Singh, but he denied it and there is no evidence on record to prove it. It was also suggested that he was committing dacoity along with Rangi Singh. He also denied this suggestion and there is no evidence to prove it. The witness further clarified that after the occurrence he went to Jalalabad and purchased cloth or others from the shop of Rameshwar. However, he stated that no receipt for purchase of cloth was obtained. The customers hardly take receipt for purchase of cloth routine articles. Therefore, the absence of receipt does not affect his veracity. No doubt the witness had not told before the I. O. that he was going to purchase cloth. But he clarified in his cross examination, that the I. O. had not enquired from him about the purpose for which he was going to Jalalabad. The possibility that the purpose for which the witness was going to Jalalabad was not enquired by the I. O. can not be easily ruled out as the I. O. while interrogating the witness did not put searching questions to the witnesses. Moreover the purpose of going to Jalalabad was asked from the witness in his cross-examination. Therefore, the witness had also explained his presence on the spot. 30. No enmity, ill-will or grudge has been suggested or proved against the witness. There is nothing on record to show that Rangi Singh (PW 2) had any reason to depose falsely against the appellants. Therefore, Ram Singh (PW 3) was an independent witness. 31. No doubt the trial Court had held that the evidence of Hukum Singh (PW 4) does not inspire confidence as he was interrogated after a month by the I. O. . Even if we ignore the evidence of Hukum Singh (PW 4) there is no ground for discarding testimony of Nakshatra Pal (PW 1) and Ram Singh (PW 3 ). 32. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the medical evidence is in contradiction with the ocular evidence. Even if we ignore the evidence of Hukum Singh (PW 4) there is no ground for discarding testimony of Nakshatra Pal (PW 1) and Ram Singh (PW 3 ). 32. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the medical evidence is in contradiction with the ocular evidence. He pointed out that the direction of injury No. 1 was from left to right and downward and the ocular evidence is that all the assailants fired on the deceased when he was walking. Meaning thereby shots were fired on the deceased when he was in standing position. It has also come in the evidence of Ram Singh (PW 3) that when appellants came near Rangi Singh he tried to remove his gun from his shoulders and in the mean time the shots were fired on him. It is categorical evidence of both the ocular witnesses that Rangi Singh was carrying his gun. It is also mentioned in the inquest report that broken gun, a blanket and a Gamchha was lying near the dead-body of the deceased. When Rangi Singh saw the appellants armed with guns and country made pistols in all probabilities he would have tried to defend him with his gun and he must have learned to take out his gun from his shoulders and in this process injury No. 1 could have been caused the direction of which was down ward. It is also evident that at the time of firing the deceased was not expected to remain like a statue and he must have moved left to right or front to back and if the injuries were caused in such a situation their direction was bound to differ. It is clear from the medical evidence that there was blackening in injury Nos. 1 and 5 the wounds of entry and there was no blackening in injury No. 8 other wound of entry. It has been clarified by the witnesses that two of the appellants were having guns and the remaining two were having country made pistols and thus there was difference in the length of barrels of the weapons possessed by the appellants, which itself explains the absence of blackening in injury No. 8. It has been clarified by the witnesses that two of the appellants were having guns and the remaining two were having country made pistols and thus there was difference in the length of barrels of the weapons possessed by the appellants, which itself explains the absence of blackening in injury No. 8. Moreover, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Krishnan and another v. State, JT 2003 (6) SC 151, where eye-witnesss account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing out to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Hence the importance and equality of eye-witnesss account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation of their credibility, which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touch stone for the test of such credibility. Therefore, we find no material discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular evidence. 33. In view of our above discussions and observations, we find that the evidence of Nakshatra Pal (PW 1) and Ram Singh (PW 3) is worthy of credence. Thus, the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants. 34. In this way we find no force in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. The appeal preferred by Mahendra Singh stood abated. 35. The appeal preferred by other appellants Badshah, Sri Ram and Ram Bharosey is dismissed. Conviction and sentence of the above appellants awarded by the trial Court are confirmed. The above appellants are on bail. They shall surrender before the CJM concerned to serve out the sentences. CJM Shahjahanpur shall issue non bailable warrants against appellants Badshah, Sri Ram and Ram Bharosey to procure their arrest and send them to jail. A copy of this order be sent to CJM Shahjahanpur for compliance and report within a month. Appeal dismissed. .