JUDGMENT P.N. YADAV, J. The deceased Bhola Singh had on 6.2.1985 gone to his field situated to, the north of the canal running in east west direction. He uprooted crops of pea and set out for his house with a bundle of the crops over his head. At about 2 P.M., he enroute to his house reached south line canal wherefrom the National High way running in north south direction passed. Just then all on a sudden the appellants arrived there on a tractor from north side. The Tractor with the appellants aboard turned towards the canal and stopped. The appellants were armed with rifle and guns. No sooner had they arrived there than the appellant Uday Rai ordered and instigated the other appellants to open fire upon the deceased Bhola Singh with intent to killing him. In pursuance of his order and instigation the appellant Birendra Rai opened fire from his rifle causing injury to the deceased. After he fell down, the appellants Kedar Rai, Govind Rai @ Om PrakaSh Ral, Uday Rai and Uma Shanka; Pandey also resorted to firing from their guns causing injuries to him. The deceased Bhola Singh succumbed to the injuries so inflicted on him instantaneously on the spot. The appellant then retreated towards the village Puhupee brandishing their arms and opening fire, H18 incident leading to the death of the deceased was put to an end in a sequel to land dispute between the appellants and the deceased. 2. Certain shops including tea stalls situated near the place of occurrence. Yogendra Singh (P.W. 3) and Ram Bachan Singh the informant (P.W. 4) were sitting in one of the tea shops, which was opened from all sides with no wall on any side of the shop. They witnessed commission of dastardly and gruesome murder of the deceased Bhola Singh. Both P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 rushed to Dinara Police Station situated at a distance of about 8kms from the scene of incident. P.W. 4 set the law in motion by getting his statement recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police at about 3 P.M. on the same day. Both P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 rushed to Dinara Police Station situated at a distance of about 8kms from the scene of incident. P.W. 4 set the law in motion by getting his statement recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police at about 3 P.M. on the same day. On the basis of the information lodged by P.W.4 Dinara P.S. Case No. 17 of 1985 under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) as well as under section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the appellants. 3. Investigation was taken up. The dead body of the deceased Bhola Singh was sent to mortuary for autopsy. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Singh (P.W. 2) conducted autopsy at about 7 A.M. on 7.2.1985. On receipt of postmortem examination report and completion of investigation the chargesheet was submitted against the appellants and finally the trial commenced after commitment. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined four witnesses. P.W. 1 Jagarnath Singh was a witness to the preparation of inquest report and the seizure of blood stained earth, a blood stained lathi with marks of pillets and the blood stained Chadar of the deceased. He, however, turned hostile and did not support the factum regarding preparation of inquest report and seizure of the aforesaid articles in his presence. P.W. 2 was Dr. Sudhir Kumar Singh who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 3 Yogendra Singh and P.W. 4 Ram Bachan Singh were eye witnesses to the incident leading to the murder of the deceased. 5. The court of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram presided over by Mr. P.W. 2 was Dr. Sudhir Kumar Singh who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 3 Yogendra Singh and P.W. 4 Ram Bachan Singh were eye witnesses to the incident leading to the murder of the deceased. 5. The court of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram presided over by Mr. Ramesh Tiwary after meticulously appreciating the evidence brought on record rendered verdict of guilt and convicted the appellant Birendra Raiunder section 302 of the Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and it convicted the appellants Kedar Rai, Govind Rai @ Om Prakash Rai, Uday Rai and Uma Shankar Pandey under Section 302 read with section 149 of the Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each and it further convicted the appellants Birendra Rai, Uma Shankar Pandey and Govind Rai @ Om Prakash Rai under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years there under, the sentences having been ordered to run concurrently vide the judgment and order dated 11.8.1997 and 14.8.1997 recorded in Sessions Trial No. 321/86. 6. Before adverting to the testimony of ocular evidence it is deemed just and proper to summarize the contentions put forward on behalf 9f the appellants to attach vulnerability to the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. It was contended that medical evidence was not inconsonance with the eye witness account of the incident for. the injuries found on the person of the deceased could not have been caused by firing resorted to from a Tractor; that none of the two witnesses (P.W. 3 and P.W. 4) who claimed to be eye witnesses to the incident was natural witness for, both of them had gone to take tea and they were thus chance witnesses; that several shops situated at the place of occurrence and several persons were present in various shops but none of those independent witnesses was brought in the witness box; that the blood stained earth lathi and Chadar allegedly seized from the scene of incident were not got examined and report thereon If expert brought on record and that the Investigating Officer was not examined on account of which the appellants were put to serious prejudice. 7. 7. Coming to ocular evidence it is to be observed that P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 were claimed by the prosecution to be the eye witnesses to the incident. P.W. 4 Ram Bachan Singh, the informant reiterated what he had stated in the first information report. He said that at the time of incident he was sitting in tea stall of one Shyam Narayan situated near the Goura bridge through which the National High way crossed the canal. P. W. 3 Yogendra Singh besides Lalan Singh, Hardeo Singh and Mukha Singh was also present in the same shop. P.W. 4 further stated that his uncle, the deceased Bhola Singh with a bundle of pea crops over his head happened to reach the place of occurrence near the bridge referred to above and just then the appellants having rifle and guns in their hands arrived there on a Tractor and soon the appellant Uday Rai ordered and instigated the deceased to be killed and in pursuance of his order and instigation the appellant Birendra Rai opened fire from rifle on the deceased causing injury over the left side of his chin and after he fell down the other appellants also shot at him from their guns as a result of which he sustained injuries and he succumbed to the injuries instantaneously on the spot. Identical was the evidence of P.W. 3 Yogendra Singh who corroborated P.W. 4 in all material particulars. 8. Though P.W. 4 is nephew of the deceased, P.W.3 is quite independent witness. The evidence of both the eye witnesses is quite consistent and corroborative free from inherent taint and infirmity. They were cross examined at length but nothing was elicited in their cross examination to render their evidence unworthy of credence. The contention that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partition witness should not be relied upon has no merit and substance. Relationship in itself cannot be a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. A relative is expected to have intense desire to get the real culprit punished and not to conceal the actual assailant and make false allegation against an innocent person. However, the rule of prudence warrants that evidence of a relative and interested witness be closely scrutinized. The test prescribed by the law stands well satisfied by the facts and circumstances attending to the present case. 9. However, the rule of prudence warrants that evidence of a relative and interested witness be closely scrutinized. The test prescribed by the law stands well satisfied by the facts and circumstances attending to the present case. 9. The criticism that both P.W. 3 and P.W.4 were residents of village Kumhaura and their presence at the tea shop or the place of occurrence was sheer by chance and they' cannot be said to be natural witnesses must also be over-ruled. It is a matter of common experience that in the countryside quite a number of villagers are in the habit of visiting nearby markets even without work. The tea shop where P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 had been present since prior to the incident situated only half a mile from the village Kumhaura. P.W. 4 stated that he visited the tea shop every day at about 1-2 P.M. Both the witnesses claimed to be sitting in one and the same tea shop belonging to one Shyam Narayan. They cannot be said to be chance witnesses. They were very much natural, competent and truthful witnesses. It is true that though P.W. 4 stated that he along with P.W. 3 and others was sitting in the tea shop, P.W. 3 stated in his examination in chief that P.W. 4 and others had arrived there on hulla. This stray statement of P.W. 3 cannot lead the court to hold the view that P. W. 4 had arrived at the place of occurrence after hearing hulla and he was not present in the tea shop situated near the place of occurrence and he did not see the entire occurrence. The evidence of both the witnesses is to be considered in totality. Moreover, P.W. 3 in his cross examination stated that P;W. 4 and others had been sitting in the tea shop with him since prior to the occurrence and in that view of the matter it cannot be said that P.W. 4 reached the place of occurrence later after hearing hulla. It is also to be observed that P.W. 4 was not even suggested that he arrived at the scene of incident after the d1ceased was shot dead and he himself did not see the assailants shooting at the deceased and it was P.W. 3 who passed on information to him. It is also to be observed that P.W. 4 was not even suggested that he arrived at the scene of incident after the d1ceased was shot dead and he himself did not see the assailants shooting at the deceased and it was P.W. 3 who passed on information to him. P.W. 3 too was not put suggestion that ho narrated the incident to P.W. 4 who arriv8ct at the place of occurrence on hearing alarm after the assailants had fired upon the deceased. The evidence of P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 is to be considered in the perspective of promoted with which the first information report was lodged. The occurrence took place at about 2 P.M. The place of occurrence situated at a distance of about 8kms from the police station. P.W. 4 went to the police station and lodged the first information report in presence of P.W. 3 who also signed the same at about 3 P.M. There was not even slightest delay in lodging the information with the police. There was no opportunity for concoction and embelishment. 10. P.W.4 admitted in his cross examination that Ram Pravesh Singh, brother of Birendra Singh was murdered and in the case instituted in respect thereof by Birendra Singh the deceased was an accused. But on that account alone the prosecution case cannot be said to have been rendered doubtful. The deceased was said to be coming from his field with bundle of pea crops over his head. In the evidence, P.W. 3 stated that it was the bundle of khesari crops while P.W.4 somewhere stated that the bundle was of pea crops and somewhere else he described the bundle as that of khesari crops. This inconsistency in the evidence is of no consequence and the same must be ignored. 11. It is true that as per evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 several other persons were also present at the tea shop but none of them including the aforesaid Shyam Narayan in whose shop the witnesses were sitting was examined by the prosecution. It is a matter of common experience that in villages where murders are committed as a result of faction or group rivalry existing among the local people independent witnesses are reluctant to appear in the witness box for fear that giving evidence may invite the wrath of the assailants. It is a matter of common experience that in villages where murders are committed as a result of faction or group rivalry existing among the local people independent witnesses are reluctant to appear in the witness box for fear that giving evidence may invite the wrath of the assailants. Moreover, what is of important significance is quality of evidence and not the number of witnesses. Conviction can well be based on evidence of solitary witness provided his evidence is above board and inspires confidence. In the case we are in seisin of evidence of both the eye witnesses is whloly reliable and non examination of the tea shopkeeper or other persons who were present there in the shop is not at all material nor can it instill any suspicion in the prosecution case nor can it discredit the testimony of P.W.3 and P.W. 4. 12. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Singh (P.W. 2) conducted autopsy on the dead 'body of the deceased at 7 A.M. on 7.2.1985. He found (i) wound of entrance about 2" x 2" with blackening of skin and inverted margin over left side of chin with fracture of left mandible and wound of exit of dimension of 3" x 2 x 1/ 2" over left mastoid bone (behind left ear) with a regular shape and everted margin and brain matters coming out from skull cavity; (ii) Multiple wounds of entrance 1/6" x 1/8", x 1/ 4" x 1/6", 1 /4" x 1/8" and 1.14" x 1/6" informant of left side of chest upper portion with fracture of left clavicle (collar bone) and sign of blackening of skin around the wound and wound of exit about 1/2" x 1/2" with regular shape and everted margin over back upper portion of left shoulder with fracture of left spin of scapula; (iii) multiple wounds of entrance of sizes of about 1/4" x 1/4", 1 /6" x 1 /8", 1/4" x 1/8" and 1 /4" x 1/6" over left back of scapula and wound of exit about 1 /2" x 1" with regular shape and everted margin over left side of abdomen and (iv) wound of entrance about 1" x 1/2" with blackening of skin and inverted margin over left middle outer portion of forearm and wound of exit about 2 1 /2" x 1 1/2" with regular shape and laceration over left middle inner portion of left forearm. On dissection the skull cavity was found to be full of blood and blood clots with fracture of left occipital and left parietal bone with damage of left posterior lobe of brain. On dissection of thorax and abdomen the thoraco abdominal cavity was found full of blood and blood clots and three big pea size pillets were recovered from the front of sternum and big pea size pillets were recovered from the right iliac phossa. There was also damage by pillets of middle lobe of lungs and right chamber of heart and right lobe of liver. In the opinion of the doctor, all the aforesaid injuries were anti-mortem caused by fire arm and the cause of death was damage of vital organs such as lungs, heart, liver and brain and the time elapsed since death was 24 hours. Medical evidence is thus inconsonance with the eye witness account of the incident leading to infliction of fatal injuries on the person of the deceased. 13. Both the deceased and the appellants were coming to the place of occurrence from the same side, that is, north side and the bullet fired by the appellant Birendra Rai could have gone touching off the skin but in all probability on account of movement of the deceased it could not happen so rather it entered into the chin and made exit behind left ear causing wound of entry and wound of exit. 14. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the Tractor came along the National High Way which was 3-4 feet higher than the canal on which the deceased with the bundle of crops arrived at the place of occurrence from his field and the shots fired by the appellants from the Tractor could have tendency to travel downwards but just reverse, that is, upward travel of the bullet is revealed by Injury No. (i) and further that dimension of Injury No. (i) which was caused by rifle was according to the doctor 2" x 2", however, a rifle could not have caused injury of such dimension and all this rendered the case of the prosecution doubtful. The contention is devoid of merit and force and the same cannot be accepted for the reasons stated hereinafter. The contention is devoid of merit and force and the same cannot be accepted for the reasons stated hereinafter. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 4 that the Tractor came down on the canal and it stopped there and thereafter, firing was resorted to by the appellants from the tractor itself. Injury No. (i), that is, wound of entrance and wound of exit is almost in parallel direction and it does not indicate that the bullet exactly traveled upward. In some cases, it is difficult to determine the direction of fire as the bullet is so often deflected by the tissues that its course is very irregular, also when the bullet moves unsteadily. It is not often less that bullet gets deflected by bone and it changes its course of direction. It is also to be observed that the deceased sustained Injury No. (i) while he was in standing posture. The assailant causing the said injury was on the tractor. The tractor and the deceased at that time were on the canal. Though, of course, the bed of the tractor is above the ground level, its height from the ground or earth is not very high. The shooter was not at too great a height to cause injury like Injury No. (i). Again the size and nature of injury caused by fire arm depends on the nature of projectile and the velocity at which it was traveling at the moment of impact. In the case at hand the rifle causing Injury No. (i) was not a regular rifle the cartridge of which consists of a metal cylinder rather it was a country made rifle and as it is not expected that the bullet fired from a country made rifle would cause exactly identical injury which is likely to be caused by bullet fired from a regular rifle and in that view of the matter the size or dimension of Injury No. (i) cannot be said to be not likely to have been caused by rifle. 15. Another contention raised in an attempt to discredit the prosecution evidence was that the doctor (P.W.2) found blackening of skin around injury Nos. 15. Another contention raised in an attempt to discredit the prosecution evidence was that the doctor (P.W.2) found blackening of skin around injury Nos. (i, ii & iv) which would indicate that the bullets were fired from a close range but the assailants allegedly fired the shots from their rifle and guns from the tractor and the weapons must be at a considerable distance or at least not at close range from its target and hence the aforesaid injuries with blackening around them could not have been caused by the bullets fired from the tractor. This contention too is bereft of merit and substance. Blackening of skin near or around the injury may lead to the conclusion that firing of gun has been made from a close range, but in a given case, depending on other factors black margins of a wound are not always due to firing of gun from a close range and blackening may also be caused by shot fired from a place situated at some distance from its target. Blackening of skin around fire arm injury depends not merely on distance from where firing is resorted to but it would also depend on nature and quality of the fire arm and explosives or powder used in the manufacture of the bullet or cartridge fired there from. 16. True from evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 it would transpire that the deceased after sustaining Injury No. (i) caused by shot fired from rifle by the appellant Birendra Rai fell down and then the other appellants opened fire upon him causing Injury Nos. (ii, iii and iv). It is to be borne in mind that the appellants with intent to eliminating the deceased came at the scene and they resorted to indiscriminate firing. It is quite possible that all the shots were fired simultaneously and quickly and the deceased after sustaining injuries fell down and P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 might not have marked minutely that all the shots had simultaneously hit the deceased causing all the four injuries and thereafter, he fell down immediately and they made such statement in order to make their evidence appear to be more natural and trust worthy by giving the details of the manner and sequence of firing made by the appellants. In the light of the evidence of P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 it was contended that Injury Nos. (ii. iii and iv) could not have possibly been caused to the deceased while he was in lying posture after he fell down sustaining Injury No. (i) and had it at all been so bullet causing the other injuries would have been embeded in the earth but no bullet was said to have been found on the earth and this also instills suspicion in the prosecution version. This contention too has got no merit and force particularly also in view of the fact that the doctor (P.W. 2) in his cross examination stated that all the four injuries were possible even if the victim was standing or was lying down on the ground. 17. Even if there is certain inconsistency in medical evidence and eye witness account of infliction of fatal injuries causing the death of the deceased it is the testimony of eye witnesses which is to be preferred and accepted. 18. No motive impelling the accused to commit murder of the deceased is required to be pleaded and proved by the prosecution where there is direct evidence of eye witnesses. It is well known that not of ten less murders are committed in the village owing to existence of land dispute between the parties. In the instant case too there was long drawn land dispute between the deceased and the appellants and existence of land dispute between them was proved by P.W. 3 and P. W. 4 who spoke of such land dispute in the deposition. 19. Investigating Officer was not examined by the prosecution. On a careful and cautious scrutiny of the evidence of the eye witnesses it would appear that no material inconsistency or discrepancy occurred in their evidence and the place of occurrence also stood well proved by the evidence of the eye witnesses (P.W. 3 and P.W. 4). Under such circumstance non-examination of the Investigating Officer cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the appellants and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution case on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer. 20. Under such circumstance non-examination of the Investigating Officer cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the appellants and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution case on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer. 20. Certain other points raised on behalf of the appellants to assail the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against them were that no police personnel was examined to say at what hour the first information report was des-patched and got received in the court and when the dead body of the deceased was des-patched and received in mortuary; entry of case number on postmortem examination report did not indicate when the dead body was received for holding autopsy thereon; though the deceased was having bundle of crops over his head, P.W. 3 after his return from the police station did not find the bundle lying at the place of occurrence making to the case doubtful; and that no ballistic expert examined the pillets recovered from the body of the deceased. These points have been raised only for being rejected. The incident took place at 2.00 P.M. the F.I.R. was lodged at police station situated at a distance of 8 K.M. without any delay at about 3 P.M. on 6.2.1985. There was no scope for concoction and embellishment. The first information report was received in the court on the next day, that is, on 7.2.1985 as would be evident from endorsement of the Magistrate on the top of the first information report. Obviously, there was no delay in des-patch of the first information report arid receipt thereof in the court. Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was held at 7.00 A.M. on 7.2.1985. That would indicate that the dead body was - received in mortuary in the evening or night on 6.2.1985. No postmortem examination could have been conducted in the night. So there is no delay in transmission of the dead body to mortuary. Under such circumstance, non-examination of some police personnel or non mention of the time of arrival of the dead body in the postmortem examination report is not material and the same must be ignored. Similarly, the statement of P.W. 3 that after he returned from the police station he did not find the bundle of crops lying at the place of occurrence is of no consequence. Similarly, the statement of P.W. 3 that after he returned from the police station he did not find the bundle of crops lying at the place of occurrence is of no consequence. Again, the prosecution case cannot be said to have been rendered doubtful on account of the pillets recovered from the body of the deceased not having been examined by some ballistic expert or on account of disappearance of the bundle of crops from the place of occurrence or on account of non examination of blood stained earth, lathi and Chadar. 21. Considering the facts circumstances and evidence and broad probability. I do not find myself in a position to take a different view from that taken by the trial court in regard to the charges having been brought home against the appellants beyond the reasonable doubt. 22. For the reasons stated above, it is to be held that there is no merit in the appeal which must fail and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants stands maintained and confirmed. The appellant Birendra Rai is already in jail. He shall serve out the remainder of sentence. The appellants Govind Rai @ Om Prakash Rai, Kedar Rai, Uma Shankar Pandey end Uday Rai are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Let them be directed to surrender in the court below within a month for being remanded to jail custody to serve the sentences failing which the court below shall take coercive steps for procuring their surrender.