U. S. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25-7-1981 passed by Sessions judge. Badau in Session Trial No. 64 of 1980, convicting the appellants Bhikam singh, Rajendra Singh, Ram Swarup and chandra Pal under Section 302 read with section 34, IPC and sentencing each of them undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story briefly stated was as under prem Shankar deceased 145) was younger brother of appellant Ram Swarup. Appellant chandra Pal is son of appellant Ram swarup. Appellant Bhikam Singh and his son Rajendra Singh were friends of appellant Ram Swarup. Pitambar was real brother of Lekhraj, the father of appellant Ram swarup and Prem Shankar deceased pitambar was having no issue and was residing with Prem Shankar deceased and his sons. It is alleged that Pitambar had given his all properties to three sons of Prem shankar deceased, namely. Munna Babu (P. W. 1), Ram Babu and Udaivir. After death of Pitambar Ram Swarup appellant was claiming !/2 share in his properties, which were in possession of Prem Shankar deceased and his sons. A litigation was going on between appellant Ram Swarup and Prem shankar deceased regarding it. Besides it criminal cases were also pending between prem Shankar deceased and Ram Swarup, his son Ram Chandra, Bhikam Singh and rajendra Singh appellants. On account of above litigations the appellants were having enmity with the deceased. ( 3 ) ON the morning of 3-10-1979 at about 8,00 a. m. Prem Shankar deceased along with his son Munna Babu (P. W. 1) and his servant (Halwaha) Tejpal {p. W. 2) had come to his field. Tej Pal (P W. 2) was ploughing the field with plough and bullocks in the northern side of the field and Munna Babu (P. W. 1) was walking in front of bullocks as bullocks were untrained. Prem Shankar deceased was picking up the roots of San (a sort of plant through which jute is prepared)m Southern portion of the field. At about 9. 00 or 9-15 a. m. appellant Bhikam Singh armed with gun along with Rejendra Singh, ram Swarup and Chandra Pal all armed with country made pistols came near the deceased from Western side from the field of Chhiddoo Luhar. All the four appellants simultaneously fired on Prem Shankar deceased from their respective weapons. At about 9. 00 or 9-15 a. m. appellant Bhikam Singh armed with gun along with Rejendra Singh, ram Swarup and Chandra Pal all armed with country made pistols came near the deceased from Western side from the field of Chhiddoo Luhar. All the four appellants simultaneously fired on Prem Shankar deceased from their respective weapons. The shot hit the deceased and he started running towards east and then turned towards south and fell down in the Bajra field of Suraj pal. The appellants chased the deceased and in the field of Suraj Pal they again fired on him from their respective weapons. Munna babu (P. W. 1) and Tejpal (P. W. 2) came to the field of Suraj Pal and found that the deceased had died. ( 4 ) MUNNA Babu {p. W. 1) prepared report of the occurrence Ext. Ka-1 and came to police station Sahaswan, where he lodged the report at 10. 40 a,m. Chick FIR Ex. Ka-12 was prepared by Head Constable Indra pal Girl (P. W. 6) who made an endorsement of the same at G. D. report No. Ka-13 and registered a case against the appellants under Section 302, I. P. C. ( 5 ) CONSTABLE Suraj Pal Singh (PW. 3)along with Constables Phool Singh and raghuvir Sahai was returning to police station after performing their patrol duty and service of summons/notices. At about 9. 30 a. m. they reached near the field of Lakhan jatav between villages Khandak and mursan, where they heard sound of fire. When they proceeded towards that: place, appellants Bhikam Singh, Ram Swarup, rajendra Singh arid Chandra Pal were seen running. Observing the constable they stopped for a short while and thereafter ran towards Bajra fields. Suraj Pal Singh (P. W. 3) and other constables chased them and apprehended Bhikam Singh and Ram swarup appellants. The other two appellants made their escape good. Bhikam Singh was having his licensed single barrel gun and bandolier of cartridges contained five live cartridges. Ram Swarup was having a country made pistol which he threw in Bajra field. The gun and bandolier of cartridges of bhikam Singh was taken into possession by constable Suraj Pal Singh (P. W. 3), who prepared recovery memo Ext. Ka-2 and brought appellants Bhikam Singh and Ram Swarup to the police station Sahaswan. Ram Swarup was having a country made pistol which he threw in Bajra field. The gun and bandolier of cartridges of bhikam Singh was taken into possession by constable Suraj Pal Singh (P. W. 3), who prepared recovery memo Ext. Ka-2 and brought appellants Bhikam Singh and Ram Swarup to the police station Sahaswan. ( 6 ) THE investigation of the case was taken up by Mahendra Kurnar Kaushik (P. W. 7 ). The I. O. interrogated Munna Babu (P. W. 1)at the police station arid reached the spot along with Sub-Inspector Data Ram (P. W. 8 ). The dead body of the deceased was lying in the Bajra field of Suraj Pal. Data Ram (P. W. 8) conducted inquest of the dead body of the deceased, sealed it arid handed over to constable Ramdas for post-mortem. The I. O. recovered three empty cartridges from the spot. He inspected the place of occurrence arid prepared site plan. He also took into possession the blood stained and simple earth from the spot, ( 7 ) AUTOPSY on the dead body of Prem shankar deceased was conducted on 4-10-79 by Dr. R. P. Jauhari (P. W. 4), who found seven gun shot wounds of entry two gun shot wounds of exit and seven gun shot abrasions on the person of deceased as antemortem injuries and cause of death due to shock and haemorrage as a result of above injuries. ( 8 ) THE I. O, interrogated other witnesses and sent the gun of appellant Bhikam Singh and empty cartridges recovered from the spot to Forensic Science Laboratory, U. P. Lucknow for comparison arid report. Sri Ram asarey Pandey, Scientific Officer (P. W. 5)compared the empty cartridges from the cartridges fired from the gun in the Laboratory and found that empty cartridges EC-1 was fired from the gun. He submitted test report Ext. Ka-11. ( 9 ) ON completion of investigation the I. O. submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. ( 10 ) COGNIZANCE of the case was taken by the Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. ( 11 ) ALL the appellants were charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. They pleaded not guilty. ( 12 ) THE contention of appellant Bhikam singh was that Prem Shankar deceased was of bad character and had several enemies. ( 11 ) ALL the appellants were charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. They pleaded not guilty. ( 12 ) THE contention of appellant Bhikam singh was that Prem Shankar deceased was of bad character and had several enemies. He was murdered in the darkness of night by one of his enemies. At about 9. 00 a. m. he got news about murder of the deceased. He went to see the dead body and after seeing the dead body was returning to his house. In the way the police jeep was seen. Munna (P. W. 1) along with I. O. and other police officers were sitting in the jeep. The police stopped him and got seated him in the jeep. The police enquired about his gun. He told that it was lying at his house. His gun and bandolier of cartridges were brought through a constable from his house. The I. O. removed two cartridges from the bandolier, fired from the gun and kept the empty cartridges in his pocket and the gun was handed over to Head Constable. Appellant rajendra Singh contended that he was not present in the village at the time of occurrence. Appellant Ram Swarup contended that he has been falsely implicated to grab his property and when he was in jail the complainant took possession over his Gher and fields. Appellant Chandrapal adopted the statement of his father Ram Swarup. ( 13 ) THE prosecution in support of its case examined Munna Babu (P. W. 1) and Taj Pal. (P. W. 2) as witnesses of fact, besides Constable Suraj Pal Singh {p. W. 3), Dr. R. P. Jauhari (P. W. 4), Ram Asarey Pandey Scientific Officer (P. W. 5), Head Constable Indra pal Girt (P. W. 6), Mahendra Kumar Kaushik i. O. (P. W. 7) and Data Ram Sub-Inspector (P. W. 8 ). Constable Ram Das (P. W. 9), raghuvir Sahai {p. W. 10), Kanta Prasad (P. W. 11) and Ramesh Chandra (P. W. 12) filed their affidavits. The appellants did not adduce any evidence in their defence. ( 14 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge on considering evidence of the prosecution held that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. With these findings he convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. The appellants did not adduce any evidence in their defence. ( 14 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge on considering evidence of the prosecution held that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. With these findings he convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. ( 15 ) AGGRIEVED with their above conviction and sentence the appellants have come up in this appeal. ( 16 ) APPELLANT Ram Swarup died during pendency of appeal as per enquiry report of c. J. M. Badaun dated 19-8-2003. Therefore, the appeal preferred by appellant Ram swarup stood abated. ( 17 ) WE have heard Sri P. N. Misra, learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the respondent and have gone through the evidence on record. ( 18 ) THE death and cause of death of Prem shankar deceased is not disputed to the appellants. Dr. R. P. Jauhari (P. W. 4) who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased on 4-10-1979 at 10. 50 a. m. stated that following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of deceased : (1) One gun shot wound of entry 7 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on right angle of mandible extending to a part of neck, surrounded by a rim of 0. 5 cm of blackening. (2) Gun shot abrasion 3 cm x 0. 8 cm on right cheek 1. 5 cm above injury No. 1. (3) One shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x communicating to injury No. 4 on back of upper most part of fore arm. (4) One gun shot wound of exit 2 cm x injury No. 3 on front aspect of lower one third of right upper arm. (5) One gun shot abrasion 2 cm x 0. 5 cm on back of right elbow. (6) One gun shot wound of entry 0. 8 cm x 0. 8 cm x cavity deep on lower part of right scapula. (7) One gun shot wound of entry 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x cavity deep on right post auxiliary line 12 cm below auxiliary fold. (8) One gun shot wound of entry 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm on outer aspect of right flank. (9) One gun shot wound of exit 1 cm x 0. (7) One gun shot wound of entry 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x cavity deep on right post auxiliary line 12 cm below auxiliary fold. (8) One gun shot wound of entry 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm on outer aspect of right flank. (9) One gun shot wound of exit 1 cm x 0. 8 cm, 2 cm above left post superior iliac spine communicating to injury No. 8. (10) Gun shot abrasion 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm on upper part of left buttock. (11) Gun shot abrasion 1 cm x 0. 5 cm on lumber region 1 cm right-wards to mid line. (12) Gun shot abrasion 1. 5 cm x 1 cm on back of left flank. (13) One gun shot abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm below injury No. 8. (14) One gun shot wound of exit 1 cm x 0. 8 cm x injury No. 15, 6 cm above right knee on inner aspect of right thigh. (15) One gun shot wound of entry 0. 8 cm x 0. 7 cm on right aspect of right knee. (16) One gun shot wound of entry 0. 3 cm x 0. 3 cm on right thigh 4 cm above injury No. 14. ( 19 ) INTERNAL examination showed that right half mandible was fractured and both bones of right fore arm were fractured in upper one third. Pleura was punctured by pellets. Left lung was punctured by pellets. One ounce blood was present in lung cavity. Carotidal and jugular vessels of right side were ruptured under injury No. 1. Right half of tongue and right half of mandible along with teeth fractured into, pieces. Stomach contained 6 ounce grail. ( 20 ) ONE big pellet recovered from left lung cavity connecting injury No. 7. One big pellet recovered from sub-cutaneous tissues of third rib and costal space of front left chest connecting injury No. 6. One cork piece, one tickli and 13 small pellets recovered from injury No. 1. The cause of death was shock and haemorrage due to ante-mortem injuries. ( 21 ) THE doctor further stated that the death of deceased would have occurred on 3-10-1979 at about 9. 00 a. m. ante-mortem injuries on his person were caused by fire arm and those injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The cause of death was shock and haemorrage due to ante-mortem injuries. ( 21 ) THE doctor further stated that the death of deceased would have occurred on 3-10-1979 at about 9. 00 a. m. ante-mortem injuries on his person were caused by fire arm and those injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. ( 22 ) THE above medical evidence has not been challenged by the appellants and, therefore, the death and cause of death of prem Shankar deceased has been established. ( 23 ) THE motive alleged by the prosecution was that Pitambar was real uncle of prem Shankar deceased and Ram Swarup appellant, Pitambar was issueless and was living with Prem Shankar deceased and had given his properties to three sons of Prem shankar deceased. Appellant Ram Swarup was claiming halt share in the properties of pitambar and on account of it a litigation was going on between Prem Shankar deceased and Ram swarup appellant. It is further alleged that Bhikam Singh appellant was friend of Ram Swarup appellant and criminal cases were also going on between prem Shankar and Bhikam Singh. On account of it Bhikam Singh and his son rajendra Singh appellants and Ram Swarup and his son Ram Chandra appellants were inimical with the deceased. The enmity regarding land between prem Shankar deceased and Ram Swarup appellant is not disputed. However, Munna Babu (P. W. 1)stated that Prem Shankar deceased had filed civil suit against Ram Swarup appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that certified copy of plaint of suit No. 146 of 1976 Ext. Kha-6 shows that Ram Swarup appellant had filed suit for partition and possession of his half share in residential house and Gher and therefore, it was Prem shankar deceased who was having grudge against Ram Swarup appellant and the appellants were falsely implicated on account of above enmity. May it be so. the enmity regarding litigation of landed property between Prem Shankar deceased and Ram swarup appellant was pending and this enmity could be a cause of murder of deceased. As such there was motive for appellant Ram swarup and his son Ram Chandra. It is also not disputed that Bhikam Singh was friend and helper of appellant Ram Swarup and criminal proceedings were pending between prem Shankar and Bhikam Singh. Therefore Bhikam Singh and his son Rajendra singh had also motive. As such there was motive for appellant Ram swarup and his son Ram Chandra. It is also not disputed that Bhikam Singh was friend and helper of appellant Ram Swarup and criminal proceedings were pending between prem Shankar and Bhikam Singh. Therefore Bhikam Singh and his son Rajendra singh had also motive. ( 24 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the occurrence had taken place some where in the night and the F. I. R. was ante-timed. Informant Munna Babu (P,w. 1) and Tej Pal (P. W. 2) stated that the occurrence took place at about 9. 00 a. m. in the field of Prem Shankar as well as in the bajra field of Suraj Pal. The I. O. Mahendra kumar Kaushik {p. W. 7) visited the place of occurrence at 12. 00 noon on 3-10-79 and saw that the dead body of Prem Shankar deceased was lying in the field of Suraj Pal. He also stated that blood and three empty cartridges were lying near the dead body and he collected blood stains and empty catridges from the spot. He also stated that bajra crop near the dead body was broken. The above place of occurrence is not disputed as there is no challenge of the evidence of Munna Babu (P. W. 1), Tej Pal (P. W. 2) and Mahendra Kumar Kaushik (P. W. 7 ). The above ocular witnesses also stated that the occurrence took place at about 9. 00 a. m. The report of the occurrence was lodged at 10. 40 a. m. on the same day. The distance of police station was five kilo-meters. Head constable Indra Pal Giri (P. W. 6) stated that munna Babu (P. W. 1) handed over the written report Ext. Ka-1 at the police station at 10. 40 a. m. and on the basis of it he prepared chick report. He further stated that special report of the case was sent on the same day at 12. 05 p. m. and the departure of I. O. was mentioned in the G. D. report ext. Ka-13 at which the case was registered. The evidence of Indra Pal Giri (P. W. 6) has not been challenged. Dr. R. P. Jauhari (P. W. 4) also stated that the death of thedeceased would have occurred on 3-10-79 at about 9. 00 a. m. The above evidence has also not been challenged. Ka-13 at which the case was registered. The evidence of Indra Pal Giri (P. W. 6) has not been challenged. Dr. R. P. Jauhari (P. W. 4) also stated that the death of thedeceased would have occurred on 3-10-79 at about 9. 00 a. m. The above evidence has also not been challenged. The above evidence on record clearly established that the occurrence took place at about 9. 00 a. m. on 3-10-79 in the field of Prem Shankar as well as in the Bajra field of Suraj Pal and report was lodged at 10. 40 a. m. ( 25 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants pointed out that in criminal case No. 186 of 1980, Prem Shankar v. Bhikam Singh statement of Munna Babu (P. W. 1) was recorded. In his above statement Ext. Kha-1 he had stated that he had not lodged any written report of murder of his father but had lodged oral report of the said occurrence and this shows that the FIR Ext. Ka-1 was not prepared by Munna Babu (P. W. 1 ). Munna Babu (P. W. 1) had denied to have given such statement. The original statement was not shown to the witness. It is not known under what circumstances the witness gave the above statement. Moreover his above statement ext. Kha-1 was his previous statement and it can be used only for the purposes of contradiction. The report Ext. Ka-1 is in the hand writing and signature of the informant and his evidence is corroborated by Constable indra Pal Singh (P. W. 5) that written report Ext. Ka-1 was handed over to him. Therefore, the above earlier statement of the witness, which was neither relevant nor necessary in the said case does not rule out the lodging of the written report by Munna Babu (P. W. 7 ). There is nothing on record to suggest that the report was ante timed as special report of the case was sent at 12. 05 p. m. ( 26 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant then contended that the presence of ocular witnesses on the spot is doubtful as none had sustained injury and both the ocular witnesses namely, Munna Babu (P. W. 1) and tej Pal (P. W. 2) are interested witnesses and, therefore, they are not reliable. 05 p. m. ( 26 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant then contended that the presence of ocular witnesses on the spot is doubtful as none had sustained injury and both the ocular witnesses namely, Munna Babu (P. W. 1) and tej Pal (P. W. 2) are interested witnesses and, therefore, they are not reliable. ( 27 ) MUNNA Lal (P. W. 1) the son of Prem shankar deceased stated that on 3-10-79 at about 8. 00 a. m. , he and his father Prem shankar deceased and servant Tej Pal (P. W. 2) had gone to their field situated on northern side of the village. Tej Pal (P. W. 2) was ploughing the northern portion of the field with bullocks and plough and he was walking in front of bullocks. His father Prem shankar deceased was picking out roots of san plants in the southern portion of the field. At about 9. 00 or 9. 15 a. m. The appellant Bhikam Singh armed with gun and appellants Rajendra Singh, Ram Swarup and chandra Pal armed with country made pistols came near his father from western side and started firing upon the deceased. His father ran towards the east and thereafter towards south and fell down in the Bajra field of Suraj Pal. The appellants chased him and caused fire arm injuries on him in the field of Suraj Pal and thereafter ran away. ( 28 ) TEJ Pal (P. W. 2) stated that at the time of occurrence he along with Munna babu (P. W. 1) and Prem Shankar deceased had gone to their field. He started ploughing the field and Munna Babu was walking in front of bullocks. Prem Shankar deceased was picking up San roots from the field. At about 9. 00 a. m. appellant Bhikam Singh armed with gun, Rajendra Singh, Ram swarup and Chandra Pal armed with country made pistols came out from Bajra field of Chhiddoo and started firing upon Prem shankar deceased. Prem Shankar deceased ran towards east through field of Sri Ram and then went in the field of Suraj Pal, where he fell down. The appellants chasing the deceased went to the held of Suraj Pal and caused fire arm injuries on him there. ( 29 ) MUNNA Babu (P. W. 1) is admittedly son of Prem Shankar deceased and Tej Pal (P. W. 2) was his Halwaha (plough man),. The appellants chasing the deceased went to the held of Suraj Pal and caused fire arm injuries on him there. ( 29 ) MUNNA Babu (P. W. 1) is admittedly son of Prem Shankar deceased and Tej Pal (P. W. 2) was his Halwaha (plough man),. Therefore, presence of deceased Prem shankar, Munna Babu and Tej Pal had at their field was natural as the field was to be ploughed and at the time of occurrence northern portion of the field was being ploughed. Tej Pal (P. W. 2) was Halwaha and he had to plough the field. Munna Babu (P. W. 1) had also natural and probable occasion to be present on the spot as he was walking in front of the bullocks (probably the bullocks were untrained ). Prem Shankar deceased was picking up the roots of San plant from the same field and, therefore, they had occasion for their presence at the said field. ( 30 ) IN the site plan Ext Ka 22 the I. O. had shown plough marks in the northern portion of the field of Prem Shankar deceased. This mark is admissible in evidence as the I. O. saw it himself at the spot (vide tori Singh v. State of U. P. , AIR 1962 SC 399 : (1962 (1) Cri LJ 469 ). ( 31 ) THE above witnesses further stated that observing the appellants causing fire arm injuries on Prem Shankar deceased they rushed towards the spot and the appellants ran away. Since they were at a distance of 65 paces from the place where the deceased was first shot at there was no occasion for injury on them. Therefore, there is sufficient explanation for absence of injury on their person. ( 32 ) MUNNA Babu (PW1) had also lodged report of the occurrence by coming to the police station at 10. 40 a. m. As mentioned above, there is nothing on record to prove that the occurrence had taken place some where in the night and it is established that the occurrence took place at about 9. 00 a. m. The lodging of the report by Munna Babu (PW1) at 10. 40 a. m. again confirmed his presence on the spot. As pointed out above the presence of Munna Babu (PW1) and Tej pal (PW2) on the spot was natural and probable. 00 a. m. The lodging of the report by Munna Babu (PW1) at 10. 40 a. m. again confirmed his presence on the spot. As pointed out above the presence of Munna Babu (PW1) and Tej pal (PW2) on the spot was natural and probable. Their testimony, therefore, should not be discarded simply because Munna Babu (PW1) was close relative of the deceased. Tej pal (PW2) was plough man of deceased, but had no animosity with the appellants and had no occasion to falsely implicate the appellants. As held by Apex Court in the case of Harijan Naraina v. State of Andhra pradesh (2003) 6 JT (SC) 170 : 2003 Cri LJ 3727 : AIR 2003 SC 285 L theie is no such universal rule as to wan ant rejection of evidence of a witness merely because he/she was related to or interested in the parties on either side. In such cases if the presence of such a witness at the time of occurrence is proved or considered to be natural and evidence tendered by such witness is found in the light of surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case, to be true it can provide a good and sound basis for conviction of the accused. Where it is shown that there is enmity and the witnesses are near relatives too, the Court has a duty to scrutinize their evidence with great caution and with circumspection and very careful too in weighing such evidence. ( 33 ) WE have considered the evidence of above two witnesses and found that they are natural and probable witnesses. They have also explained the absence of injury on their person and it is not necessary that presence of injury is a condition precedent for the presence of witness at the spot. The injury on the person is no doubt a guarantee of his presence at the spot, but in this case the absence of injury is fully explained and can not be a ground to doubt their presence. The presence of injuries on the person of a witness may depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and there is no universal rule that presence of a witness can only be considered when he is injured. Thus every case should depend ultimately on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The presence of injuries on the person of a witness may depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and there is no universal rule that presence of a witness can only be considered when he is injured. Thus every case should depend ultimately on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The case of the prosecution should be judged taking into account the over all circumstances of the case with a practical, pragmatic and reasonable approach in the matter of appreciation of evidence. From the cross examination of the above ocular witness we find that nothing concrete has been pointed out or sub-stantiated to oblige us to either discredit or reject their evidence as their evidence is coroborated by medical evidence, FIR and other circumstances of the case. ( 34 ) IT is true that Munna Babu (PW1)was inimical with the appellant on account of civil litigation but on this ground his testimony can not be discarded. Munna Babu (PW1) being close relative of the deceased was hardly expected to spare (out the real assailant and falsely implicate innocent persons. Thus we find no ground to disbelieve the evidence of above ocular witnesses whose presence at the spot has been established as natural and probable. ( 35 ) IT was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that Prem shankar deceased was a person of bad character and had several enemies. It was also pointed out that as admitted by Muna Babu (PW1), Prem Shankar had kept one Smt. Bhudevi younger sister of his wife against the wishes of her husband Radhey Shyam who wanted to take his wife. It was also pointed out that Manohar Jatav was also inimical with the deceased as he had initiated a proceedings under Section 107/117 cr. P. C. against him and that one Kaliyan had also lodged report against the deceased under Section 323 IPC and Prevention of untouchability Act and that several litigations were also going on between the deceased and one Banne Sunar of village sahaswan. Munna Babu (PW1) had repelled the above suggestions regarding enmity of the deceased with the above persons. Assuming that some other persons were also having enmity with the deceased, it can not be said that only such persons would have committed murder of the deceased. Munna Babu (PW1) had repelled the above suggestions regarding enmity of the deceased with the above persons. Assuming that some other persons were also having enmity with the deceased, it can not be said that only such persons would have committed murder of the deceased. If other persons had murdered the deceased there was no ground for Munna Babu (PW1) to spare them out. The occurrence had taken place in broad day light and, therefore, there was no question of mistaken identity of the assailants. Therefore, the enmity of the deceased with other persons was no ground o presume that some other enemy of deceased would have murdered him specially when the eye witnesses had nominated the appellants as assailants at the earliest op. portunity. ( 36 ) BESIDES the above ocular evidence of munna Babu (PW1) and Tej Pal (PW 2) there is another corroborative evidence of constable Suraj Pal Singh (PW3) and evidence of ballistic Expert Ram Asarey (PW5) against the appellants Bhikam Singh and Ram swarup. Constable Suraj Pal Singh (PW3)stated that on 3-10-79 he was returning to police station Sahaswan, where he was posted along with Constable Phool Singh and raghuvir Sahai and when he reached near the field of Lakhan Jatav near villages khandak and Mursan he heard sound of fire and saw four persons namely, Bhikam singh, Ram Swarup, Rajendra Singh and chandra Pal running. Observing the police they stopped and started running towards bajra field. He and other constables chased them and apprehended Bhikam Singh and ram Swarup. Bhikam Singh was having his licensed gun and bandolier of cartridges containing five live catridges. Ram Swarup was having a country made pistol, which he threw in Bajra field. He took into possession the licensed gun a bandolier of cartridges of Bhikam Singh and prepared recovery memo Ext. Ka-2 and brought them to police station. Three empty cartridges were recovered from the spot and licensed gun were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. The empty cartridges were compared with the cartridges fired from the gun of bhikam Singh in the Laboratory by Sri Ram asharey Pandey, Junior Scientific Officer (PW5), who opined that test cartridge EC-1 was fired from SBBL gun. Three empty cartridges were recovered from the spot and licensed gun were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. The empty cartridges were compared with the cartridges fired from the gun of bhikam Singh in the Laboratory by Sri Ram asharey Pandey, Junior Scientific Officer (PW5), who opined that test cartridge EC-1 was fired from SBBL gun. ( 37 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants vehemently challenged the arrest of appellant Bhikam Singh and Ram Swarup, as well as recovery of gun from the possession of bhikam Singh in the manner stated by Constable Suraj Pal (PW3 ). He pointed out that the manner of arrest of two appellants by constable Suraj Pal Singh (PW3) is highly doubtful because he had not taken the above appellants to the place of occurrence and had not tried to know what they had done. He also pointed out that according to statement of Suraj Pal (PW3) before the I. O. he had handed over the gun and cartridges recovered from Bhikam Singh to the I. O. at the police station, but the I. O. had contradicted this fact. It is true that Suraj Pal (PW3)admitted in his cross examination that after enquiry from the appellants Bhikam singh and Ram Swarup he did not think it proper to visit the place of occurrence of this case which was at a distance of two furlongs and he further stated that he came to the police station through village Khandak, but on this account the evidence of Suraj Pal (PW3) regarding arrest of Bhikam Singh and ram Swarup can not be doubted, because there could be several reasons for not taking the appellant to the place of occurrence. It may be possible that he thought that a large number of persons would have assemed on the spot and they would get the above appellants rescued or some other complication could arise. Therefore, not taking the above appellants to the place of occurrence after their arrest does not discredit evidence of Suraj Pal (PW3 ). ( 38 ) THE I. O. Sri Mahendra Kumar kaushik (PW2) had denied the suggestions of the appellant that Suraj Pal (PW3) had handed over gun and cartridges recovered from Bhikam Singh to him at the police station. ( 38 ) THE I. O. Sri Mahendra Kumar kaushik (PW2) had denied the suggestions of the appellant that Suraj Pal (PW3) had handed over gun and cartridges recovered from Bhikam Singh to him at the police station. However, he admitted that he had mentioned in the interrogation of Suraj Pal (PW3)that recovery memo of personal search regarding one single barrel licensed gun and bandolier of cartridges containing five live cartridges were handed over to him. He clarified that only recovery memo was handed over to him and not the gun and bandolier of cartridges. The above statement is reproduced as below :"poochane PAR FARD JAMA TALASHI wa BARAMDAGI EK JARAB IKNAL1 kartoosi LICENSEE BANDOOK WA EK peti NIWAD MAHMOOLA 5 KARTOOS mujh S. I. KO DI. " ( 39 ) THIS statement refers to handing over of recovery memo regarding recovery of one single barrel gun and one Niwad bandolier containing five cartridges. It does not refer that the gun and cartridges were also handed over. Therefore no discrepancy, embellishment or improbability appear in the evidence of Suraj Pal (PW3 ). ( 40 ) MOREOVER appellant Bhikam Singh has stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that he was arrested at 9. 00 a. m. on the date of occurrence though he had given a different manner of arrest that when he got information about murder of the deceased he came to the spot and after seeing the dead body he was returning to his house and in the way Sub-Inspector along with the police force and Munna Babu (PW1) were coming in a jeep. The police stopped him and got seated him in the jeep. The I. O. enquired about his gun and he told that it was lying at his house. His gun and bandolier of cartridges were brought through a constable and the I. O. took out some cartridges from bandolier, fired from his gun and kept the empty cartridge in his pocket. The I. O. had denied the above suggestion and there is no evidence on record to prove this fact. Therefore, the sworn testimony of Suraj Pal (PW3) which finds support from the General Diary entry Ext. Ka-14 regarding ar rival of appellants Bhikam Singh and Ram swarup in custody and deposit of one gun and bandolier of cartridges by Constable suraj Pal at police station and others at 11. Therefore, the sworn testimony of Suraj Pal (PW3) which finds support from the General Diary entry Ext. Ka-14 regarding ar rival of appellants Bhikam Singh and Ram swarup in custody and deposit of one gun and bandolier of cartridges by Constable suraj Pal at police station and others at 11. 40 a. m. is worthy of credence. ( 41 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants challenged the admissibility and reliability of report of Ballistic Expert on the grounds that (i) there was no mention of presence of empty cartridges on the spot in the F. I. R,, (ii) that the original recovery memo of empty cartridges is not available, (ii) and that the recovery of gun of Bhikam Singh is doubtful as gun and cartridges were sent to malkhana after 74 days which creates doubt in the recovery of empty cartridges on the spot. ( 42 ) IT is true that in the F. I. R. it was not mentioned by the informant that empty cartridges were also lying on the spot. Informantmunna Babu (PW1) rushed to the place where the deceased was lying dead and observing him dead he went to police station to lodge the report. The father of the witness was murdered before him as such he was so much perturbed that he was not expected to minutely see in the Bajra field bout presence of empty cartridges. The I. O. was investigating the case arid he had minutely inspected the place of occurrence. Therefore, non mention of presence of empty cartridges in the F. I. R. does not rule out the recovery of empty cartridges from the spot, when there is categorical evidence of two ocular witnesses that appellant Bhikam singh was firing from gun and other appellants were firing from country made pistols. ( 43 ) S. I. Data Ram (PW. 8) who came to spot along with Sri Mahendra Kumar kaushik, I. O. (P. W. 7) stated that he recovered three cartridges (Ext. 3, 4 and 5) from the spot, sealed it in presence of the witnesses and prepared recovery memo. He further stated that recovery memo is not available. The evidence of Constable Indra pal Singh (PW 6) shows that on 4-10-1979, the I. O. returned at the police station at 7. 15 a. m. and handed over a bundle containing four empty cartridges. He further stated that recovery memo is not available. The evidence of Constable Indra pal Singh (PW 6) shows that on 4-10-1979, the I. O. returned at the police station at 7. 15 a. m. and handed over a bundle containing four empty cartridges. Above evidence of Indra Pal Singh (PW 6) has not been challenged. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in case the I. O. deposited empty cartridges at the police station it were those cartridges which the I. O. fired from the gun of Bhikam Singh, and it were not empty cartridges lying on the spot. The suggestion given to this effect has been repelled by the I. O. Mahendra Kumar Kaushik (PW 7 ). Moreover according to suggestion given to the I. O. the appellant Bhikam Singh and Ram Swarup were arrested from their respective house and this suggestion is contradictory to the statement of appellant bhikam Singh given in his statement under section 313 Cr. P, C Therefore, the version of appellant Bhikam Singh in this regard is self contradictory and he was not sure from which place he was arrested. Therefore, the loss of recoveiy memo of recovered empty cartridges does not discredit the evidence of Data Ram (PW 8) that three empty cartridges were recovered from the spot. ( 44 ) IT was further pointed out that there is no mention in the inquest report that the empty cartridges were lying near the dead body and this omission rules out the recov eiy of empty cartridges fiom the spot. But the mention ofpresence of empty cartridges in the inquest report was not essential. The apex Court in the case of Pedda Naraina v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 1252 : (1975 Cri LJ 1062) held as below : (Para 11)"the proceedings under Section 174 Cr p, C. have a "very limited ;scupe. i "heobject of the proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person had died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is apparent cause of death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174 Cr. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P. C. Neither any practice nor in law it is necessary for the police to mention those details in the inquest report. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter into all the details of the overt act in the inquest report. Therefore, the omission is not sufficient to put the prosecution out of Court. " ( 45 ) IN the case of Khuji alias Surendra tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1991 sc 1853 : (1991 Crilj 2653) the Apex Court after placing reliance on the above quoted decision rejected the contention raised on behalf of the accused that the evidence of eye witnesses could not be relied upon as their names did not figure, in the inquest report prepared at the earliest point of time. In Shakeela Khadar v. Gania Nausher, AIR 1975 SC 1324 : (1975 Cri LJ 1105) it was held that the inquest under Section 174 Cr. P, C. has concern with establishing the cause of death only. The High Court was, therefore, clearly in error in holding that the facts about the occurrence were not mentioned in the inquest leport, which would show that at least by the time the report was prepared the Invest gating Officer was not sure of the facts of the case. The above decisions were also relied on and affirmed in the latest decision of the Apex Court in Amar Singh v. Balbindar Singh, (2003) 2 JT (SC) 1 : (2003 cri LJ 1282 : AIR 2003 SC 1164 ). Therefore, non-mention of presence of empty cartridges in the inquest report was neither essential nor necessary under law and its non mention does not rule out the presence of empty cartridges on the spot. ( 46 ) THE evidence of Suraj Pal (PW 3) regarding arrest of Bhikam Singh and evidence of Data Ram (PW 8) regarding recovery of empty cartridges from the spot have already been discussed above and we found that his arrest and recovery of licensed gun from his possession as stated by Constable suraj Pal Singh (PW 3) and Data Ram (PW 8)are worthy of credence. ( 47 ) IT is true that empty cartridges and gun of appellant Bhikam Singh were deposited in Sadar Malkhyana on 27-12-1979 as deposed by constable Raghuvir Sahai (PW 10) in his affidavit but on this ground it can not be said that the empty cartridges were subsequently planted as on the own saying of appellant Bhikam Singh his gun was taken into possession by the police on the date of occurrence and empty cartridges were also planted on the date of occurrence itself. Thus, it can not be said that the delay in sending the gun and empty cartridges to sadar Malkhana on 27-12-1979 (after about 74 days) was suggestive of planting the gun and cartridge subsequently. In these circumstances the evidence of Ballistic Expert Sri ram Asare Pandey (PW 2) that empty cartridges EC-1 (recovered from the spot) was fired from SBBL gun of Bhikam Singh established his complicity in the offence. ( 48 ) IN view of our above discussions and observations we find that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and we find no force in the appeal. ( 49 ) THE appeal preferred by appellant ram Swarup stands abated and the appeal preferred by appellants Bhikam Singh, rajendra Singh and Chandra Pal is accordingly dismissed. ( 50 ) CONVICTION and sentence of appellants Bhikam Singh, Rajendra Singh and chandra Pal under Section 302 read with section 34 I. P. C. are confirmed. . ( 51 ) THE above appellants are on bail. They shall surrender before the C. J. M. concerned to serve out the sentences awarded to them. ( 52 ) THE C. J. M. , Badaum is directed to procure the arrest of appellants by issuing non bailable warrants and adopting all other processes available under law and to send them to Jail to serve out the sentences. ( 53 ) COPY of order be sent to C. J. M. Badaum within a week for compliance and report within a month. Appeal dismissed. .