A. MATEEN, J. ( 1 ) RAM Adhar and kishan have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30-5-1981 passed by learned Sessions Judge. Unnao in Sessions Trial No. 239 of 1980 convicting appellant Kishari under Section 302 IPC and accused appellant Ram Adhar under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing both of (hem to imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, an f. I. R. was lodged by Srnt. Saroj Shukla, wife of Roop Narain Shukla on 10-11-1977 at 9. 09 PM stating (herein that she had married Roop Narain Shukla, which was to the disliking of her brother Ram Adhar and her father Ram Swaroop. Her brother Ram adhar frequently used to threaten and asked her to desert Roop Narain Shukla least he would be killed. On 10-11-1977, she was at her house, situate at Mohalla Jawahar Nagar, Unnao along with her husband Roop Narain shukla. It was Deewali night and as such the house was illuminated with electric bulbs, earthen lamps and candles and there was sufficient light. At about 8. 30 PM. her brother Ram Adhar along with his associate kishan came to her house. Ram Adhar was armed with a country made pistol and kishan was armed with a knife. Ram Adhar shot at her husband Roop Narain Shukla with the countrymade pistol which hit him on his elbow. Smt. Saroj Shukla vehemently pleaded with Ram Adhar and Kishan not to beat her husband upon which Ram Adhar said that in spite of the fact that Roop. Narain shukla was her uncle, he has kept her (Smt. Saroj Shukla) and as such, he will not allow him to live. In the meantime Kishan and Ram adhar caught hold of Roop Narain Shukla and they dragged him outside the house to the Chabutara (raised platform) in the lane where Roop Narain Shukla fell down. She further stated that while dragging Roop narain Shukla from inside the house to the chabutra, Kishan continued to inflict knife blows upon Roop Narain Shukla. Roop narain Shukla fell down from the Chabutara in the nearby drain. At that moment, Kishan was standing by his side. Ram Adhar fired a second shot on Roop Narain Shukla, which somehow missed the target but hit Kishan on his leg. Roop narain Shukla fell down from the Chabutara in the nearby drain. At that moment, Kishan was standing by his side. Ram Adhar fired a second shot on Roop Narain Shukla, which somehow missed the target but hit Kishan on his leg. Thereafter Ram Adhar and Kishan fled away towards north of the house in the bye lane. Roop Narain Shukla succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The incident was witnessed by Ram Kishore Sonar and Baba shyam Sunder. ( 3 ) F. I. R. of the incident was lodged in presence of S. I. , Parvez Husain and he was entrusted investigation of the case. He recorded the statement of complainant Smt. Saroj Shukla at the police station itself and reached the place of the occurrence on the same night at about 10 P. M. He performed inquest and sent the dead body of Roop narain Shukla for post mortem examination in the custody of constable Har Pratap. On the same night, at about 11. 45 P. M. he received information from constable Ram Milan that one of the named accused, i. e. Kishan is admitted in the District Hospital in an injured condition. On receiving this information, he reached District Hospital, unnao and arrested Kishan and recorded his statement. On 11-11-1977 he recorded the statements of Ram Kishun Sonar and shyam Sunder Gupta and prepared site plan ext. Ka 11. He collected and sealed blood stained and plain earth from the place where the dead body of Roop Narain Shukla was lying and sealed them in separate ontainers under a recovery memo, Ext. Ka. 14, he recovered wads of the cartridge from the place of the occurrence and sealed them under a recovery memo, Ext. Ka- 15. He also collected blood stained plaster from the wall vide Ext. Kal3. He searched for Ram Adhar but could not find him and only on 26-1-1978 he came to know that Ram Adhar had surrendered in Court. He recorded his statement on 28-2-1978 and after completing investigation, submitted charge sheet against both the accused on 7-4-1978. ( 4 ) IN due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where a charge was framed against accused Kishan under section 302 IPC and one under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against accused Ram adhar. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) IN due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where a charge was framed against accused Kishan under section 302 IPC and one under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against accused Ram adhar. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to bring home its case against the accused, examined Smt. Saroj Shukla, complainant of the case, as pw. l; Ram Kishore as PW. 2, Head rnoharir sohan Lal Shukla as PW. 3, Aslam as PW. 4, shyam Sundar as PW. 5, Dr. A. Akram as pw. 6; investigation officer Parvez Husain as pw. 7; and Dr. H. M. Saxena as PW. 8, who conducted post mortem of the deceased. The prosecution case found favour with the learned Sessions Judge, who convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated above. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal. ( 5 ) WE have heard Sri J. N. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor at length and have gone through the statements of the witnesses and material documents tendered by the prosecution. We now proceed to analyse the statements of the prosecution witnesses. ( 6 ) PW. 1 Smt. Saroj Shukla is the widow of the deceased. She stated that she had married the deceased and had two children from the wedlock. She also stated that she was left by her father at the house of his maternal uncle Raghuwanshi Lal, who was unmarried, with the hope that Raghuwanshi lal would transfer his landed property in the name of her father. But Raghuwanshi lal started casting an evil eye upon her and in spite of her repeated complaints made to her father, he did not pay any heed and on the contrary insisted that she should stay there till. such time Raghuwanshi Lal transferred his property in his name. It was stated by Smt. Saroj Shukla that since she disliked this evil design of her father, she left the house of Raghuwanshi Lal and came to live with roop Narain Shukla and they started living as husband and wife. This recourse of hers was not to the liking of Ram Adhar and her father and time and again they seriously objected to it. This recourse of hers was not to the liking of Ram Adhar and her father and time and again they seriously objected to it. She also stated about a criminal case which was registered against roop Narain Misra and wherein he was prosecuted by her father and said Raghuwanshi lai. She stated that Ram Adhar persuaded her in vain to desert Roop Narain saying that their relationship was bringing bad name and insult to the family and had even threatened to kill Roop Narain. After narrating these facts, which the prosecution has relied as the motive for committing this gruesome murder, PW. 1 Smt. Saroj Shukla proceeded to narrate the actual incident. It was stated by her that on the fateful night (which was Deewali night) she was sitting in the courtyard, talking with her husband Roop narain. At that time both the accused entered the house and seeing Roop Narain, ram Adhar fired a shot with his pistol, which hit on the elbow of Roop Narain. She raised an alarm and made fervent appeals to spare his life, instead Kishan, who was having a knife, showered knife blows upon Roop narain and Ram Adhar assaulted him with fists. Roop Narain ran outside, but was followed by the accused. Then Roop Narain fell down in the drain by the side of the chabutara. This witness also followed them shouting for help, hearing which witnesses reached there. Accused Ram Adhar reloaded his pistol and fired a second shot at fallen roop Narain, which somehow missed him and instead hit accused Kishan on his leg. Thereafter both the accused made good their escape. When Smt. Saroj Shukla reached near her husband, she found him lying dead. This witness proved the F. I. R. Ext. Ka-1 which was recorded at police station Kotwali, unnao on her dictation. ( 7 ) P. W. 2 Ram Kishore is the neighbour of deceased. This witness knew appellant ram Adhar since before the incident. He candidly stated that he was not acquainted with appellant Kishan. In his deposition, he narrated the incident and stated that at the relevant time he was having his dinner and upon hearing cries he came out and saw two persons, one of whom was armed with a pistol, assaulting Roop Narain. He candidly stated that he was not acquainted with appellant Kishan. In his deposition, he narrated the incident and stated that at the relevant time he was having his dinner and upon hearing cries he came out and saw two persons, one of whom was armed with a pistol, assaulting Roop Narain. He stated that since it was dark, he could not identify the assailants and when the person armed with pistol threatened to shoot him, he fled into his house. He stated that Smt. Saroja Shukla was screaming that the Ram Adhar had assaulted her husband. This witness could not identify the appellants in the dark but volunteered to say that Kishan was the person who had received firearm injury at the time of the incident. This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the public prosecutor and though she disowned certain statements, but admitted having stated to the investigating officer, that Smt. Saroj shukla was weeping and pleading with her brother, "bhaiya MAT MARO" (brother dont beat ). ( 8 ) P. W. 3 S. I. Sohan Lai Shukla on the relevant date was posted at P. S. Kotwali as head Moharrir. He had recorded the F. I. R. on the dictation of Smt. Saroj Shukla. He prepared chik report Ext. Ka-1. This witness stated that on the same night at about 10. 15 he entered into the ROJNAMA the information received from rickshaw puller Aslam. On the same night he received information from District Hospital, Unnao through written letter of Dr. A. Akaram that accused kishan an injured had come to the hospital which information he entered in report No. 31 at 10-30 PM on the same night. ( 9 ) P. W. 4 is Aslam, the rickshaw driver, who stated that on the night of the incident (which was night of Deewali) at about 8. 45 -9pm he was at the picture hall waiting for some customer. At that time two persons approached him. One of the said persons was having injury on his leg. They asked him to take them to Hiran Nagar and as per their wishes he proceeded towards Hiran nagar. On the way he overheard them saying that the person must have died by now. At that time two persons approached him. One of the said persons was having injury on his leg. They asked him to take them to Hiran Nagar and as per their wishes he proceeded towards Hiran nagar. On the way he overheard them saying that the person must have died by now. Near the factory in Hiran Nagar, one of the two passengers went away but the other who was having injury on his leg asked him to take him to the District Hospital. This witness stated that while passing in front of police station Kotwali. it came to his mind to take the person sitting on the rickshaw to the police station, but due to fear he did not do so and took him to District Hospital where alter paying fare, said person went away. Aslam saw that his rickshaw was smeared with blood and out of suspicion he went to the police station and informed the head Constable. This witness recognized both the accused persons in the Court. He specifically pointed out towards appellant kishan and said that it was he whom he had taken to the District Hospital whereas the other person had left the rickshaw at hiran Nagar. ( 10 ) P. W. 5 Shyam Sunder is eyewitness of the incident. He stated that he. was resident of Jawahar Nagar and lived in the house of one Yaseen. He stated that it was Deewali night (it was about 8 PM) and crackers were being burst in abundance. He heard the noise of shouting and of gunfire. The noise was coming from the house of Roop Narain shukla. He also heard cries of wife of Roop narain Shukla who was saying, "brother kishan, dont beat". When he proceeded towards the house of Roop Narain Shukla he saw Kishan inflicting knife blows upon Roop narain Shukla, who was lying on by the lane near the Chabutra. He ran towards Roop narain Shukla and stood near a tin shed and shouted for help upon which Ram kishan and his father reached there. On seeing them and other persons, the accused fled away. This witness reached near Roop narain Shukla and found him dead. During trial in Court, he specifically pointed to wards appellant Kishan and stated that he was the person who had received injury on his leg. On seeing them and other persons, the accused fled away. This witness reached near Roop narain Shukla and found him dead. During trial in Court, he specifically pointed to wards appellant Kishan and stated that he was the person who had received injury on his leg. He also recognized Ram Adhar as brother of Smt. Saroj Shukla, whom he knew, as he used to visit his sisters (Smt. Saroj Shukla) house. ( 11 ) P. W. 6 Dr. A. Akram had medically examined the injuries of appellant Kishan on 10-11-1977 at 9. 45 PM. at District Hospital, Unnao. He had come to the hospital of his own. Dr. Akram found the following injury on the person of appellant Kishan. 1. Multiple gun shot (entrance) each 1 / 10 cm x 1/10 cm in an area of 16 cm x 11 cm on the inner half of the lower part of left leg and left ankle joint and had no blackening and tattooing. Margins inverted. Bleeding present from most of the wounds. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were fresh. He stated in his examination-in-chief that the injuries could have been suffered at 8 PM. ( 12 ) P. W. 7 S. I. Parvez Husain is the investigating officer of the case. Since we have already referred to his statement in the earlier part of our judgment, we need not reiterate it in great details. After recording the statement of Smt. Saroj Shukla at the police station he readied the place of the occurrence at 10 PM. He sent the dead body for postmortem. On coming to know from constable Ram Kishan that appellant Kishan was at the District Hospital, he reached there and took him into custody and recorded his statement. After completing investigation he ultimately submitted charge sheet against the appellants on 7-4-1978. ( 13 ) P. W. 8 is Dr. H. M. Saxena. He conducted autopsy on the corpse of Roop Narain on 11-11-1977 at 12 noon. He found the following anti-mortem injuries on his person. 1. Penetrating wound with incised margins 21/2 x 1/2 x thoracic cavity, oblique 4" from left nipple at 5-5, o clock position cutting the sternum through and through. 2. H. M. Saxena. He conducted autopsy on the corpse of Roop Narain on 11-11-1977 at 12 noon. He found the following anti-mortem injuries on his person. 1. Penetrating wound with incised margins 21/2 x 1/2 x thoracic cavity, oblique 4" from left nipple at 5-5, o clock position cutting the sternum through and through. 2. Penetrating wound with incised margins l/2 x 3/4x thoracic cavity, oblique 2" from left nipple at 7-8 oclock position cutting the junction of 5th to 8th ribs with sternum through and through. 3. Penetrating wound with incised margins 2" x 1/3" x abdominal cavity 1" from umbilicus at 10 oclock position, oblique. 4. Penetrating wound with incised margins 1/2" x 1/2" abdominal cavity, 1" left of injury No. 3, oblique. 5 Incised wound 1" x 1/2 x muscle deep, right side chest laterally 4 1/2" from right nipple at 7 oclock position, oblique. 6. Incised wound W x W x muscle deep left arm middle front, oblique. 7. Incised wound 11/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep left forearm middle front, oblique. 8. Abrasion 1" x 1" right temple 9. Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x muscle right scapular region, oblique. 10. Incised wound 2" x 1/2" muscle right hip oblique. 11. Incised wound 3" x 1/2" x muscle vertebrae back middle. 12. Incised wound 11/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep left scapular region, oblique. 13. Four gunshot wounds each 1/4" in diameter in an area of 4" x 4" on right elbow, one of the wounds was 1/2" deep while the rest were bone deep. One shot was felt in the deeper wound and was taken out and sent to S. P. under sealed cover. Margins were inverted and they were wounds of entry. On internal examination. Dr. Saxeria found the ribs under the injuries, cut. Pleura was cut under injury Nos. 1 and 2 and lung was also punctured under injury No. 1. The cause of death. in the opinion of Dr. Saxena was injuries caused on the heart. ( 14 ) IN the instant case, motive to commit the murder as suggested and assigned to appellant Ram Adhar, stands proved. This motive, as setup by the prosecution was that appellant Ram Adhar nursed grudge against roop Narain Sliukla since he had married smt. Saroj Shukla, his sister, and this was bringing bad name to the family of Ram adhar. This motive, as setup by the prosecution was that appellant Ram Adhar nursed grudge against roop Narain Sliukla since he had married smt. Saroj Shukla, his sister, and this was bringing bad name to the family of Ram adhar. As observed above Smt. Saroj Shukia had married Roop Narain Shukla, her uncle, and a son and a daughter was also born out of the wedlock. This provided Ram Adhar the motive for committing the murder of roop Narain with the active association of his accomplice Kishan. At the cost of repetition it may be mentioned that P. W. 1 Smt. Saroj Shukla has stated in the F. 1. R. as well as in her statement that Ram Adhar was annoyed to the extent that he frequently used to extend threats to her to desert Roop narain Shukla least he would be killed. She also stated that prosecution was launched by her father against Roop Narain Shukla in which Roop Narain Shukla was acquitted. ( 15 ) WE have carefully gone through the statements of the witnesses and find them to be truthful and reliable. From the state ment of P. W. 1 Smt. Saroj Shukla it is explicitly proved that the accused appellants had committed the murder of Roop Narain shukla. Smt. Saroj Shukla. even though was subjected to very lengthy cross-examination, has stood the test of veracity and the defence could not extract anything adverse which could go to prove that she is not a reliable and trustworthy witness. At this juncture, it may be pointed out that Smt. Saroj Shukla is the real sister of accused appellant Ram Adhar and the defence has miserably tailed to give any plausible and acceptable explanation as to why smt. Saroj Shukla would have falsely implicated Ram Adhar, her brother and Kishan. whom she knew since before, sparing the real assailants. It is also pertinent to mention that PW 5 Shyam Sunder, who was neighbour of Roop Narain Shukla and is also a most natural witness and is an eyewitness, has stated that although he did not know the name of appellant Ram Adhar, but he knew him by face that he was brother of roop Narains wife. ( 16 ) SO far as participation oi appellant kishan in the crime is concerned, the prosecution has been able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. ( 16 ) SO far as participation oi appellant kishan in the crime is concerned, the prosecution has been able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. As mentioned above, specific role of inflicting fatal knife blows upon the deceased has been assigned to him by pw. 1, Smt. Saroj Shukla. She knew him since before and has named him in the F. I. R. She has meticulously mentioned in the f. I. R. and in her statement the role assigned to Kishan and her statement to this effect has been corroborated by independent witnesses. Besides, P. W. 4 Aslam has stated that when he was waiting (or customers near the cinema hall, two persons approached him and asked him to carry them to Hiran Nagar where one of the two persons left the rickshaw and the other one asked to take him to the Hospital. He has specifically stated that the person who had asked to take him to the hospital was having injury on his leg and he found his rickshaw smeared with blood when he left him at the District Hospital. Thereafter, he went to P. S. Kotwali and informed the Deewan about this fact. Statement, of P. W. 4 Aslam finds full corroboration from the statement of P. W. 6 Dr. A. Akram, in this regard who stated that Kishan had himself approached him in the District Hospital and on his examination he found one multiple gun shot injury of entrance on the upper half of the lower part of his left leg and ankle joint. This injury report of appellant Kishan, thus, lends corroboration to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. ( 17 ) THE defence cannot be allowed to take the plea of paucity of light. !t has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that it was Deewali night and houses were illuminated. The assault was initiated inside the house at 8. 30 PM when the lights inside houses are generally on. in any case, since the assailants were the brothers of witness Smt. Saroj Shukla and his friend, who admittedly visited her house on several occasions prior to the incident, it cannot be taken to be a case of mistaken identity. ( 18 ) THE manner of assault and injuries sustained by deceased Roop Narain Shukla stand corroborated from the medical evidence. ( 18 ) THE manner of assault and injuries sustained by deceased Roop Narain Shukla stand corroborated from the medical evidence. We have seen above that the autopsy surgeon had found as many as 4 penetrating wounds and 7 incised wounds besides an abrasion and one gun shot wound. The doctor has stated that the incised wounds could have been suffered on account of slipping of knife blade on the flesh. ( 19 ) THE ocular evidence corroborated by independent eyewitnesses, who had absolutely no motive to have falsely deposed against the accused appellants, goes to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellants. The investigating officer had found blood at the place of the incident and on the plaster of wall. The F. I. R. has been lodged promptly. Thus, the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. ( 20 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. Conviction and sentence of appellants Ram adhar and Kishan are upheld. They are on bail. They shall be taken into custody by the chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao to serve out their sentence, as awarded by the learned trial Court. Appeal dismissed.