K. N. OJHA, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Netrapal has preferred this appeal against order of conviction and sentence dated 2-6-1980, passed by Sri N. N. Sharma, Sessions Judge, Aligarh, in S. T. No. 18 of 1980, State v. Netrapal Singh, by which he was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for committing murder of Tej Pal and Ranjit Singh and causing injuries to Km. Munni with intention to commit murder and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 307 IPC and all the sentences are to run concurrently. ( 2 ) WE have heard Sri M. W. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shekhar Yadav, learned A. G. A. and have gone through the record. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to prosecution, Netra Pal Singh appellant committed murder of Raj Pal and Ranjit Singh and caused injuries to Km. Munni with his licensed gun on 24-9-79 at 4. 30 P. M. in village Baijala, police station Atrauli, district Aligarh. F. I. R. was lodged by Babu Ram, father of Ranjit Singh and brother of Tej Pal on 24-9-79 at 8. 30 P. M. at P. S. Atrauli, District Aligarh. The police station is at a distance of 7 miles from the place of occurrence. ( 4 ) IT is said that the houses of the appellant and deceased are adjoining to each other. Murder of Saheb Singh was committed and since the time the appellant started to nurse bad blood against informant Babu Ram and his brother Tej Pal. On 24-9-79 at 4. 30 P. M. Tej Pal was sitting in front of his shop and was reciting ramayan. Ranjit Singh son of informant Babu Ram was cutting fodder and informant Babu Ram was helping in operating chaff cutter by placing fodder in the machine. Smt. Anokhi wife of Tej Pal, Smt. Jaldevi wife of informant Babu Ram, Ram Das, Chunni Singh, Dinesh, Dariyav Singh and many orders of the village were present at the well, when Netra Pal Singh came along with his licensed gun from his house, made exhortation to finish whole family and caused firearm injuries to Tej Pal. Km. Munni, who was sitting nearby also suffered firearm injuries. Ranjit Singh son of informant came there on hearing the sound of fire. Km. Munni, who was sitting nearby also suffered firearm injuries. Ranjit Singh son of informant came there on hearing the sound of fire. Informant, his wife and his son Nawab Singh also came out of their house, and the appellant caused firearm injuries to Ranjit also and ran away towards his house. Due to fear of gun, the witnesses could not chase him, Tej Pal and Ranjit Singh, both died on the spot. The occurrence was seen by the witnesses Ram Das, Chunni Singh, Chhanga Singh, Dinesh, Dariyav Singh and many other persons, who were present there. ( 5 ) AFTER the F. I. R. was lodged, investigation started, blood-stained and plain earth was taken and its recovery memo was prepared, 12 used cartridges were also recovered from the place of occurrence. ( 6 ) POST-MORTEM examination on the dead body of Tej Pal aged about 36 years was done on 26-9-79 at 1. 45 P. M. and following ante-mortem injuries were found : 1. Gunshot wound of entry 3/4" x 1/2" on right side of chest 3" above right nipple at 4 O clock position, blackening and tatooing was present, one plastic wadding piece was recovered from under the wound of entry. 2. Gun shot wound of exit 3/4" x 3/4" on right side of back 7" below the right scapula and 3" from midline. Margins everted. ( 7 ) RIBS were fractured, pleura was also ruptured on both sides, both the lungs and pericardium were lacerated, stomach was empty, faecal matter and gases were present in large intestine. In the opinion of Doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage. ( 8 ) POST-MORTEM examination on the dead body of Ranjit Singh aged about 17 years, was also done on 26-9-79 at 1. 00 P. M. , in the mortuary of district hospital, Aligarh, and following ante-mortem injuries were found on his body :1. Eleven gun shot wounds of entry on back upper part, each wound was 3/10" x 3/10", blackening was present around the wounds and margins were inverted. 2. Gun shot wound of entry 3/10" x 3/10" on left side of forehead 1/2" above the left eye brow, blackening was present around the wound. 3. Gun shot wound of entry 4/10" x 3/10" on the left side of head 3" above the left eye brow. 4. 2. Gun shot wound of entry 3/10" x 3/10" on left side of forehead 1/2" above the left eye brow, blackening was present around the wound. 3. Gun shot wound of entry 4/10" x 3/10" on the left side of head 3" above the left eye brow. 4. Gun shot wound of exit 10 in number on the front of chest in an area of 15" x 12", size of each wound was 5/10" x 5/10", margins everted. 5. Gun shot wound of exit right side of neck 5/10" x 5/10", margins everted. ( 9 ) BASE of skull was fractured, left and right ribs were also fractured, membranes and brain were lacerated, one big shot was recovered from beneath tissue of outer chest wall, pleura was punctured on both sides, larynx, trachea and bronchi were also lacerated, pericardium was lacerated, heart was punctured, faecal and gases were present in large intestine and in the opinion of Doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage. ( 10 ) INJURIES of Km. Munni, aged about one and half years, were examined on 25-9-79 at 5. 45 P. M. at P. H. C. Atrauli. Following injuries were found on her body : 1. Lacerated wound 11/4 cm x 3/4 cm on the middle of margin of left pinna, blackening was present around the wound. The above part of pinna was lost and cartilage was also lost. (gun shot injury)2. Gun shot wound 2. 5 cm x 2 cm just behind the middle of left pinna, blackening was present around the gun shot wound. ( 11 ) IN the opinion of the Doctor, injuries were caused by firearm. Injury No. 1 was grievous and injury No. 2 was simple. The injuries were about one day old at the time of examination. ( 12 ) AFTER recording the statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , preparing inquest report, site-plan and completing the investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet and accused faced trial under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and orders of conviction and sentence were passed against him, against which instant appeal has been preferred. ( 13 ) PROSECUTION examined eye-witnesses P. W. 1 Babu Ram, P. W. 5 Ram Das, P. W. 6 Changa Mal all of village Baijala and P. W. 7 Dariyab Singh of village Moodakhera P. W. 1 Babu Ram is the informant also. P. W. 2 Dr. ( 13 ) PROSECUTION examined eye-witnesses P. W. 1 Babu Ram, P. W. 5 Ram Das, P. W. 6 Changa Mal all of village Baijala and P. W. 7 Dariyab Singh of village Moodakhera P. W. 1 Babu Ram is the informant also. P. W. 2 Dr. Raj Kumar conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ranjit Singh and Tej Pal and has proved the post-mortem examination reports. P. W. 3 Dalvir Singh is constable clerk, who prepared chick report on 24-9-79 at 8. 30 P. M. at police station Atrauli, district Aligarh, P. W. 4 is Dev Swaroop, the then constable of police station Atrauli. He carried the dead bodies to mortuary. P. W. 8 Hajari Lal Varma is the then police Sub-inspector, police station Atrauli, district Aligarh, who visited the spot, prepared inquest reports, site-plan, recovery memo of blood-stained and plain earth and wad, recorded the statements of witnesses and the statement of Netra Pal Singh in district jail, Aligarh and sealed gun of the accused and sent wads for examination by ballistic expert. P. W. 9 is Doctor Raj Pal Singh, who has proved the injury report in respect of the injuries of Km. Munni. P. W. 10 is constable Shiv Prasad, who carried the wads to Lucknow for examination by ballistic report. ( 14 ) ACCUSED appellant denied his participation in the crime and alleged that his brother Rajendra Singh had lodged F. I. R. against one Changa Mal for outraging modesty of a girl and Changal Mal was facing trial in which informant of this case Babu Ram was witness for Changa Mal. His brother Rajendra Singh has died and, therefore, P. W. 6 Changa Mal is the prosecution witness against him. It is also alleged that P. W. 5 Ram Das is resident of village Sinotha, district Bulandshahr and was not present on the spot. About P. W. 7 Dariyab Singh it is alleged that he is son-in-law of Kishan Lal, who is cousin brother-in-law of Babu Ram. It is further alleged by the appellant that his brother Sahab Singh was not traceable since 16 or 17 years but he has shown his ignorance that Yad Ram, father of informant Babu Ram and dceased Tej Pal, were arrested by the police and were detained in jail for three months. It is further alleged by the appellant that his brother Sahab Singh was not traceable since 16 or 17 years but he has shown his ignorance that Yad Ram, father of informant Babu Ram and dceased Tej Pal, were arrested by the police and were detained in jail for three months. He has further shown his ignorance that his goats had damaged Ashok trees of informant Babu Ram and exchange of insulting language had taken place between him and Ranjit Singh and Tej Pal. Accused appellant also examined D. W. 1 Ram Bahadur Saxena, reader posted in the Court of IIIrd Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, in defence, who has stated that on 13-10-79, accused had deposited one barrel gun along with licence in Sadar Malkhana, Aligarh, and the report was called for from the police station concerned. ( 15 ) IN the instant case the occurrence is said to have been committed on 24-9-79 at 4. 30 P. M. The police station is at a distance of 7 miles from Baijala where occurrence is said to have taken place. F. I. R. was lodged within four hours on the same day at 8. 30 P. M. at the police station by name against accused appellant in which motive and active role of the appellant specifically finds place. Names of eye witnesses have been mentioned in the F. I. R. in respect of double murder case and as many as four eye witnesses, P. W. 1 Babu Ram, P. W. 5 Ram Das, P. W. 6 Changamal and P. W. 7 Dariyab Singh were examined by the prosecution, who have supported the case though they were cross-examined at length. Their presence on the spot cannot be doubted. This is broad day light murder. Two murders were committed at the same place and Km. Munni was injured by firearm injuries and in the opinion of doctor death of Ranjit Singh and Tej Pal did take place due to gun shot ante mortem injuries, which find place in the post mortem examination report. Thus, commission of double murder by the appellant and causing firearm injuries to Km. Munni cannot be doubted. Munni was injured by firearm injuries and in the opinion of doctor death of Ranjit Singh and Tej Pal did take place due to gun shot ante mortem injuries, which find place in the post mortem examination report. Thus, commission of double murder by the appellant and causing firearm injuries to Km. Munni cannot be doubted. ( 16 ) THE accused has shown his ignorance that Yad Ram father of informant Babu Ram and deceased Tej Pal were detained in jail for three months in respect of abducting Saheb Singh, brother of the appellant 16 or 17 years before but he admits that Saheb Singh is not traceable for the last 16 or 17 years. It cannot be believed that these two persons were arreested by the police and sent to jail for three months and the appellant who is of the same village Baijala and lives in the house adjoining to the house of Babu Ram does not know that Babu Ram and Tej Pal were confined in jail for three months due to abduction of Saheb Singh. The appellant has also shown ignorance that his goats had damaged Ashok trees of the informant. In village area it is not necessary that for every minor matter or dispute F. I. R. be lodged at the police station. Even if it be taken that enmity was not existing due to these reasons, the enmity is admitted by accused Netra Pal in respect of the case of outraging modesty of a girl. Further, if it be taken that there was no enmity, it cannot be believed that the complainant and other witnesses want to falsely implicate the appellant. P. W. 5 Ram Das is the resident of the same village Baijala, police station Atrauli, district Aligarh. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Ram Das is resident of village Sinaughta, district Bulandshahr. Ram Das (P. W. 5) has stated that he was employed in Cane Development Society but he was placed under suspension and, therefore, he was living in village Baijala, where his house is situated at a distance of 8 or 10 steps from residence of informant Babu Ram. Accused Netra Pal is his uncle and Babu Ram, informant is his cousin. Thus, presence of Ram Das at the spot cannot be doubted. Accused Netra Pal is his uncle and Babu Ram, informant is his cousin. Thus, presence of Ram Das at the spot cannot be doubted. Evidence shows that informant and appellant are his collaterals and there does not appear any reason to falsely implicate the appellant. ( 17 ) IT is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Babu Ram was witness for Changamal, who was facing a case for outraging modesty of a girl, F. I. R. of which was lodged by Rajendra Singh, brother of the appellant. The dispute was between Changamal and Rajendra Singh and not between Babu Ram and Rajendra Singh. Even if it be taken that Changamal was interested against him due to the case, which was earlier pending against him, still on this ground his presence on the spot cannot be doubted. Of course his statement may be subjected to greater scrutiny. P. W. 6 Changamal is resident of same village Baijala, who has stated that he was present at the well. Dariyab Singh, Ram Das, Dinesh, Chunni and other persons were also present on the well, when they saw that Netra Pal appellant came along with his gun from his house and fired at Tej Pal and when Ranjit Singh came out of his house hearing the sound, he fired at him also and both the victims died. He has stated that Netra Pal fired at Tej Pal from two or three steps when Tej Pal was sitting on chair. Post mortem examination report shows that blackening, charring and tatooing was present around firearm injuries. Thus, the ocular statement made by the witness is corroborated by the medical evidence. If two persons were killed by firearm injuries at their residence in broad day light and blackening, charring and tatooing was present around the wounds, it means firearm injuries were caused from a close range and in such circumstance if witnesses state that they have seen real culprits causing injuries, the presence of such witnesses cannot be doubted. ( 18 ) P. W. 7 Dariyab Singh is distant relative of Babu Ram as mentioned above. He states that his residence is at a distance of two furlongs from village Baijala, where he has got 25 Bighas of land, therefore, he knows appellant and victims of the case. He has given a vivid description of the happening. ( 18 ) P. W. 7 Dariyab Singh is distant relative of Babu Ram as mentioned above. He states that his residence is at a distance of two furlongs from village Baijala, where he has got 25 Bighas of land, therefore, he knows appellant and victims of the case. He has given a vivid description of the happening. He has stated that since he had got millet crop in village Baijala, therefore, he reached to wash his hands and feet. Harvesting of the crop was going on for the last three or four days as he had millet crop in 12 Bighas there and the crop was being cut from morning till evening, such person had not to go to his village for drinking water or washing hands and legs. Therefore, his presence on the spot cannot be doubted. More so, his statement corroborates the statement of P. W. 1 Babu Ram, P. W. 5 Ram Das and P. W. 6 Changamal. ( 19 ) THUS the statement of eye-witnesses is consistent and natural which has been supported by prompt F. I. R. , post-mortem examination reports and injury reports. ( 20 ) POST mortem examination report of Ranjit Singh shows that stomach was empty, faecal matter and gases were present in small and large intestines and same condition was of Tej Pal. It is submitted that the occurrence is said to have taken place at 4. 30 P. M. on 24-9-79 and at such time stomach would not have remained empty. A perusal of the statement of P. W. 2 Dr. Raj Kumar, who performed autopsy on the dead body of Ranjit Singh and Tej Pal, makes it clear that he found stomach empty. There were gases and faecal matter in both intestines. Stomach becomes empty after 3 or 31/2 hours. P. W. 1 Babu Ram has stated that he had gone to the field at about 10 A. M. after taking breakfast and he came back took meal and started cutting fodder. If in noon time something was eaten by the deceased persons and at about 4 or 4. 30 P. M. if the stomach remained empty, the statement and the post mortem examination reports cannot be taken to be inconsistent on the basis of the stomach condition of deceased persons. If in noon time something was eaten by the deceased persons and at about 4 or 4. 30 P. M. if the stomach remained empty, the statement and the post mortem examination reports cannot be taken to be inconsistent on the basis of the stomach condition of deceased persons. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in F. I. R. it is mentioned that appellant Netra Pal came out of his house along with his licensed gun and went to the shop of Tej Pal, where he was reciting ramayan and after using insulting language he caused firearm injuries to him and later on to Ranjit also. Ex. Ka 18 is recovery memo of 12 cartridges recovered from the place of occurrence. P. W. 1 Babu Ram has stated that the appellant had his own licensed gun, therefore, he got it written in the F. I. R. that he fired with his own gun but the real fact is that he does not know whether the fire was made by his licensed gun or by any other firearm. P. W. 3 Ram Das has stated that gun was single barrel gun. When a person has licensed gun and all of sudden he comes out of his house and fires on the victims, any other person who witnesses the occurrence, normally presumes that he used his firearm and if some other firearm is used, it does not mean that he did not witness the occurrence and on this ground his statement cannot be disbelieved and murder of two persons cannot be doubted. ( 22 ) THUS, there is sufficient and adequate motive for commission of murder and the evidence of the witnesses consistent with the F. I. R. and medical reports proves the charge of committing murder of two persons and causing injuries to Km. Munni. We subscribe to the views expressed by the learned Sessions Judge and uphold the orders of conviction and sentence passed by him against the appellant under Section 302/307 IPC. ( 23 ) THEREFORE, the appeal is dismissed and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge Aligarh against the appellant are confirmed on both charges under Section 302/307 IPC. ( 24 ) APPELLANT Netra Pal Singh is on bail. His bail is cancelled. ( 23 ) THEREFORE, the appeal is dismissed and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge Aligarh against the appellant are confirmed on both charges under Section 302/307 IPC. ( 24 ) APPELLANT Netra Pal Singh is on bail. His bail is cancelled. Let non-bailable warrant be issued against him in order to get him arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence. ( 25 ) A copy of the judgement along with the record be sent down to the trial Court for compliance and report to this Court within two months. Appeal dismissed. .