M. C. JAIN, J. The appellant is Lavkush who has been convicted under Sections 302 I. P. C. and 27 Indian Arms Act. He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the former offence and three years rigorous imprisonment for the latter by Sri S. S. Srivastava, the then III Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria before whom he was tried in S. T. No. 72 of 1980, the judgment having been delivered on 31-10-1981. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to this appeal are that the incident took place on 28-12-1979 at about 2. 30 p. m. in Village Bardiha Parsu Ram, P. S. Lar, District Deoria and the F. I. R. was lodged by Nand Lal P. W. 1 the same day at 3. 30 p. m. , the distance of police station from the place of occurrence being two miles. It was one Shiv Prasad, father of the informant, whose life was cut short in this incident by shooting by the appellant. The deceased and the informant ran a grocery shop from her house situated in village aforesaid and the appellant also resided in the same village. He used to regularly purchase provision from the shop of the deceased. He owed some money of the articles purchased by him. On the fateful day, he reached the shop of the deceased in the afternoon and asked for some articles. The deceased insisted that he should first make payment of the amount due against him for the purchase already made. At that time, Ram Parikshan P. W. 2 and Bal Chand P. W. 3 were also present at the shop. The informant Nand Lal Gupta P. W. 1 (son of the deceased) and his mother were also sitting there. The appellant became angry and held out that as he had not been supplied the articles asked for by him, he would teach him (deceased) a lesson. He went away to his house. The deceased sat at the door and started warming himself in the sun. Nand Lal P. W. 1 sat at the shop and began to transact business with others. At about 2. 30 p. m. the appellant again came over there from the side of his house armed with gun of his father and accosted the deceased Shiv Prasad that he would pay the debt. Nand Lal P. W. 1 sat at the shop and began to transact business with others. At about 2. 30 p. m. the appellant again came over there from the side of his house armed with gun of his father and accosted the deceased Shiv Prasad that he would pay the debt. So saying, he fired in the chest of Shiv Prasad with his gun, who received injuries and fell down. Nand Lal Gupta P. W. 1 Mohan Lal, Sukh Lal, Ram Parikshan P. W. 2 and Bal Chand P. W. 3 witnessed the incident. The appellant made his escape good towards west and could not be apprehended despite being chased by Nand Lal and others. While fleeing, he opened fire on them too. Nand Lal left the dead body of his father in the care of other family members and went to the police station where he lodged the F. I. R. A case was registered and investigation followed which was entrusted to S. I. Bal Ram Rai P. W. 8 and was concluded by S. I. Navrang Singh P. W. 4. It should also be related here that post mortem over the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. J. N. Thakur P. W. 7 on 29-12-1979 at 12. 00 O Clock noon. The following ante mortem injuries were found on his person: (1) Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 3/4 cm x cavity deep on right side chest 4 cms above right nipple at 9 O clock position with lacerated margins & oval in shape, blackening and tattooing around the wound present. (2) Multiple superficial fire-arm wounds on the right side chest, size ranging from 0. 5 cm x 0. 6 cm adjacent to injury No. 1. On cutting the wound No. 1, clotted blood found present. Muscles were lacerated and torn. Ist, 2nd and 3rd ribs were broken. 3. Four pellets and one wad piece had been recovered from the dead body of the deceased. The death had taken place about one day earlier and the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage resulting from fire-arm injuries sustained by him. The Investigating Officer, on search of the house of the appellant on 28-12-1979, had recovered a gun from a room in his house in which an empty cartridge was found and smell was coming out from the barrel of the gun. 4. The Investigating Officer, on search of the house of the appellant on 28-12-1979, had recovered a gun from a room in his house in which an empty cartridge was found and smell was coming out from the barrel of the gun. 4. The defence was of denial and the appellant attributed his implication in this case to enmity. 5. The prosecution, in all, examined 8 witnesses including the doctor, Investigating Officer and of formal nature. The eye- witness account was rendered by Nand Lal P. W. 1 son of the deceased, Ram Parikshan P. W. 2, Bal Chand P. W. 3 and Mohan P. W. 6. The learned Trial Judge believing the prosecution case and evidence passed the impugned judgment of which the appellant has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. 6. Sri D. R. Chaudhary was appointed as amicus curiae to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant. We have heard him at length and learned A. G. A. in opposition from the side of the State. We have also carefully gone through the record of case which has been summoned before us. We intend to deal with the arguments of the learned amicus curiae and the reply of the learned A. G. A. thereto in the subsequent discussion. 7. It has first been submitted by the learned amicus curiae arguing the appeal for the appellant that the eye witnesses are interested persons. No doubt, Nand Lal P. W. 1 informant is the son of deceased and Mohan Lal P. W. 6 is also descendant of common ancestor, but it is noted that none of the witnesses had any enmity with the appellant. The presence of Nand Lal P. W. 1 was most natural at his shop where the incident took place and the other witnesses examined by the prosecution have also given plausible reason for their having reached at the spot. The statements of the witnesses are free from any material contradiction or discrepancy. Mohan P. W. 6 is the son of Phool Chand whose house is shown in the site plan too. He has stated that his house was at the distance of 10-15 paces from the place of occurrence. Other witnesses, namely, Ram Parishan P. W. 2 and Bal Chand P. W. 3 are also residents of the same village and of the same vicinity. He has stated that his house was at the distance of 10-15 paces from the place of occurrence. Other witnesses, namely, Ram Parishan P. W. 2 and Bal Chand P. W. 3 are also residents of the same village and of the same vicinity. Though Ram Parishan P. W. 2 did not see the actual shooting, but he is the witness of the incident, when the accused had offered threat to the deceased on refusal to supply articles to him on credit. The accused-appellant had then left the scene murmuring. It was thereafter that Shiv Prasad deceased had come out from the shop and sat down in the sun to warm himself. He was only at a distance of few paces from Shiv Prasad deceased when he heard the shooting. He was immediately attracted to the scene and saw the accused fleeing with a gun and Shiv Prasad lying injured. At the time of altercation between Shiv Prasad deceased and the accused, he had gone to the shop of the former to purchase tobacco. 8. It has next been argued by learned amicus curiae that as per the prosecution the weapon of offence (gun) was recovered by S. I. Balram Rai P. W. 8 from the house of the appellant. The statement of Investigating Officer is that an empty cartridge was also found in the barrel of the gun and smell was coming out. Such recovery was made on 28-12-1979. It is urged that the same was not sent for scientific examination. We do not see that it makes any dent in the prosecution case. It being a case of convincing direct evidence, the prosecution version cannot be doubted or clouded because of the gun having not been sent for examination by ballistic expert. 9. Another submission of learned amicus curiae is that there is conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence. Referring to the post mortem report, it has been alleged that the deceased received two gun shot wounds whereas prosecution evidence is that a single shot had been fired on the deceased. We are sure that the argument is based on imaginary approach. It is to be pointed out that first gun shot wound of entry was on the right side of chest above the nipple and the second one was also in the same region. We are sure that the argument is based on imaginary approach. It is to be pointed out that first gun shot wound of entry was on the right side of chest above the nipple and the second one was also in the same region. It is crystal clear that both of them were the result of a single shot. We also note that no cross- examination was directed to the doctor, suggesting that the two injuries could not have been sustained by a single shot. At the time of the incident, the deceased was sitting outside his shop and being shot by the accused, the injury could have been sustained by him in the region of chest as is the case here. 10. It has then been urged that there is difference between the testimony of the eye-witnesses as to the distance from which the shot had been fired. Nand Lal P. W. 1 deposed that the accused fired the shot from a very close range upon his father and the barrel of the gun was 3-4 fingers from the person of the deceased. Bal Chand P. W. 3 stated that distance of the gun from the deceased was one balist. Suffice it to say in this regard that the distance of shooting has been spoken by the witnesses as per their rough estimate and it is not possible to expect mathematical accuracy in this behalf as if the distance had been measured by them by inch tape at the time of shooting. The point of the matter is that the shooting had been done from a close range as there was blackening and tattooing also around the wound. The Doctor had also taken out pellets and wad from the wound. We, on careful consideration, do not find any merit in the argument of there being any discrepancy between the ocular version and medical evidence. 11. Really speaking, it was a day-light incident. The F. I. R. was prompt and lodged by an eye witness. The murder had been caused by shooting. It is a case of single accused and the possibility of false implication is completely ruled out when there was no enmity between the accused-appellant and witnesses. 12. 11. Really speaking, it was a day-light incident. The F. I. R. was prompt and lodged by an eye witness. The murder had been caused by shooting. It is a case of single accused and the possibility of false implication is completely ruled out when there was no enmity between the accused-appellant and witnesses. 12. Resultantly, we are in agreement with the learned trial Judge that the guilt of the accused-appellant was proved to the hilt by convincing and clinching evidence that he committed murder of unarmed Shiv Prasad at the given date, time and place without any justification whatsoever. The gun had been used for unlawful purpose and, therefore, the offence of Section 27 of Indian Arms Act was also proved against him. Out of the two alternative sentences provided for murder, lesser one of life imprisonment has been awarded to the accused-appellant. We see no good ground for interference in this appeal and we are inclined to dismiss it. 13. The appeal is dismissed. Appellant Lavkush is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and that of three years rigorous imprisonment awarded to him under Section 27 Indian Arms Act. The two sentences shall run concurrently. 14. Sri D. R. Chaudhary, who argued the appeal on behalf of the accused-appellant as amicus curiae, shall be paid Rs. 1,000/- as his fee. 15. Let a copy of this judgment along with record of the case be immediately sent to the Court below for needful compliance under intimation to this Court within one month from the date of receipt. Appeal dismissed. .