Judgment BAL KRISHNA JHA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th of June 1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 322 of 1996 by the then learned Sessions Judge Bhagalpur. 2. The sole appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal, has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. He has further been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. The sentences awarded to him, however, have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case may briefly stated thus : On 6.2.1995 of at about 7.30 p.m. while Ramadhar Mandal, the husband of the informant, Kabutari Devi, PW 3, was sitting at the darwaja of his uncle, Garmu Mandal, PW 1, the informant along with her daughter, Sunita Devi, PW 2, went there to call him for dinner. Thereafter at about 7.45 p.m. the informant along with her husband and daughter was returning to her house. When they reached near the darwaja of the accused-appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal, the accused, Mogal Mandal, Parashuram Mandal and Manoj Mandal, caught Ramadhar Mandal and the accused-appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal, fired from his pistol at him which hit his left rib. Ramadhar Mandal fell down injured on the ground and then the accused-appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal, mounted upon his chest and again fired which hit the left side of his chest. After five minutes Ramadhar Mandal breathed his last. The informant and her daughter, Sunita cried out loudly but their clamour proved ineffective and ultimately the accused persons committed the murder of the husband of the informant. On the outcry of the informant and her daughter. Sunita, the witnesses, Garmu Mandal, PW 1, Lakshmi Devi. PW 5 and many others arrived there and saw the occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence has been alleged to be the enmity in between the parties. 3. On 7.2.1995 at about 9 a.m. SI, J.K. Singh, O.C. of Bath Police Station Bhagalpur, recorded the fardbeyan (Ext. No. 3) of the informant, Kabutri Devi, PW 3 at her house in village Aawa Mokhtarpur, Police Station Bath District Bhagalpur. On the basis of her fardbeyan a formal FIR (Ext. 3. On 7.2.1995 at about 9 a.m. SI, J.K. Singh, O.C. of Bath Police Station Bhagalpur, recorded the fardbeyan (Ext. No. 3) of the informant, Kabutri Devi, PW 3 at her house in village Aawa Mokhtarpur, Police Station Bath District Bhagalpur. On the basis of her fardbeyan a formal FIR (Ext. No. 4) was drawn up and Bath police station No. 2 of 1995 was registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the accused, Mogal Mandal, Shiv Ram Mandal, Parashuram Mandal and Manoj Mandal. 4. On completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet under aforesaid sections against them showing three accused persons, namely, Mogal Mandal, Parashuram Mandal and Manoj Mandal as absconders and accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken on 30.1.1996. The case of the accused appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal, was split up on 6.6.1996 from the case of all the three absconding accused and was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. He was put on trial before the learned Sessions Judge. Bhagalpur, which ultimately ended in his conviction and sentence as indicated above. 5. The defence of the appellant is plea of innocence and false implication in this case. 6. In the eventual trial the prosecution examined altogether 9 witnesses to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. Out of them PW 6, Sudin Mandal, PW 7, Arun Kumar and PW 9, Vinod Paswan are the formal witnesses. PW 6, Sudin Mandal, has proved his own signature (Ext. No. 2) as well as the signature of witness Chandan Kumar (Ext. No. 2/1) on the seizure list (Ext. No. 61. PW 7, Arun Kumar, has proved his signature (Ext. No. 2/2) and that of Nawal Kishore (Ext. No. 2/3) on the inquest report (Ext. No. 5). PW 9, Vinod Paswan, took the dead body of the deceased, Ramadhar Mandal to Bhagalpur for post-mortem examination. PW 5 Lakshmi Devi is hearsay witness. On hering the sound of firing when she came out of her house, she found Kabutari Devi, the informant and her daughter, Sunita Devi weeping on account of murder of her father, Ramadhar Mandal. She also found his dead body lying near the gate of the accused, Parashuram Mandal. PW 5 Lakshmi Devi is hearsay witness. On hering the sound of firing when she came out of her house, she found Kabutari Devi, the informant and her daughter, Sunita Devi weeping on account of murder of her father, Ramadhar Mandal. She also found his dead body lying near the gate of the accused, Parashuram Mandal. She learnt from Sunita about the commission of murder of her father by the accused-appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal but she had not disclosed the names of other accused, namely, Parashuram Mandal, Mogal Mandal and Manoj Mandal. PW 4 is Dr. Atul Kumar Malik, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Ramadhar Mandal and PW 8, Jai Kishore Singh is the I.O. of this case. The remaining three witnesses, Garmu Mandal, PW 1, Sunita Devi, PW 2 and Kabutari Devi, the informant, PW 3 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW 1 is uncle, PW 2 is daughter and PW 3 is wife of the deceased, Ramadhar Mandal and thus, they are closely related to each other. 7. The evidence of Dr. Atul Kumar Malik, PW 4 is that on 8.2.1995 at about 11 a.m. he conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Ramadhar Mandal and found the following. Blood clots were present over clothings. (i) One wound of entry with incised margins 1/2" x 1/4" leading to left chest cavity was present in left mid axillary region between 4th and 5th ribs. The bullet after entering left chest cavity pierced left lung, pericardium left and right ventride of hurt, right lung and come out through a wound of exit with enverted margins 1-1/2" on right side of chest in mid axillary region at level of 6th right rib after causing fracture of right 5th and 6th ribs. Both chest cavity were tilled with blood and blood clots chambers of both side were empty. (ii) one wound or entry with inverted margins 1" x 1/4" leading to abdomenal cavity was present. On left side of back at the level of 6th Thoracic vertebra and 1" away from mid-time. It caused fracture of 6th Thoracic vertebra, pierced stomach, right tube of liver chaphgram, left lung and after causing fracture of 4th left rib was embeded in soft tissue. One chemical metsalic bullet was recovered which was handed over under sealed cover to the constable for needful. It caused fracture of 6th Thoracic vertebra, pierced stomach, right tube of liver chaphgram, left lung and after causing fracture of 4th left rib was embeded in soft tissue. One chemical metsalic bullet was recovered which was handed over under sealed cover to the constable for needful. The abdomenal cavity was filled with blood and blood clots, spleen and kidneys were pale. In his opinion both the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, grievous and dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature individually and caused by fire arm. Further in his opinion the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to above injuries and the time elapsed since death was within 12 to 24 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. He proved the post-mortem report (Ext. No. 1). In cross examination he has stated that nothing was found in his stomach as the stomach was pierced. He has further stated that the bullet entered the chest cavity from left side of chest and came out to the right side of the chest as mentioned in the injury No. (i). He did not find any burning signing and blackening on the body and clothing of the deceased. 8. Thus, the medical evidence indicates that Ramadhar Mandal died of the injuries caused by fire arm. The defence has also not challenged his murder but has challenged/denied the participation of the accused-appellant in the commission of his murder. 9. The evidence of the informant. Kabutari Devi, PW 3 is that on the alleged date at about 7/8 p.m. while her husband Ramadhar Mandal was sitting at the darwaja of her cousin father-in-law, Garmu Mandal, PW 1, she alongwith her daughter, Sunita Devi, PW 2, went there to call him for dinner. Sunita was carrying a Lantern. Thereafter she alongwith her husband and daughter was returning to her house. When they reached in the corner of the house of the accused, Parashuram Mandal, she noticed the accused, Mogal Parashuram, Manoj and Shiv Ram Mandal there. The accused appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal, was armed with pistol and all of them were whispering together. As soon as they proceeded ahead the accused-appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal, fired upon her husband and he fell down injured on the ground. In the mean time her cousin father-in-law, Garmu Mandal also rushed there. The accused appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal, was armed with pistol and all of them were whispering together. As soon as they proceeded ahead the accused-appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal, fired upon her husband and he fell down injured on the ground. In the mean time her cousin father-in-law, Garmu Mandal also rushed there. Then the accused-appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal mounted upon the chest of her husband and fired again as a result of which he died at the spot. She has further stated that in the following morning darogaji came, recorded her statement and she put her L.T.I, thereon. She has further stated that the accused-appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal, committed the murder of her husband because of previous enmity. In cross-examination she has stated that her house is situated at a short distance in the west from the place where her husband was shot dead. She has admitted to have stated before the police that at the time her daughter was carrying a Lantern and she has noticed all the accused, Mogal, Parashuram, Manoj and Shiv Ram Mandal with pistol standing in the corner of the house of the accused, Parashuram Mandal. She has further stated that Karu, Narain, Munni, Fantoora and many others had arrived at the place of occurrence but they are not the witnesses in this case. Her further evidence is that the alongwith others remained hear the dead body for the whole night. Chaukidar had not come there. The evidence of PW 2, Sunita Devi, the daughter of the informant is that on the alleged date at about 8 p.m. she along with her father and mother was returning to her house from the darwaja of her grand father, Garmu Mandal. At that time there was a Lantern in her hand. When they proceeded ahead at the darwaja of the accused, Parashuram, she heard the sound of firing and found her father, Ramadhar Mandal, lying injured on the ground. The accused, Mogal, Parashuram and Manoj were springing her father on the ground. The accused-appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal, mounted upon the chest of her father and fired upon him. On her outcry, Garmu Mandal, rushed there. In cross-examination she has admitted to have stated before the police that at that time there was a Lantern in her hand. The accused, Mogal, Parashuram and Manoj were springing her father on the ground. The accused-appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal, mounted upon the chest of her father and fired upon him. On her outcry, Garmu Mandal, rushed there. In cross-examination she has admitted to have stated before the police that at that time there was a Lantern in her hand. She has further stated that Debu Singh, Raju Singh, Shivanand Singh and Shankar Mandal and many others had come at the place of occurrence but none of them attempted to apprehend them. She has further stated that the house of Debu Singh, Raju Singh and Shivanand Singh are situated at a distance of 1/2 mile. The evidence of PW 1, Garmu Mandal, is that on hearing the sound of firing he rushed at the place of occurrence and found all the accused, Mogal Parashuram, Manoj and Shiv Ram Mandal there. The accused, Mogal, Parashuram and Manoj pinned Ramadhar Mandal down on the ground and the accused-appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal, mounted upon his chest and fire at him as a result of which he died at the spot. The wife of Ramadhar Mandal was standing there with Lantern. Thereafter she fled away from there. Besides him, Debu Singh, Sulekha Singh and many others had come there. He has further stated that there was an enmity in between the accused-appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal and the deceased, Ramadhar Mandal from before the occurrence. The deceased, Ramadhar Mandal had charged the accused-appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal for committing the murder of his man of village Malkhanpur so he was done to death by the accused-appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal. In cross-examination he has stated that his father was the own brother of the father of the deceased Ramadhar Mandal. He has further stated that on hearing the sound of firing his grand son, Mukesh and nephew, Karu had also gone at the place of occurrence. Chaukidar had also come there and on his arrival he asked him to inform the police about the occurrence. 10. The evidence of PW 8, Jai Kishore Singh, the I.O. of this case is that on 7.2.1995 while he was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Bath Police Station, he went to the P.O. Village-Aawa Mokhtarpur and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, Kabutari Devi at her darwaja. He proved the fardbeyan (Ext. No. 3) and also the formal FIR (Ext. No. 4). He proved the fardbeyan (Ext. No. 3) and also the formal FIR (Ext. No. 4). At the very time at the place of occurrence he recorded the further statement of the informant and the statement of the witnesses, Sunita Devi, PW 2 and Garmu Mandal, PW 1. Then he prepared the inquest report in presence of the witnesses. He proved the inquest report (Ext. No. 5). Thereafter he recorded the statement of Lakshmi Devi, PW 5 at the place of occurrence. He found the dead body of Ramadhar Mandal lying on village road situated in the south-west of the exit of darwaja of accused, Parashuram Mandal. He seized empty brass cartridges of rifle from the adjacent inside angan of the said darwaja. He has further stated that the house of the deceased Ramadhar Mandal was situated at a distance of 40 yards in the west from the place of occurrence. His further evidence is that he found sufficient quantity of blood fallen on the ground and the blood stained front portion of brass cartridges near the dead body of Ramadhar Mandal. He prepared the seizure list in present of the witnesses and has proved it (Ext. No: 6). He prepared the challan of the dead body of the deceased, Ramadhar Mandal and sent to Medical Hospital, Bhagalpur for post-mortem examination. He recorded the statement of the witnesses, Nand Kishore Mandal and Arun Kumar of post-mortem report and that of Chandan Kumar and Sudin Mandal of seizure list. Thereafter he obtained the post-mortem report and he handed over the charge of this case on 16.7.1995 to SI, Ram Gopal Johri. In cross-examination he has deposed that the formal FIR was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur through Special Messenger. He has further stated that at 7.30 a.m. chaukidar had informed him first about the occurrence. He recorded the statements of Sunita Devi, PW 2 and Garmu Mandal, PW 1 at the house of the informant, Kabutari Devi, PW 3. The attention of this witness was drawn to the statements of the witnesses recorded by him during investigation. The informant, Kabulari Devi, PW 3, had not stated before him that when her husband asked the accused-appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal for committing the murder of a man he threatened to kill him. The attention of this witness was drawn to the statements of the witnesses recorded by him during investigation. The informant, Kabulari Devi, PW 3, had not stated before him that when her husband asked the accused-appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal for committing the murder of a man he threatened to kill him. But the informant, Kabutari Devi PW 3 vide para 27 had admitted to have given this sort of statement before him. He has further stated the during investigation of this case Lantern was never produced before him. She had not stated before him that her daughter was carrying a Lantern and she had noticed all the accused including Shiv Ram Mandal with pistol standing in the corner of the house of the accused, Parashuram Mandal. The witness, Sunita Devi, PW 2 had not stated before him that she was carrying a Lantern. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case the prosecution was examined all the interested and partisan witnesses, there is a conflict in between oral and medical evidence because of non-finding of blackening on the dead body of the deceased, Ramadhar Mandal, by the Doctor, there is inordinate delay of more than 13 hours in lodging the FIR and the source of identification, the Lantern was not produced before the I.O., so the evidence of such witnesses should not be accepted for the commission of murder by the appellant. A reliance has been placed on a case of Amirchand Ahir and others appellant V/s. The State of Bihar respondent, reported in 1977 BBCJ 400 wherein it has been held thaat "Partisan witnesses Implicit reliance cannot be placed unless their evidence is tested with reference to objective circumstancesWitnesses not disclosing the names of the assailants at the earliest opportunityMedical evidence in conflict with the oral evidenceDelay in lodging the First Information Report Torch the only means of identification of the accused having not been produced Conviction not sustainable." 12. On the other hand, Mr. Bhagya Narayan Gupta, learned counsel for the State, submitted that the prosecution has fully proved the case against the appellant. He submitted that in case of partisan or related witnesses only a note of caution is given to the Court in accepting for such evidence. On the other hand, Mr. Bhagya Narayan Gupta, learned counsel for the State, submitted that the prosecution has fully proved the case against the appellant. He submitted that in case of partisan or related witnesses only a note of caution is given to the Court in accepting for such evidence. As regards delay, he contended that admittedly there is some delay in lodging the FIR in this case but it is not the case of the appellant that he has been prejudiced by this delay. As regards medical evidence, he argued that admittedly Doctor did not find blackening on the dead body of the deceased Ramadhar Mandal but the injuries found by him on his body fully supported the case of the prosecution. He has placed his reliance on a case of Yunus alias Kariya appellant V/s. State of M.P. respondent, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 425 , wherein it has been held that "Appreciation of evidenceEight accused, armed with deadly weapons, attacking deceased in broad day light in a market place causing his deathCrime witnessed by several persons, three of whom appearing as eye-witnessesTestimony of the eye-witnesses tallying with each other Three injuries, which are sufficient to cause death, referred to by Autopsy Surgeon as well as by the eye-witnesses, though two others injuries were not mentioned by the Autopsy SurgeonHeld on facts, oral testimony of the eye-witnesses as well as medical and other evidence established commission of crime." 13. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that all the three eye-witnesses are related to the deceased but that is not a good ground for discarding their testimony from consideration. All that is necessary is to scrutinise their evidence with more than ordinary care. The presence of PW 1, Garmu Mandal, PW 2, Sunita Devi and PW 3,-Kabutari Devi, the informant, at the time and place of murder was probable and natural, so, their evidence can safely be acted upon to sustain the conviction of the appellant. He has placed his reliance on the case of Meharaj Singh (L/NK) V/s. State of U.P., reported in 1995 (1) East Cr C 592 (SC) : 1994 (5) SCC 188 , wherein it has been held that Testimony of eye-witness cannot be rejected on the sole ground of interestedness but should be subjected to close scrutiny". 14. He has placed his reliance on the case of Meharaj Singh (L/NK) V/s. State of U.P., reported in 1995 (1) East Cr C 592 (SC) : 1994 (5) SCC 188 , wherein it has been held that Testimony of eye-witness cannot be rejected on the sole ground of interestedness but should be subjected to close scrutiny". 14. It appears from the evidence of the eye-witnesses that on the alleged date at 7.45 p.m. when the informant Kabutari Devi alongwith her husband, Ramadhar Mandal, and daughter, Sunita Devi, was returning to her house, she noticed the accused persons, namely, Shiv Ram Mandal, Mogal Mandal, Parashuram Mandal and Manoj Mandal, standing near the darwaja of Shiv Ram Mandal. The appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal fired a shot from his pistol at Ramadhar which hit his left rib and he fell down injured on the ground. Then the appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal mounted. upon his chest and again fired which hit the left side of his chest and he died. The I.O., Jai Kishore Singh, PW 8, found the dead body of Ramadhar Mandal lying on village road situated in the southwest of the exit of darwaja of the accused, Parashuram Mandal. He seized empty brass cartridges of rifle from the adjacent inside angan of the said darwaja. He found sufficient quantity of blood fallen on the ground and blood-stained front portion of brass cartridges near the dead body of Ramadhar Mandal. The place of occurrence is established as the dead body was found on the village road at the spot as indicated in the FIR. The evidence of Dr. Atul Kumar Malik, PW 4, shows that he found two antemortem injuries, grievous and dangerous of life in ordinary course of nature individually and caused by fire arm, Further in his opinion the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to above injuries. Thus, the nature of injuries noted at the time of post-mortem examination tally with the prosecution case. All the three eye-witnesses to the occurrence examined by prosecution has no enmity so far as the accused-appellant is concerned and it is not accepted that the said eye-witnesses would falsely implicated the innocent person on a charge of murder. The evidence adduce by the eye-witnesses are natural and trustworthy and they have not been shaken in cross-examination. 15. All the three eye-witnesses to the occurrence examined by prosecution has no enmity so far as the accused-appellant is concerned and it is not accepted that the said eye-witnesses would falsely implicated the innocent person on a charge of murder. The evidence adduce by the eye-witnesses are natural and trustworthy and they have not been shaken in cross-examination. 15. After hearing both sides I find myself in agreement with the submissions raised on behalf of the State that the prosecution has let it clinching evidence against the appellant. 16. Thus, on consideration of the evidence and other attending circumstances discussed above I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond all shadow of doubts. The trial Court rightly believed and accepted the prosecution evidence for the conviction of the appellant. I find no infirmity in the findings of the lower Court and the judgment of conviction passed against the appellant demands no interference by this Court. 17. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal are affirmed. The appellant, Shiv Ram Mandal is in custody. He will serve out the sentence imposed upon him. ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J. 18 I agree.