JUDGMENT 1. - The first appellant Champalal has been convicted for offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment to further undergo one years rigorous imprisonment by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali dated 16.05.2000. He has also been convicted' for offence under section 25/27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment. On each count to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Second appellant Babulal father of the first appellant, has been convicted for offence under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28.6.1993 at about 7.00 p.m., PW-13 Gheesulal lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Khiwada stating inter alia that there was on old enmity between him and his deceased brother Chandulal on one side and the appellant Babulal, Mangilal etc. on the other. His uncle Narayanji was issueless, as such, he adopted one Shankar, son of appellant Babulal. However, this was opposed by the community people and adoption deed was got cancelled. Thereafter, his brother deceased Chandulal was adopted by Narayanji. Thus, the appellant Babulal and his son appellant Champalal, Shankar and Suresh used to keep envy with his family. It was further stated that members of both the families used to collect food from the houses of their clients on rotation basis. The rotation was breached by Champalal when he collected food from the houses of his clients. It was further stated that a day before, the appellant Champalal in violation of rotation collected food from the house of one Acharya on the occasion of marriage in that family. On the date of incident, at about 6.00 p.m. he was sitting outside his house alongwith his mother, deceased Chandulal was once the terrace looking the construction work. Seeing Chanduram S/o Bhanuram going out of the house for collecting food, deceased Chandulal asked him to wait for a while as he would also accompany him. However, Chandu Bhai proceeded on his job without waiting for him. Seeing Chanduram S/o Bhanuram going out of the house for collecting food, deceased Chandulal asked him to wait for a while as he would also accompany him. However, Chandu Bhai proceeded on his job without waiting for him. At this juncture, appellant Champalal questioned Chandulal for his desire for accompany Chandu Bhai. He also reprimanded him for collecting food in breach of rotation. He also reviewed for collecting food from the house of Acharya on the occasion of marriage. This led to heated exchange of words between the appellant Champalal and deceased Chandulal. Appellant Champalal went inside the house, brought the gun and climbed on the terrace of the house. He aimed gun at Chandulal and challenged him. Deceased Chandulal in challenging tone asked him to come out of the house. He accepted the challenge and came down from the terrace and went outside the house. He aimed at Chandulal and fired on him on account of which he fell down. An information of the incident was immediately given to the police and injured was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. Police registered a case for offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code and proceeded with investigation. After usual investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the appellants for offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code and 25/27 of the Arms Act. 3. Appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence to prove its case. Appellants denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them and pleaded innocence. Learned trial Court held that prosecution has succeed in establishing charges against appellants. Accordingly, convicted and sentenced them in the manner noticed above. 4. It is not in dispute that chandulal died of homicidal death. PW-17 Dr. Inder Singh conducted post mortem of the body of deceased Chandulal vide post mortem report Exhibit P-16. He noticed following injuries on the person of the deceased : "1. 1 x 0.5 cm oval shape on left temporal region, 4 cm lateral and 3 cm above the outer angle of left eye. There is a 3 cm. oblique back run backward and upward and pellet is removed from muscle. 2. 0.5 x 0.5 cm, round shape. 1 cm. below the left angle of mouth. Pellet pierce the cheek and lodge between left lower canine and first pemola, pellet is removed. 3. There is a 3 cm. oblique back run backward and upward and pellet is removed from muscle. 2. 0.5 x 0.5 cm, round shape. 1 cm. below the left angle of mouth. Pellet pierce the cheek and lodge between left lower canine and first pemola, pellet is removed. 3. 0.5 x 0.4 cm x 3 cm medial to left aeromian on left shoulder. 4. 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the left side of base of neck about 7 cm from the left aeromian. 5. 0.3 x 0.3 cm on the front of left arm 4 cm below the aeromian. 6. 0.5 x 0.3 cm oval shape about 4 cm below the injury No. 5. 7. 0.3 x 0.3 cm mid of left arm on its anterior surface. 8. 0.5 x 0.4 cm and 0.5 x 0.5 cm on middle ⅓rd of inner surface of left arm about 4 cm apart. 9. 0.5 x 0.4 cm on the front of left elbow joint. 10. 0.5 x 0.3 cm on the front of forearm about 2 cm below the medial epicandyle. 11. 0.5 x 0.5 cm 7 cm below and 5 cm left lateral to the steinal notch on the chest. Pellet pierce the anterior chestwall and upper lobe of lung. 12. 0.5 x 0.5 cm, 10 cm. below and 4 cm left lateral to steinal notch. The pellet pierce the chest wall and upper lobe of lung. 13. 0.5 x 0.5 cm, 4 cm below and 8 cm left lateral to steinal notch 14. 4 cm below the tip of axilla on anterior axillary fold size 0.5 x 0.5. 15. 2 cm below the tip of axilla on medial surface of left axilla in midline size 0.5 x 0.5 cm. 16. 0.5 x 0.5 cm below the tip of axilla and 2 cm posteriorly from mid axillary line. 17. 8 cm below on posterior axillary fold size 0.5 x 0.5 cm track oblique. Slightly upward and backward exit wound is present size 0.4 x 0.4 cm. 18. 17 cm below the tip of left axilla on the outerside of left chest. Size 0.5 x 0.5 cm. 19. 0.5 x 0.5 cm, 17 cm below the left nipple. 20. 0.5 x 0.5 cm, 2 cm above the mid point of right eyebrow on forehead. 21. 0.5 x 0.5 cm, 6 cm below the aeromian point on front of right arm. 22. Size 0.5 x 0.5 cm. 19. 0.5 x 0.5 cm, 17 cm below the left nipple. 20. 0.5 x 0.5 cm, 2 cm above the mid point of right eyebrow on forehead. 21. 0.5 x 0.5 cm, 6 cm below the aeromian point on front of right arm. 22. 0.4 x 0.5 cm, 2.5 cm below and'4.5 cm right lateral to right nipple." 23. Abrasion-(1) 0.3 x 1 cm. on chest, 8 cm below and 2 cm right lateral to right nipple. (2) 1 x 1 x cm midial to right aeromian. In the opinion of the Doctor, deceased died due to shock as a result of internal hemorrhage as a result of multiple firearm wounds. 5. The prosecution in order to establish the case has examined the eye witnesses namely PW-5 Gangaram, PW-13 Gheesulal and PW-22 Tara Bai. PW-5 Gangaram has stated that on the date of incident, he was at the house of deceased, working as labourer on the terrace. Deceased Chandulal was also helping him. His brother Gheesulal was also sitting outside the house alongwith his mother. Seeing Chandu Bhai leaving the house for collecting food, deceased Chandulal asked him to wait for sometime as he would also accompany him. Chandulal proceeded without waiting for him. Appellant Champalal came out of the house and questioned the deceased Chandulal for accompanying Chanduram for collecting food. Oral altercations took place between the appellant Champalal and deceased Chandulal. Appellant entered in the house and returned with a gun and asked Chandulal to come down. Both of them went down. Appellant Champalal fired at Chandulal causing pallet injuries on the various parts of his body. Deceased fell down. There is a lengthy cross examination but nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. He is an independent eye witness. There is no reason to discredit his testimony. 6. PW-13 Gheesulal is the brother of deceased. He has reiterated the version of the incident as given in the First Information Report. He has also been cross examined at length but nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. Statement of PW-22 Tara Bai, mother of the deceased is almost on the same line. It is significant to notice that Police Station is about 100 yards from the place of incident. The gun fire attracted the police personnels present at the Police Station. Statement of PW-22 Tara Bai, mother of the deceased is almost on the same line. It is significant to notice that Police Station is about 100 yards from the place of incident. The gun fire attracted the police personnels present at the Police Station. Police personnels namely PW-1 Bhopal Singh, PW-2 Gulab Chand, PW-6 Bhanwar Lal, PW- 7 Sawai Singh and PW-8 Jai Singh also reached on the spot. They have stated that hearing the gun fire, they rushed to the place of incident and found Chandulal lying in injured condition. Appellant Champalal was standing with gun nearby him. Seeing them, appellant Champalal tried to enter into his house. But he was caught on the spot. Statements of PW-3 Shankar and PW-4 Paras are also almost on the same line. They are the neighbours. Thus, there is overwhelming evidence to conclude that it was Champalal who fired the gun at Chandulal. 7. PW-23 Gheesu Singh is incharge of the Police Station. He has proved the fact that First Information Report Exhibit P-8 was lodged by PW-13 Gheesulal. He also stated that Head Constables Vijayendra and Jai Singh produced the appellant alongwith gun. He was arrested vide Exhibit P-6. The gun was seized and packed at the Police Station. He has also given the details of investigation. He further stated that the licence of the gun was in the name of second appellant Babulal. Licence of the gun was seized vide Exhibit P-21. Pallets were also recovered from the house of appellant. The gun was sent for examination by the ballistic expert. FSL Report was received vide Exhibits P-22 and P-23. 8. On careful consideration of the matter, we are of the view that trial Court has rightly concluded that it was appellant Champalal shot gun fire at the deceased Chandulal and, thus, committed murder. He has been rightly convicted for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code as well as under section 25/27 of the Arms Act. As regards second appellant Babulal, as the licence of the gun was in his name, he has been rightly convicted for offence under section 27 of the Arms Act. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that appellant Babulal is 80 years old, the ends of justice would meet if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that appellant Babulal is 80 years old, the ends of justice would meet if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the first appellant Champalal is maintained. The conviction of second appellant Babulal is also maintained for offence under section 27 of the Arms Act. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. He is on bail. The bail ponds furnished by the second appellant Babulal shall stand discharge,Appeal partly allowed. *******