K. K. MISRA, J. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17-12-80 passed by Shri P. C. Saxena, the then Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. A-134 of 1979 whereby he has convicted the appellant Gurmeet Singh under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The facts are that the accused Gurmeet Singh resided in village Ram Nagar, P. S. Gujraula and his brother deceased Milkiat Singh resided at Pilibhit. The deceased had left his she-buffalo with the accused for grazing but the accused sold the same to P. W. 9 Ram Singh for a sum of Rs. 500 and received the sum of Rs. 500 with a promise that he would get a receipt executed by Milkiat Singh when he would come to the village. It is said that on the day of the occurrence, i. e. 6-6-1978 when Milkiat Singh came to the village and was staying at the house of the accused, Ram Singh came there and demanded the receipt on which Milikiat Singh executed the receipt but demanded his money. The accused, however, paid only Rs. 300 to Milikiat Singh and about the balance he told him that the same would be paid after few days. But Milikiat Singh did not agree to it and gave out that he would take the she-buffalo with him. As Ram Singh had already paid the amount to the accused, he was also not prepared to part with the she-buffalo and agreed to do so only when he was paid back the amount of Rs. 500 together with the amount of Rs. 15 for interest. It is said that in order to make this payment, Gurmeet Singh had to pledge the ear rings with P. W. 10 Indra Sharma. A dispute also arose between the deceased and the accused regarding some amount which was outstanding against the accused and after accounting it was found that the said amount was Rs. 100/ -. Anyway, after the payment of the amount with interest by the accused to Ram Singh, the transaction of sale was nullified and the deceased got the custody of the she-buffalo. 100/ -. Anyway, after the payment of the amount with interest by the accused to Ram Singh, the transaction of sale was nullified and the deceased got the custody of the she-buffalo. It is said that as it became very late, Ram Singh offered to the deceased to stay with him for the night but the accused objected to it on the ground that Ram Singh had lowered his esteem before the residents of the village and as such, he would not allow his brother to stay with Ram Singh. As the deceased was not prepared to stay at the house of the accused, P. W. 7 Mangali who was also present at the time of the aforesaid settlement, offered the deceased to stay with him and thereafter the deceased with the she-buffalo left for the house of Mangali alongwith the latter. The accused also followed them and in the way some altercation took place between him and the deceased. On account of these events when the deceased came at the crossing near the house of P. W. 12 Sundar Lal, the accused fired two shots from his rifle on the deceased with the intention to kill him which hit him and he succumbed to his injuries. This incident was witnessed by Mangali and when on hearing the bang of the gun fire, P. W. 12 Sundar Lal and P. W. 4 Gaya Prasad who also resided near the place of the occurrence came out of their houses, they say the accused running away with the rifle in his hand from the side of the place of the occurrence. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 6-6-78 at about 10 p. m. The report of the incident was lodged by P. W. 2 Nitai, Chaukidar of the village at P. S. Gajraula, district Pilibhit situate at a distance of 7 miles from the place of occurrence in the night itself, i. e. , 7-6-78 at 2. 45 a. m. 3. The investigation of the case was done by P. W. 13 D. S. Gautam Station Officer, P. S. Gajraula, district Pilibhit. He recorded the statement of Nitai, Chaukidar at the police station itself and proceeded for the place of occurrence. 45 a. m. 3. The investigation of the case was done by P. W. 13 D. S. Gautam Station Officer, P. S. Gajraula, district Pilibhit. He recorded the statement of Nitai, Chaukidar at the police station itself and proceeded for the place of occurrence. Since the accused had carried the dead body of the deceased to his house, the inquest on the dead-body was conducted at the said house and not at the place of the occurrence. After conducting the inquest, he sent the dead-body for post-mortem examination. 4. P. W. 1, Dr. R. C. Maheshwari, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Bijnor conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 23 years and about 3/4 day had passed since he died. He found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead-body: (1) Gun-shot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm. on right upper arm laterally, about 10 cm. above the right elbow joint. Margins inverted. Blackening present. Humerus bone fractured at two places in its upper 1/3 part. (2) Gun-shot wound of exit 4 cm x 4 cm. on inner side of right armpit. Margins lacerated and everted. Clotted blood present around the wound. (3) Gun-shot wound of entry 4 cm x 4 cm on right side of chest, about 3 cms away from the centre of right armpit. Margins lacerated. Clotted blood present around the wound. Right 2nd and 3rd ribs fractured. (4) Gun-shot wound of exit 5 cm x 5 cm on left side of chest, about 8 cms away from the left nipple. Margins lacerated and averted. Clotted blood present around the wound. 6th and 7th ribs fractured. (5) Gun-shot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm on back of left side, 3 cms away from mid-line. (6) Gun-shot wound of exit 4 cm x 4 cm on the centre of chest about 8 cm above from the right nipple. Sternum fractured. 5. The Doctor opined that the death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 6. The accused appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. denied the prosecution story and further stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case. 7. In order to prove its case against the accused-appellant, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses in all at the trial. 6. The accused appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. denied the prosecution story and further stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case. 7. In order to prove its case against the accused-appellant, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses in all at the trial. Out of them, P. W. 2 complainant Nitai Chaukidar is the informant. P. W. 4 Gaya Prasad, P. W. 5 Raghunath and P. W. 12 Sunder Lal are the three witnesses who were examined on the point that they saw the accused running with his rifle from the place of the occurrence soon after these three witnesses had heard the bang of the gun shot. 8. P. W. 7 Mangali is the lone eye-witness. The gist of his testimony is that the murder took place at about 10 p. m. This murder was committed by the accused Gurmeet Singh, which he had seen. The murder was committed on the turning of the way near the house of Sundar Lal. Gurmeet Singh accused and Milikiat Singh deceased were going to the western side alongwith the she-buffalo. He was also coming behind them. Gurmeet Singh had rifle and as soon as they turned at the crossing, Gurmeet Singh fired at Milikiat Singh deceased, which hit him. Gurmeet fired again which also hit Milikiat Singh. Seeing this, he shouted "why are you doing so?" Gurmeet Singh told him to keep silence, otherwise he would also be killed. He had a flashing torch with him at the time of the incident. He then went to his house. On the way, he met Gaya Prasad and Sundar Lal, Gaya Prasad had a torch and Sunder Lal had a lantern. He told this incident to them. They also saw Gurmeet Singh. He then went to Village Pradhan and told this incident to him. He advised him to remain silent till the arrival of Investigating Officer. When Daroga Ji came, he saw his torch and returned it to him. 9. P. W. 12 Sundar Lal is also a witness of the recovery of a used cartridge from the place of the occurrence by the I. O. when he inspected the spot. Subsequently when the accused was arrested, his rifle had also been seized which was sent for ballistic examination. 9. P. W. 12 Sundar Lal is also a witness of the recovery of a used cartridge from the place of the occurrence by the I. O. when he inspected the spot. Subsequently when the accused was arrested, his rifle had also been seized which was sent for ballistic examination. P. W. 3 Sri B. Rai is the Ballistic Expert who examined the aforesaid used cartridge and compared it with the rifle of the accused. He gave his report Ex Ka-2 to the effect that this cartridge had been fired from this rifle. The recovery of the rifle from the accused had been made in the presence of P. W. 11 Puran Lal who also stated about the recovery of blood stained "kachha" and the shirt belonging to the accused at his (accuseds) instance. P. W. 9 Ram Singh is the person with whom the transaction of sale of she-buffalo had taken place. 10. P. W. 10 Indra Sharma is the person who had participated in bringing about a settlement between Ram Singh, accused and the deceased in respect of the aforesaid transaction of she-buffalo. P. W. 6 Babu Ram was a witness of extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused but we find that he did not support the prosecution. P. W. 10 Indra Sharma is also a witness of extra-judicial confession. The gist of the evidence of P. W. 10 Indra Sharma is that he was present in the conference held about the transaction of she-buffalo where he had gone at the instance of Ram Singh. As soon as he reached his house after Panchayat, Mangali came and told him that Gurmeet Singh had killed his brother Milkiat Singh and this he saw in torchlight. After some time, accused appellant Gurmeet Singh also came there and made extra-judicial confession of committing this murder. 11. P. W. 8 Deo Sharma was examined to prove the undisputed fact that after this incident the accused lifted the dead-body from the place of the occurrence and carried it to his house and that inquest was conducted at the said house and not at the place of the occurrence. 12. The trial Court found the case set up against the accused appellant to be proved and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 13. 12. The trial Court found the case set up against the accused appellant to be proved and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 13. D. W. 1 Guna Nand Pathak was produced by the accused appellant Gurmeet Singh to prove that special report has been sent belatedly. 14. We have heard Sri Virendra Saran, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashok Dwivedi, learned A. G. A. 15. We note that P. W. 4 Gaya Prasad and P. W. 5 Raghunath turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. P. W. 4 Gaya Prasad deposed that on hearing the sound of firing when he came out of his house and flashed his torch, then he saw a man running with a rifle but he could not recognize him and he did not stop on a call given by him. After some time Mangali came and told him that Gurmeet Singh had killed his brother. The statement of P. W. 5 Raghunath is also to the effect that he did not see Gurmeet Singh running, though he saw the dead body of Milkiat Singh lying at the spot. After some time, the accused, his brother and mother came and took away the dead body of Milkiat Singh. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant made two-fold arguments. Firstly, he submits that there is no direct evidence in the case and the case is based upon circumstantial evidence. According to him, the prosecution has not been able to bring on record the complete chain of circumstances so as to prove the guilt of the accused appellant. Secondly, he submits that there is enmity between the parties and the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. 17. Now we take up the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The contention cannot be upheld that there is no direct evidence of the commission of this crime by the accused. There is an eye-witness account given by P. W. 7 Mangali. He deposed that he saw the accused actually causing the fire-arm injuries to deceased Milkiat as a result of which he died. He gave every minute detail of the incident in his evidence. He narrated about the incident to the witness P. W. 10 Indra Sharma also. There is an eye-witness account given by P. W. 7 Mangali. He deposed that he saw the accused actually causing the fire-arm injuries to deceased Milkiat as a result of which he died. He gave every minute detail of the incident in his evidence. He narrated about the incident to the witness P. W. 10 Indra Sharma also. Even the hostile witness P. W. 4 Gaya Prasad admitted that 15 minutes after the incident Mangali had told in his presence that Gurmeet Singh had killed his brother. This factum spoken by P. W. 4 Gaya Prasad also falls in the category of res gestae evidence. 18. From the evidence of the witnesses also, there is no doubt that there was motive for committing the crime as the relations between the brothers had instantly turned stained on account of the payment of the price of a she-buffalo. A Panchayat was held to settle the dispute between the two brothers. The incident took place after the Panchayat was over. P. W. 10 Indra Sharma also deposed that when he had just returned to his house after the settlement of the dispute, he heard the sound of two firearm shots. After 10-15 minutes, Mangali came scared and told him that accused Gurmeet Singh had killed his brother Milkiat Singh. After some time, accused Gurmeet Singh also came to him and made an extra- judicial confession of committing the murder of his brother Milkiyat Singh deceased. Statement by a witness immediately after the occurrence still under the influence of principal transaction forms res gestae and is admissible. Statement made by Mangali to P. W. 4 Gaya Prasad and P. W. 10 Indra Sharma immediately after the incident forms res gestae and is admissible. Blood stained kachha and shirt of the accused had also been recovered from under the cattle-fodder at his instance. Besides the above evidence, there is report of Ballistic Expert that the shot was fired from the rifle of the accused Gurmeet Singh. P. W. 3 B. Rai, Ballistic Expert deposed that the empty cartridge (recovered from the place of occurrence) was fired from the rifle recovered from the accused appellant Gurmeet Singh. This is a very important incriminating circumstance against the accused appellant. It has come on record that the dead body was recovered before his house but he took no steps to lodge the report of the incident. This is a very important incriminating circumstance against the accused appellant. It has come on record that the dead body was recovered before his house but he took no steps to lodge the report of the incident. This is wholly unnatural conduct of a real brother, who took no steps to lodge report of the incident. He would have necessarily lodged the report, if he was really innocent. Instead, he pleaded before P. W. 10 Indra Sharma to save him from prosecution. It has come on record that he made extra-judicial confession to P. W. 10 Indra Sharma. From the above, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution fully succeeded in bringing on record wholesome circumstances consistent with the eye-witness account of P. W. 7 Mangali and corroborative thereof. Every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused appellant is excluded. 19. So far as the enmity between the accused and deceased is concerned, nothing grave except some minor dispute with regard to payment of the price of she-buffalo has come on record to show enmity between the parties. There is no material on record to show that there was any serious enmity between the accused and the deceased except the above dispute with regard to the price of she-buffalo. It is a case of single accused. The witnesses who have deposed against the accused were uninterested persons of the same village who had no animum against him. The possibility of false implication is completely ruled out. The eye-witness account of P. W. 7 Mangali is supported by other overwhelming evidence. Thus, we find no merit in this argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. The same is also rejected. 20. After the conclusion of the arguments in the case on 27-7-2004, the accused appellant gave an application on 6-8-2004 that he had been falsely implicated and his mother Surjit Kaur be summoned as a witness under Section 391/311 Cr. P. C. 21. We have considered the prayer. Blood is thicker than water. It appears that with the passage of time, the accused appellant, who committed cold blooded murder of his brother, has prevailed upon his mother to try to save him from the consequences of his criminal act. P. C. 21. We have considered the prayer. Blood is thicker than water. It appears that with the passage of time, the accused appellant, who committed cold blooded murder of his brother, has prevailed upon his mother to try to save him from the consequences of his criminal act. He wants to wipe away the effect of overwhelming evidence against him by examining his mother at appellate stage after about 26 years of the incident. Had it not been so, he could have examined his mother as defence witness at the trial itself. We see no justification whatsoever to accede to the prayer made by the accused-appellant. The application is rejected. 22. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. We find no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court and the same is affirmed. 23. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The accused is on bail. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence imposed on him by the learned trial Court. 24. Judgment be certified to the lower Court for compliance and intimation to this Court within two months. Appeal dismissed. .