K. K. MISRA, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6-2-1981 passed by Sri A. B. Hajela, the then III Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah in S. T. No. 736 of 1978, whereby he convicted appellants Chandra Bhan, Ram Gopal and Amar Singh under Section 148 IPC and Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced them to one years R. I. for the former offence and life imprisonment for the latter. By the same judgment, the trial Court further convicted appellants Neksey alias Ram Chandra and Khacher under Section 147 IPC and Section 302/149 IPC sentencing each of them to six months R. I. for the first offence and life imprisonment for the second one. Both of them died during the pendency of appeal, which abated respecting them under order dated 22-4-2004. 2. According to the prosecution case on 14-8-78 at about 6. 30 a. m. , the deceased Ram Narayan Lal was going to dispose of cow dung at the Ghure (garbage throwing place ). The first informant Ram Prakash, real brother of the deceased was sitting at his door. Appellant Khacher was already waiting for the deceased at Rahat Ki Pat. As soon as the deceased turned in the lane towards the Ghure and reached near Devisthan, appellant Khacher followed him surreptitiously. This created suspicion in the mind of the first informant and he followed him. When he was at a distance of 10-15 paces, appellant Khacher caught hold of the deceased. In the meanwhile, Chandra Bhan armed with single barrel gun Ram Gopal and Amar Singh armed with country made pistols, Shiv Charar armed with a revolver and Neksey armed with a Lathi came there from the house of Khacher. All the accused forcibly took the deceased towards western side. On the alarm raised by the first informant and the victim, Bechey Lal, Lal a Ram and others also arrived. Then the accused Shiv Charan and Nekesy exhorted to kill the deceased. Upon their exhortation, accused Chandra Bhan, Ram Gopal and Amar Singh fired from their weapons, which hit the deceased and thereafter the accused fled towards the chak road in the western side. Enmity between the parties was alleged in the F. I. R. since the election of village Pradhan. The F. I. R. of the incident was written by the first informant at his house and he lodged the same at 8. Enmity between the parties was alleged in the F. I. R. since the election of village Pradhan. The F. I. R. of the incident was written by the first informant at his house and he lodged the same at 8. 05 a. m. at the police station Sidpura which was situated at a distance of 6 kms from the place of the incident. It may be stated for the sake of clarity that the accused Shiv Charan Lal died before his trial. 3. The investigation of the case was done by P. W. 7, S. I. Sobha Mani Tiwari. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the site plan and collected blood stained and simple earth from the spot. Empty cartridge was also recovered from the place of occurrence. The investigation of the case was then handed over to S. H. O. Ved Prakash Tyagi with effect from 18-8-1978 who ultimately filed charge sheet. 4. P. W. 6, Dr. P. K. Jain conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 15th August, 1978 at 9 a. m. The doctor opined that the deceased was aged about 42 years and about one day had passed since he died. He found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body: (1) Fire-arm wound of entry 2cm x 2 cm on the left side lower chest at 6 Oclock position 6 cm. away from left nipple. Margins inverted. Blackening present. (2) Four fire-arm wounds of exit, infra scapular region in an area of 7cm x 7 cm. in the measurement 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm. Margins everted. (3) One fire-arm wound of entry on the front right fore-arm 3 cm x 2 cm and 5 cm. above the right wrist. Margins inverted. Blackening present. (4) One fire-arm wound of exit on the back of right forearm 5 cm x 3 cm and 6 cm above the right wrist. Margins everted. There was fracture of both bones of right forearm. 7th and 8th ribs of left side were also fractured. The death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the aforesaid ante mortem injuries. 5. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused denied the case of the prosecution. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses in all. The death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the aforesaid ante mortem injuries. 5. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused denied the case of the prosecution. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses in all. Out of them P. W. I Ram Prakash, P. W. 4 Lala Ram and P. W. 5 Bechey Lal gave eye-witness account of the incident. The rest were formal witnesses. 7. The trial Court found the case of the prosecution against the accused appellants fully proved and convicted and sentenced them as above. 8. It would be proper to refer to the testimony of eye witnesses before dealing with the arguments made in support of the appeal. 9. P. W. 1 Ram Prakash is the real brother of the deceased Ram Narain. He deposed that on the date of the incident at about 6. 30 a. m. , the deceased was going to dispose of cow dung at Ghure situate at Devsthan. At that time he was sitting at the Chabutara of his house. Accused Khacher was sitting at Rahat Ki Pat. He has narrated the prosecution case as detailed earlier. His testimony as to the happening is based on what he saw with his own eyes. He also stated that he and the witnesses chased the accused for 10-15 paces and then left to pursue them out of fear. The accused appellants fled towards chak road in western side. It is also there in his testimony that the deceased had fought election of village Pradhan against the accused Shiv Charan and had won the election. There was previous enmity also between the parties but the position worsened after the defeat of Shiv Charan in the election of village Pradhan. Since then, the accused were waiting for an opportunity to kill him. Earlier to this incident, the deceased had lodged a report also against the accused apprehending danger from them. He further deposed that Shiv Charan, Ram Gopal, Chandra Bhan and others were involved in a case under Section 302 IPC and they were convicted in that case. A case under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. was also fought between the parties 4-5 years prior to the incident. According to him, all the accused belonged to one group, helping each other. 10. A case under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. was also fought between the parties 4-5 years prior to the incident. According to him, all the accused belonged to one group, helping each other. 10. P. W. 4 Lala Ram supported the prosecution case in material particulars. He deposed in his evidence that on the date of incident at about 6. 30 a. m. , he was going to Madhu Pura. On hearing the shouts of Ram Prakash and Ram Narayan, he ran towards them and on reaching the place of incident found that the accused Chandra Bhan, Ram Gopal and Amar Singh opened fire at the deceased at the exhortation of Shiv Charan and Neksey. The shots hit the deceased and he fell down. He spoke about the weapons with which all the accused were armed. He explained that as the shortest route to Madhu Pura was flooded with water, he chose the way which passed through the place of incident. It is there in his evidence that on reaching near the house of Ram Narayan and Ram Prakash, he heard the noise coming from the place of occurrence. When he reached near the place of occurrence, he found that the accused were taking away the deceased forcibly at Devsthan. When he reached at the place of occurrence, Ram Prakash and Bechey Lal were already present there. 11. P. W. 5 Bechey Lal deposed that on the date of incident at about 6. 30 a. m. when he was going to answer the natures call, he saw that the deceased Ram Narayan was going to his Ghure situate at Devsthan keeping basket full of cow dung at his head. When he reached near Rahat Ki Pat, he heard the shouts of the deceased Ram Narayan and P. W. 1 Ram Prakash. Then he rushed up to the scene of the incident. His version is fully corroborative of the other two eye witnesses. 12. We have heard Sri G. S. Hajela. learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, learned A. G. A. from the side of the State in opposition of the appeal. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellants firstly argued that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution and conviction cannot be based on the testimony of interested witnesses. learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, learned A. G. A. from the side of the State in opposition of the appeal. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellants firstly argued that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution and conviction cannot be based on the testimony of interested witnesses. Secondly, he argues that admittedly there is enmity between the parties and as such the testimony of inimical witnesses cannot be believed. The third submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in the F. I. R. and in the statements of the eye-witnesses produced before the trial Court it has come on record that all three surviving present appellants had opened fire on the deceased from their respective weapons whereas he (Ram Narayan) had received only two gunshot wounds of entry. According to the learned counsel, it has not come in evidence as to whose shots out of the three appellants had actually hit the deceased. In the absence of clear-cut deposition by the prosecution witnesses as to whose shot hit the deceased and whose shot missed, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. Fourth submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that location of injuries shows that the injuries which had been received by the deceased could be caused by single shot. Learned A. G. A. , on the other hand, has urged that in both the gun-shot wounds of entry, there were exit wounds. So, the deceased was hit by two separate shots. According to him, there was no possibility of the injuries being the result of single shot. 14. We take up the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the eye-witnesses produced at the trial were not independent and were interested ones. So far as P. W. 1 Ram Prakash and P. W. 5 Bechey Lal are concerned, they are related to the deceased but it has been established by a catena of cases decided by Honble Supreme Court and various High Courts that near relation by itself is no ground to reject the testimony of a witness. Each case has to be weighed on its own. If on an overall examination of the statement of the witnesses, it is found that their testimony is trustworthy, it can be relied upon. Each case has to be weighed on its own. If on an overall examination of the statement of the witnesses, it is found that their testimony is trustworthy, it can be relied upon. Their testimony cannot be rejected solely on the ground that they are interested witnesses. It is also well established that the near relatives will not spare the real assailants. Close relationship with the victim is not a ground for disbelieving a witness. Ordinarily, a close relative intends not to screen the real offender. Close relationship with the victim far from being a foundation for criticism of the evidence is often a sure guarantee of truth. A close relative of a victim is not an interested witness and his evidence is not only reliable but preferred to other evidence Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 . The only test applied to such case is that their evidence has to be construed very carefully. Upon careful and extensive perusal of the evidence of these eye-witnesses, we find that they have given consistent and truthful account of the incident and there is no ground to reject their testimony. The names of all the eye witnesses find place in the promptly lodged F. I. R. They well explained their presence at the spot and also withstood the test of cross-examination firmly. 15. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the witnesses produced at the trial are inimical and their testimony is not worthy of any credence. Enmity is a double-edged weapon it no doubt often provides motive for false implication but is also more often than not provides motive and incentive for making an attack. The fact that there is a long standing enmity between families of the accused and the complainant is not enough to reject the testimony of the prosecution unless other circumstances exist rendering the prosecution evidence unworthy of credit. In a case where there is a history of previous ill feeling, the responsibility of the Court is much greater than in ordinary cases, to carefully and cautiously consider and sift the evidence. Enmity between the parties is admitted. In the F. I. R. itself it has been stated that there was enmity between the deceased and Pt. Shiv Charan Lal. Enmity between the parties is admitted. In the F. I. R. itself it has been stated that there was enmity between the deceased and Pt. Shiv Charan Lal. In the deposition before the trial Court, the witnesses have given account of enmity and strained relations between the parties. But this alone cannot be a ground for discarding their testimony. Scrutinizing the evidence of three eye-witnesses produced at the trial with great care, we find their evidence to be trustworthy and reliable and it can be safely acted upon. 16. Now, we take up the third and fourth submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants as they are related to one another. The deceased had received two gun-shot wounds of entry and in both the wounds of entry there is blackening which goes to show that they had been caused from a close range. In the F. I. R. and in the statements of the witnesses recorded before the trial Court, it has come on record that all three present appellants had fired with their respective weapons on Ram Narayan. The fact is, however, there that Ram Narayan had received only two gun shot wounds of entry. We should point out that the possibility of one of the shots being missed cannot be ruled out. The testimony of the eye-witnesses is not at all falsified that the present three accused appellants opened shots on the deceased. They were out of the six culprits who had formed the unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of which the murder of Ram Narayan Lal was committed. The surviving accused appellants rather played more potent role of shooting the victim, though doing some overt act is not necessary to bring home charge with the aid of Section 149 IPC. Section 149 IPC makes punishable the offence vicariously. For bringing a case under Section 149 IPC, the object of the unlawful assembly must be common to the persons composing the assembly. They must be aware of it and must concur in it. From the acts of the accused appellants preceding the real incident of shooting (that they joined the other three culprits in forcibly dragging the victim) coupled with the fact that they fired from their respective weapons with an intention to kill him (victim) amply show their common object. They must be aware of it and must concur in it. From the acts of the accused appellants preceding the real incident of shooting (that they joined the other three culprits in forcibly dragging the victim) coupled with the fact that they fired from their respective weapons with an intention to kill him (victim) amply show their common object. The deposition of the eye-witnesses about the reason of the immediate hostility between the parties and motive for causing death of the deceased is also believable. In these circumstances, the fact that there are two entry wounds and two exit wounds only does not belie the prosecution case that at the time of the incident three accused appellants named above fired on the victim. It is possible that the shot fired by one of them missed the deceased. On this ground alone the accused appellants are not entitled to get benefit of doubt. All the accused appellants will be constructively liable for the murder having been committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly of which they were members. 17. There is no basis for the argument that the deceased received only one shot. There were two gunshot wounds of entry with corresponding exit wounds. No such suggestion was even made to the Doctor that injuries of the deceased could be the result of one shot only. So, the third and fourth submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants are liable to be rejected. 18. In view of the above discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the accused appellants beyond any reasonable doubt and the accused appellants have rightly been convicted by the trial Court. 19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court are affirmed. Accused appellants Chandra Bhan, Ram Gopal and Amar Singh are found guilty of committing the crime charged for. They are on bail. They shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them by the trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC which shall concurrently run with the other sentence of one years R. I. under Section 148 IPC passed against each of them. 20. They are on bail. They shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them by the trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC which shall concurrently run with the other sentence of one years R. I. under Section 148 IPC passed against each of them. 20. The appeal has already abated respecting the appellants Neksey alias Ram Chandra and Khacher who died during the pendency of appeal. 21. The judgment be certified to the lower Court for reporting compliance within two months. Appeal dismissed. .