M. C. JAIN, J. The two real brothers, namely, Raj Bahadur and Jagdish Prasad have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-8-1997 passed by Sri K. Z. Khan, the then I Additional Sessions Judge, Sahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 314 of 1996. Each of them has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. It is an expedited appeal. 2. The incident took place on 22-10-1995 at about 4. 30 p. m. in village Sitapur within the Police Station Khutar, District Sahjahanpur and the F. I. R. was lodged the same day at 6. 30 p. m. by an eyewitness Ram Chandra PW 1 (father of the deceased Pradeep Kumar ). The distance of police station from the place of incident was about 7 kms. The prosecution case surfacing at the trial was as follows: 3. The informant Ram Chandra had sugarcane crushing machine (Kolhu) in village aforesaid as also a weighing machine. The deceased Pradeep Kumar, aged about 17 years, was there at the weighing machine. At about 4. 30 p. m. on the fateful day, the accused appellant Raj Bahadur resident of the same village came to Pradeep Kumar and asked him to weigh his sugarcane. Pradeep Kumar asked him to first clear the previous outstanding dues. Raj Bahadur got enraged and started hurling abuses on Pradeep Kumar. Pradeep Kumar asked him not to do so. Exchange of hot words took place between the two. The informant Ram Chandra supported his son Pradeep Kumar in the wordly duel. Raj Bahadur, however, held out that the head of Pradeep Kumar had got swollen and required to be set right. Saying so, Raj Bahadur left towards his house. About 10 minutes later, Pradeep Kumar started going to his house from his Kolhu. When he reached near the Pasar of Mahesh Chandra, the two accused appellants appeared therefrom their house in southern side. Raj Bahadur was armed with DBBL gun and Jagdish Prasad had a rifle. Both of them started hurling abuses on Pradeep Kumar and fired one shot each. The informant Ram Chandra was witnessing the incident from his Kolhu and he raised shouts. Rakesh, Hardwari Lal and Rajendra Prasad PW 2 were also present at his Kolhu at that time. He with them rushed towards the scene to apprehend the accused appellants. Both of them started hurling abuses on Pradeep Kumar and fired one shot each. The informant Ram Chandra was witnessing the incident from his Kolhu and he raised shouts. Rakesh, Hardwari Lal and Rajendra Prasad PW 2 were also present at his Kolhu at that time. He with them rushed towards the scene to apprehend the accused appellants. The informant could cover a distance of 20-25 paces. Raj Bahadur opened another shot on Pradeep Kumar which hit him. The accused appellants then ran away towards their house and his son dropped down dead. He wrote down the F. I. R. and lodged the same at the police station. The investigation was started by R. P. Singh, S. I. PW 5, proceeded ahead by Nawab Singh, S. O. PW 6 and concluded by G. S. Verma. S. O. PW 7. On reaching the spot, the first Investigating Officer prepared the inquest of the dead-body of the deceased and completed other formalities. Thereafter the dead-body was sent for post-mortem. It was conducted on 23-10-1995 at 4 p. m. by Dr. Rajesh Rai PW 8. The deceased was aged about 17 years and about one day had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person: (1) Gunshot wound of entry 3 cm x 2. 5 cm x through and through situated on outer aspect of left upper arm, 16 cm below the left shoulder joint. Margins inverted. Blackening and tattooing present around the wound. (2) Gunshot wound of exit 4 cm x 3 cm x connected with wound No. 1, situated on inner aspect of left upper arm, 3 cm below the left axilla. Margins everted. (3) Gunshot wound of entry 4 cm x 3. 5 cm x chest cavity deep, situated 3 cm below the left axilla. Margins were inverted. No blackening or tattooing seen. 4. On internal examination, 3rd and 4th left ribs were found fractured. Pleura was lacerated on left side. Left lung and pericardium were lacerated. 41 small metallic pellets were recovered from left lung, heart and thorasic cavity. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. 5. On 23-10-1995 the first Investigating Officer had recovered one empty cartridge of 12 bore & Anr. of 315 bore from the spot. The same were sealed by him. The blood stained and simple earth were also collected by him from the spot. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. 5. On 23-10-1995 the first Investigating Officer had recovered one empty cartridge of 12 bore & Anr. of 315 bore from the spot. The same were sealed by him. The blood stained and simple earth were also collected by him from the spot. The second Investigating Officer Nawab Singh had arrested the accused appellants on 24-10-1995. The licensed D. B. B. L. gun of 12 bore was recovered from the possession of Raj Bahadur and licensed rifle of 315 bore from the possession of Jagdish Prasad. They were sent for scientific examination and for comparison with the empty cartridges recovered by the first Investigating Officer from the spot. 6. The defence was of denial and false implication due to enmity. Jagdish Prasad accused stated under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that one Jagdish Dhobi had earlier been murdered in which Rajendra Prasad PW 2 was an accused. He and Raj Bahadur had done pairvi in that case against Rajendra. So, Rajendra got them falsely implicated, he being Mausera brother of Ram Chandra. Another ground of the alleged false implication was that the mother of the accused appellants and the informant Ram Chandras wife had fought the election of Pradhan. It was the source of another enmity between the two sides. 7. Apart from the medical evidence and that relating to investigation of the case, the prosecution mainly relied on the testimony of two eye-witnesses, namely, Ram Chandra PW 1 and Rajendra Prasad PW 2. None was examined by the accused in their defence. 8. The evidence adduced by the prosecution commended itself to the learned trial Judge. He found the case to be proved to the hilt and recorded the impugned judgment which is under challenge from the side of the accused appellants. 9. We have heard Sri P. N. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the accused appellants, Sri S. S. Yadav, learned A. G. A. and Sri R. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant. We have also carefully gone through the evidence on record. 10. 9. We have heard Sri P. N. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the accused appellants, Sri S. S. Yadav, learned A. G. A. and Sri R. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant. We have also carefully gone through the evidence on record. 10. In nutshell, the submission of Sri Mishra is that the motive assigned by the prosecution for the commission of this crime is too weak to be believed; that there is no independent witness and conviction could not be based on the testimony of two highly interested witnesses; that there is inconsistency between the prosecution version as disclosed by the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence. 11. We intend to deal with these arguments in the succeeding discussion. To begin with, it admits of no doubt that the deceased was the victim of violence and died of fire-arm injuries as reported in the post- mortem report reproduced earlier. It is a case of direct evidence. Therefore, the motive loses much of its significance. We are clear in our mind that the appellants do not gain any point by insisting that the motive assigned by the prosecution for the commission of this crime is of weak nature. It goes without saying that different persons behave differently in a given situation. Some are so hot headed that they commit serious crimes over trivial issues. In the present case, the incident took place on 22-10-1995 at about 4. 30 p. m. and the F. I. R. was lodged within two hours at 6. 30 p. m. by an eye-witness - father of the deceased, narrating the manner in which the incident started and took place. The distance of the police station from the place of incident was for about 7 kms. Looking to all the aspects of the matter, there was no delay in the lodging of the F. I. R. and hardly any time intervened for concoction or deliberation. True, the incident started over a trivial issue when the accused appellant Raj Bahadur wanted the deceased to weigh his sugarcane at his weigh machine and the latter asked him to first clear previous outstanding balance of money. True, the incident started over a trivial issue when the accused appellant Raj Bahadur wanted the deceased to weigh his sugarcane at his weigh machine and the latter asked him to first clear previous outstanding balance of money. Without any regard for righteous conduct and the rights of the other, Raj Bahadur was seemingly so swollen headed that he felt insulted by the demand of outstanding dues by Pradeep Kumar and committed this crime a little after the exchange of hot words with him (Pradeep Kumar ). 12. We also wish to say that the accused utterly failed to bring on record any material to show any enmity with the informant, what to say of serious enmity, which could tempt him to leave the real culprit and substitute the accused for them. No doubt, Rajendra Prasad PW 2 was Mausera brother of Ram Chandra PW 1, but his (Rajendra Prasads) involvement in the murder of Jagdish Dhobi was a remote issue which could hardly be made a tool for the false implication of the accused appellants on the report lodged by Ram Chandra PW 1 (father of the deceased ). The contest of election for the office of Pradhan by the mother of the two accused and the wife of Ram Chandra also had no meaningful relevance. The reason is that it has come on record that both of them had lost and a third candidate had won the election. To revert to the point, our opinion tuned by the record is that the prosecution, through the testimony of Ram Chandra PW 1 and Rajendra Prasad PW 2, truthfully narrated the start of the incident and the way in which the offence was committed. The motive for the commission of this crime by Raj Bahadur is also very well indicated. 13. The criticism levelled by the learned Counsel for the accused appellants against the eye-witnesses Ram Chandra PW 1 and Rajendra Prasad PW 2 on the premise of their being interested is not at all sustainable. The Supreme Court has observed in the case of Angnoo v. State of U. P. , AIR 1971 SC 296 , that if witness is brother of the deceased, fact of his relationship would add to the value of his evidence because he would be interested in getting the real culprit, rather than innocent persons, punished. In another case of Piara Singh & Ors. In another case of Piara Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2274 , it has been laid down that the evidence of interested or inimical witnesses has to be scrutinized with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being a partisan evidence. Yet in another case of State of U. P. v. Suresh alias Chhavan & Ors. AIR 1982 SC 1076 , it has been ruled that the statement of a family member of the deceased cannot be rejected on the ground that he is related to the victim. What is required is that the statement is to be scrutinized with care. 14. On carefully scrutinizing the testimony of the eye-witnesses Ram Chandra PW 1 and Rajendra Prasad PW 2, we find that they gave consistent version that the shot of Raj Bahadur had hit the deceased. It also unerringly flows from their testimony that exchange of hot words had taken place between the deceased and Raj Bahadur a little before the incident when the latter wanted the former to weigh his sugarcane on his weighing machine and the former had insisted to first make payment of the outstanding balance. It was thereafter that the deceased Pradeep Kumar was going to his house that the accused confronted him near the Pasar of Mahesh Chandra, opened shot from his D. B. B. L. gun and killed him. Ram Chandra PW 1 was the most natural witness who was present at his Kolhu and weighing machine wherefrom he witnessed the start of the incident as also of shooting near the Pasar of Mahesh Chandra (to which side he and Rajendra Prasad rushed up ). He had also supported his son in verbal duel with Raj Bahadur who had left for his house in an agitated mood. His own son Pradeep Kumar had started for his house a little while later. It was near the Pasar of Mahesh Chandra that the accused again confronted and abused Pradeep Kumar and shot was fired by the accused Raj Bahadur killing him instantaneously. He and Rajendra Prasad had run for about 20-25 paces when Raj Bahadur had shot his son dead. Rajendra Prasad PW 2 also gave plausible evidence for his presence at the Kolhu of Ram Chandra that he had gone to collect empty tins for filling molasses - Raab (liquified Gur ). 15. He and Rajendra Prasad had run for about 20-25 paces when Raj Bahadur had shot his son dead. Rajendra Prasad PW 2 also gave plausible evidence for his presence at the Kolhu of Ram Chandra that he had gone to collect empty tins for filling molasses - Raab (liquified Gur ). 15. We want to make it clear that it is the consistent case surfacing from the statement of the witnesses that the shot opened by Raj Bahadur had hit the deceased which killed him. It has also to be kept in mind that it was with him that the deceased had traded hot words a few minutes earlier. Though the two eye-witnesses stated that while confronting the deceased near Pasar of Mahesh Chandra, Jagdish Prasad had also opened a shot on Pradeep Kumar from his rifle, but the same had missed the target. 16. The single shot opened by Raj Bahadur having hit the deceased, the other accused appellant Jagdish Prasad deserves to be afforded the benefit of doubt. Jagdish Prasad and Raj Bahadur are real brothers. The experience shows that even when only some members of rival group are involved in the offence, quite often one finds a tendency also to falsely rope in other members. In doing so, the story is improved and modified to achieve this purpose. Exaggeration of the part played by the other side in the course of the incident is also quite common. On holistic consideration, we are in judgment that Jagdish Prasad, who is real brother of the main assailant Raj Bahadur, should be given benefit of doubt. He was not there when the incident started with the exchange of hot words between Raj Bahadur and Pradeep Kumar. It is also the definite case of the prosecution that the shot allegedly fired by him (Jagdish Prasad) did not hit the victim at all. 17. This contention is unmerited that there is conflict between the medical and ocular evidence. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased received two gunshot wounds of entry (ante-mortem injuries No. 1 and 3) and one gunshot wound of exit (ante-mortem injury No. 2 ). It may be stated at the risk of repetition that as per the consistent testimony of the two eye-witnesses, only shot opened by Raj Bahadur from the gun had hit the deceased. It is also noted from the testimony of Dr. It may be stated at the risk of repetition that as per the consistent testimony of the two eye-witnesses, only shot opened by Raj Bahadur from the gun had hit the deceased. It is also noted from the testimony of Dr. Rajesh Rai PW 8 who conducted autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased that all these injuries could be of one shot only. It is quite probable because ante-mortem injury No. 1 is gunshot wound of entry through and through situated on outer aspect of the left upper arm (gunshot wound - ante-mortem injury No. 2 being corresponding wound of exit) and ante-mortem injury No. 3 is gunshot wound of entry-chest cavity deep, 3 cm below the left axilla. The learned Counsel for the appellants urged that there was blackening and tattooing in ante-mortem injury No. 1 whereas it was not so in ante-mortem injury No. 3. It, according to him, belied the prosecution case that the only shot hit the deceased. The argument appears to be appealing on the first blush but cannot stand a close scrutiny. The Doctor has stated that most of the force and intensity of the shot had been spent while causing ante-mortem injury No. 1. It explains the absence of blackening and tattooing in ante-mortem injury No. 3 which was also caused by the same shot. It would be noted that as many as 41 small metallic pellets had been recovered from left lung, heart and thorasic cavity of the deceased, supporting the view that all injuries were caused by only one shot. It is there in the testimony of both the eye-witnesses that the shot had been fired by Raj Bahadur from a distance of about 2 paces only. The discussion made above explains the presence of blackening and tattooing in the ante-mortem injury No. 1 and absence of the same in ante-mortem injury No. 3, though they were the result of single gunshot only. Far from there being any inconsistency between the medical evidence and ocular testimony, they are in incomplete harmony of one another. 18. The fact of the other eye-witnesses having not been examined by the prosecution would also not adversely affect its case. True, Rakesh and Hardwari were also named as the eye-witnesses in the F. I. R. by Ram Chandra PW 1. 18. The fact of the other eye-witnesses having not been examined by the prosecution would also not adversely affect its case. True, Rakesh and Hardwari were also named as the eye-witnesses in the F. I. R. by Ram Chandra PW 1. It has been explained by Ram Chandra PW 1 that these two witnesses had been won over by the accused. We note that his such statement was not challenged by the defence in his cross-examination. 19. Justice cannot be defeated if the accused managed to win over some of the prosecution witnesses. The requirement was of carefully scrutinizing the testimony of the two witnesses produced by the prosecution. On testing their evidence on the anvil of reliability, we find that they are trustworthy to the extent that Raj Bahadur shot dead the deceased Pradeep Kumar. Of course, the Clement of doubt is there with regard to the participation of other accused Jagdish Prasad to whom we are inclined to afford the benefit of doubt as discussed above. So far as the accused appellant Raj Bahadur is concerned, the evidence against him is of sterling character, not suffering from any flaw whatsoever. The evidence concerning the accused appellant Raj Bahadur being of clinching nature and free from any blemish, his conviction shall be sustained while the other accused appellant Jagdish Prasad would be acquitted. 20. Resultantly, we partly allow the appeal. The conviction and sentence passed against the accused appellant Jagdish Prasad is set aside and he is acquitted. We dismiss the appeal so far as the accused appellant Raj Bahadur is concerned. He stands convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. (instead of Section 302 I. P. C. read with Section 34 I. P. C.) with sentence of life imprisonment. He is on bail. We direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur to cause him to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence passed against him. We also order him to send the compliance report within two months. 21. Certified copy of judgment be sent to the lower Court with record immediately. Appeal partly allowed. .