Judgment SMT. LP. SINGH and B.N.P.SINGH JJ. 1. Though three persons including appellant, were put on trial, latter alone suffered conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), others having been acquitted of the charges on conclusion of trial by the Trial Court. Appellant for his conviction under Section 302 IPC was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. Essential features of the prosecution case, which are not in much details, can be noticed with brevity. South to village Harnahi, a canal flows, which is the source of irrigation of the fields of the villagers and it seems that on the alleged date of incident, while Ramdeni Singh (PW 7) was irrigating his land from the canal water, along with his father, Narendra Singh grappled with the latter when he resisted and diverted water channel to his field. After Ramdeni Singh slapped Narendra Singh, latter went to his house. Father too left the place for meal. However, shortly thereafter, Ramdeni Singh saw Bakhoran Singh (hereinafter referred as appellant) going in the company of Narendra Singh, Dhirendra Singh and Girija Singh, holding double barrel gun. Apprehending danger, though Ramdeni Singh went towards village Surmi but followed that track, when they met Manik Singh (hereinafter called the deceased) near Murdghatti (cremation ground), Dhirendra Singh and others welded their lathis which was returned in the same coin by the deceased. Appellant then fired shots on the deceased who dropped dead. Appellant and others accompanied him and thereafter retired from the place of occurrence. It was the son of the deceased who set the ball in motion and launched prosecution against appellant and others. As usual, investigation followed, in course of which, Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, seized blood stained earth, wearing apparels, frame of spectacles of the deceased, prepared inquest report over dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body of the deceased to mortuary for post-mortem examination and on receipt of post-mortem report, laid charge-sheet before the Court on conclusion of investigation. At trial quite a good number of witnesses, who are 14 in numbers, were examined by the State to which we shall advert at later stage. 3. Defence of the appellant had been that village Harnahi was extremist infested area and the deceased was killed by extremists. At trial quite a good number of witnesses, who are 14 in numbers, were examined by the State to which we shall advert at later stage. 3. Defence of the appellant had been that village Harnahi was extremist infested area and the deceased was killed by extremists. However, defence had not chosen to examine any witness to strengthen, assertions made at trial. Trial Court on appreciation of probative value of the testimony of witnesses while rejecting plea of innocence of the appellant, recorded finding of guilt and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above, acquitting rest two persons who were put on trial. 4. Since manifold contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant to assail the findings recorded by Court below, lest we loose sight of them, we shall prefer to discuss with brevity, narratives of the prosecution case unfolded in the statement of the witnesses. Reiterating his earliest version, Ramdeni Singh (PW 7) states that he was irrigating his land along with his father from the canal water. He had gone for meal to his house and when he came, noticed Narendra Singh grappling with his father for diverting the water channel to his land. He, however, set him aside reprimanding for his conduct with an old person. The said Narendra Singh, however, left the place with firm determination to irrigate his land. Father too left the field for his house for meal, and at about midday, appellant came in company of Narendra Singh, Dhirendra Singh and Girija Singh holding double barrel gun with him. Those who had accompanied him were holding lathi with them. Apprehensive of danger, though he escaped towards village Surmi, but followed them, and while his father was going along with his family members, they happened to meet appellant and others. Then Dhirendra dealt lathi blow on the deceased followed by shots fired by the appellant. The deceased having sustained gun shot injury in the abdominal region, dropped dead. The witness says that while going to police station, where he rendered his statement, he also met Mukhiya and Sarpanch to whom incident was narrated by him, when the Police had visited place of occurrence. Blood stained earth and reminiscences of explosion of bomb was seized by him. Police had also seized frame of spectacles of the deceased. 5. We may now switch over to the evidence of Ram Barat Singh (PW 1). Blood stained earth and reminiscences of explosion of bomb was seized by him. Police had also seized frame of spectacles of the deceased. 5. We may now switch over to the evidence of Ram Barat Singh (PW 1). He was working in his khalihan in course of thrashing of crops when he heard alarms raised by mother of the appellant, who was shouting loudly after appellant had left house with a gun for killing the deceased. He followed the appellant and forbade him not to do so who was in the company of Dhirendra Singh, Narendra Singh and Girija Singh. However, they proceeded towards Ramdeni Singh who was irrigating his land and when Ramdeni Singh wanted to escape, he was chased for some distance by them. When appellant and others accompanying him came near the cremation ground (Murdaghatti), they met the deceased who was going towards his field and all of them grappled with him. The witness says that when Dhirendra dealt lathi blow on the deceased, appellant fired shots in the abdominal region of the deceased who dropped dead. 6. Suresh Yadav (PW 2) too was irrigating his land at some distance from the field of Ramdeni Singh. After irrigating his field he met the appellant who asked his son to divert water channel from the field of the deceased which was being irrigated by him and they all proceeded towards the wheat field. He then reprimanded appellant and shortly thereafter, appellant and others accompanying him grappled with the deceased near cremation ground and while others dealt lathi blows, appellant fired shots on the deceased who dropped dead. Appellant and others accompanying him, shortly thereafter, made good their escape. Investigating Officer had effected seizure of empty shells of cartridges, blood stained earth and also wearing apparel of the deceased. 7. Now coming to the evidence of Dudheshwar Singh (PW 3), we find the witness stating that he was operating diesel machine when he saw some male and female persons going towards south. He too ran there, when he noticed appellant going towards the field with Dhirendra Singh, Narendra Singh and Girija Singh holding double barrel gun with him. They returned and encircled deceased Manik Singh near cremation ground, pursuant to which, appellant fired shots on him in the abdominal region who drooped dead. He too ran there, when he noticed appellant going towards the field with Dhirendra Singh, Narendra Singh and Girija Singh holding double barrel gun with him. They returned and encircled deceased Manik Singh near cremation ground, pursuant to which, appellant fired shots on him in the abdominal region who drooped dead. Though he along with Suresh Singh had chased them for some distance, they escaped on a tractor. Yet there is evidence of Sita Ram Singh (PW 4), who says that after his father had taken meal he was at outer part of the house and shortly thereafter heard some sounds emanating from north and also saw appellant going towards field in the company of Dhirendra Singh and Narendra Singh carrying double barrel gun with him. Seeing them, though Ramdeni Singh ran towards village Kundai, he was chased by them and when they were retreating, Ramdeni Singh came and followed them. Deceased Manik Singh met them near cremation ground, pursuant to which while Dhirendra Singh dealt, lathi blows, which was thwarted by the deceased, appellant fired shots when Manik Singh dropped dead on receipt of injury in the abdominal region. Though assailant and others accompanying them were given a good chase, they were out of reach. 8. We may notice evidence of Manorama Devi (PW 6), also who was none else but wife of the deceased, and she says that her husband after irrigating land had gone to house for meal, and after she along with him was at the outer part of the house, she heard alarms and saw appellant going along with Dhirendra, Narendra and Girija Singh holding double barrel gun with him. When they ran towards wheat field, Ramdeni Singh, who was irrigating wheat field, escaped towards village Surmi and when appellant and others accompanying him had been retreating from wheat field followed by Ramdeni Singh, they happened to meet deceased Manik Singh, and then Dhirendra Singh took lathi and dealt lathi blows followed by shots fired by the appellant when Manik Singh dropped dead. 9. At this juncture, we may notice positive findings recorded by the doctor, Dr. Nagendra Prasad (PW 12) who during autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, stated to have noticed firearm wound 2"xl"x2-l/2"x abdomen depth on right back of the chest on the lower part. The margins of wound were inverted blackening around the injury. 9. At this juncture, we may notice positive findings recorded by the doctor, Dr. Nagendra Prasad (PW 12) who during autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, stated to have noticed firearm wound 2"xl"x2-l/2"x abdomen depth on right back of the chest on the lower part. The margins of wound were inverted blackening around the injury. On dissection, it was found that 11th and 12th ribs of chest were fractured and internal muscles, veins, and nerves near injury No. 1, were reputured. In the stomach, multiple small punctured injuries were noticed. The doctor also noticed 23 pellets of firearms in the abdominal cavity. In estimation of the doctor, death of the deceased was due to injuries caused by firearms leading to shock and haemorrhage and cardio respiratory failure. 10. Aditya Prasad (PW 11), stated to have recorded statement of Ramdeni Singh at the Police Station, on strength of which formal first information report was drawn up and investigation commenced. He visited place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, prepared inquest report over the dead body of the deceased, sent dead body to mortuary for post-mortem examination, seized blood stained wearing apparels, frame of spectacles of the deceased and also noticed copious blood at the place of occurrence. During investigation, he also effected seizure of double barrel gun and also live cartridges produced by father of the appellant at the police station. 11. There are host of other witnesses too whose evidence too are required for consideration though they may not be of much significance for appreciation of concept of guilt or innocence of the appellant. Shanti Devi (PW 5) was tendered by the State and there is nothing material in her evidence to merit consideration. Alakhdeo Ram (PW 8), placed on the record carbon copy of seizure memo, suggesting seizure of blood stained wearing apparel and also frame of spectacles of the deceased and also inquest report prepared by Police Officer. Though he acknowledged signature on these two documents, he resiled from being a witness to the preparation of these documents before him. Incidentally, both PWs, 8 and 9 happened to be the same person who were examined twice by the trial Court, apparently for two sets of evidence. Though he acknowledged signature on these two documents, he resiled from being a witness to the preparation of these documents before him. Incidentally, both PWs, 8 and 9 happened to be the same person who were examined twice by the trial Court, apparently for two sets of evidence. Ram Briksh Singh (PW 10), a constable, had placed on record, challan and also a double barrel gun and also five live cartridges which were allegedly produced by father of the appellant at the Police Station before the Investigating Officer. Similarly Chhedi Pandey (PW 13), a constable, had placed on the record challan and also blood stained wearing apparel of the deceased and also blood stained earth allegedly seized by the Investigating Officer during investigation. Likewise, Ram Nagina Singh, Havaldar (PW 14), top had placed on the record, challan. All these witnesses are more or less formal in nature who had either simply brought on the record some documents or had produced before the Court articles seized by the Investigating Officer during investigation. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State., 12. Commenting on credibility of Ram Bharat Singh (PW 1), submission canvassed at Bar on behalf of the appellant was that as on his own showing, the witness had been fighting litigation with the appellant in ceiling case, witness being inimical to the appellant did not deserve credence. This argument, however, would loose much of its significance for the reason that on his own showing the matter had been amicably settled between the witness and the appellant, pursuant to the panchaiti convened in the matter and, if that be so, there did not appear to be good reason to treat the witness inimical to the appellant. Though submission is that attention of the witness had been drawn by the defence, for he having not made parallel statement before the Dy. S.P. and also S.P, to saddle the appellant to be killer of the deceased, no where it was shown that this witness had not made parallel statement before the Investigating Officer to discredit him for making substantial improvement over the prosecution version. Though the witness acknowledges that Bakhora Singh had instituted a case against him but that was only to put pressure on him, as he was a witness in the instant case. Though the witness acknowledges that Bakhora Singh had instituted a case against him but that was only to put pressure on him, as he was a witness in the instant case. Though the witness stated that cremation ground, which was place of occurrence, situates at a distance of about 1/2 kms. from khalihan, where he was working, credibility of the witness would not loose for such distance, as he did not claim to have witnessed incident from his khalihan. He had followed the appellant and had forbidden him from committing overtact. Though attention of Suresh Yadav (PW 2), had been drawn, for he having not made parallel statement before Dy. S.P., no where it was shown that he had made any significant departure from narration made by him before the Investigating Officer during investigation. Though attention of Dudheshwar Singh (PW 3) was drawn by the defence, that was not on material particular of the incident, and though questions were put before the witness about he having not made parallel statement before Investigating Officer that the deceased had sustained injury in the abdominal region, no such questions were ever put before the Investigating /Officer. Similar analogy would operate in case of Dudheshwar Singh about visibility of the incident by him, as though he was working, on his own showing, at a distance of about 1/2, Km. from the place of occurrence, he too having noticed some male and female members going towards south rushed to that side, when he noticed appellant going towards field holding double barrel gun with him. 13. Credibility of Manorama Devi (PW 6), wife of the deceased was sought to be assailed on premises that though on her own showing the witness was quite available when first day the Investigating Officer had visited the village, she had not rendered her statement before the police and it was only on the following day that her statement was recorded by the police. On these premises, submission was that evidence of this witness was quite tainted that having been tutored, for which she was not examined on the first day by the Investigating Officer. Though attention of this witness too had been drawn by the defence that was not on material particulars of the incident to discredit her. She had accompanied her husband who had come to his house for meal and there was nothing unusual for her presence. 14. Though attention of this witness too had been drawn by the defence that was not on material particulars of the incident to discredit her. She had accompanied her husband who had come to his house for meal and there was nothing unusual for her presence. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to some statement of the witnesses would urge with all stress that it was acknowledged by none else but wife of the deceased that her son Ramdeni Singh had nexus with extremists and for internal dispute, her husband had been killed by the extremists. In our considered view, answers elicited from the witnesses were only in response to some suggestions given to the witness and the manner in which answers were recorded were the result of the loose recording of statement of the witness by the Presiding Officer. 15. Yet submission is that those who came to be examined by the State were all family members of the deceased, barring one witness, entirely to the exclusion of independent witnesses, possibly against whom no eye brows could have been raised. Referring to the evidence of PW 5, learned counsel would argue that though there are cluster of houses around the place of occurrence, but since none of them have been examined by the State at trial, bona fide of the prosecution version had become suspect. Our attention had been drawn to the evidence of PW 4, also who states that a number of persons had thronged to the place of occurrence on alarms raised during the incident, and we without multiplying decisions on the issue may say that time without numbers Courts have reiterated in catena of decisions that credible witness who even happened to be family members of the deceased would not deserve rejection, as in such situation the Court would be required to closely scrutinize their evidence to consider their credibility. We have given our due consideration to this aspect of the matter and find that the witnesses had not suffered infirmity which could render them unworthy of credence. Contentions are yet raised that considering the posture of the assailant and the deceased, possibility of the deceased sustaining injuries on the back part of his person, appears to be quite improbable and hence positive finding recorded by doctor was not in tune with ocular testimony of witnesses. Contentions are yet raised that considering the posture of the assailant and the deceased, possibility of the deceased sustaining injuries on the back part of his person, appears to be quite improbable and hence positive finding recorded by doctor was not in tune with ocular testimony of witnesses. We may, however, refer to the evidence of Manorama Devi (PW 6) who was ocular witness to the incident, and if she is to be believed, assailant had fired shots from north direction standing facing south and the deceased was standing facing south. We are afraid that if such a situation is visualized, there would be all possibility of deceased sustaining injuries on back part of his person and, hence finding recorded by the doctor would not run counter to the ocular testimony of the witnesses. 16. Unable to offer any meaningful criticism, learned counsel would urge that accepting prosecution version that the appellant and others accompanying him, had encircled the deceased, theory of deceased sustaining gun shot injuries on appellants allegedly firing shot, would be extremely improbable. However, we are not prepared to give much significance to some stray statement made by the witness about appellant and others having encircled the deceased. Such statements are usually made by the witnesses in their anxiety to lend assurance to the prosecution allegations. Yet there are good reasons for rejecting this argument, as if, PWs, 1,2 and 5 are to be considered about situation when the deceased sustained gun shot injury, concept of the deceased having encircled by the appellant and others vanishes. Taking the evidence of PW 1, when appellant had fired shots on the deceased, all others accompanying him were surrounding him. Taking evidence of PW 5, when appellant fired shots on the deceased, all those who accompanied, him were in front of him, and if PW 2, is to be believed, before the deceased could be encircled, appellant had fired shots on him and if that be so, submission made at Bar about there being no possibility of deceased sustaining injuries on having been encircled by the appellant and others looses all its significance. 17. 17. Yet other argument canvassed on behalf of the appellant was that though in the earliest version of Ramdeni Singh, no one was explicitly shown as eye-witnesses, quite a good number of persons came to be examined by the State during trial who claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses, and on these premises, argument was that simply for omission of name of the witnesses in the first information report evidence of these witnesses had to be discarded outright. Though this argument looks to be attractive, however, was devoid of value, as the first information report was not encyclopedia of the prosecution which was expected to contain all details leaving no scope for its elaboration at trial. Presence of these witnesses are reflected in evidence of others. Presence of Suresh Yadav (PW 2) had surfaced also in the evidence of Dudheshwar Singh (PW 3), as later claimed to have chased assailant and others after the appellant had fired shots on the deceased. Presence of Dudheshwar Singh (PW 3) had surfaced not only in the evidence of Sita Ram Singh (PW 4), but also in the evidence of Ramdeni Singh (PW 7) and similarly presence of Sitaram Singh (PW 4) would surface also in the evidence of Manorama Devi (PW 6) and Ramdeni Singh (PW 7) as eye-witness. Presence of Manorama Devi (PW 6) had well surfaced in evidence of Ramdeni Singh (PW 7), and that apart, they were not strangers that their presence during material time of incident would be questioned. Dudheshwar Singh (PW 3) and Sitaram Singh (PW 4) happened to be none else but sons of the deceased and Manorama Devi (PW 6) too as has been noticed, was wife of the deceased. 18. Yet contentions are raised that prosecution was also guilty of introducing distorted version about place of occurrence, as identity of the place of occurrence had not been explicitly established in evidence of any of the witnesses examined by the State but we may refer to the evidence of PWs, 2 and 3 who stated that adjacent north to the place of occurrence, which was cremation ground, there was a ditch, and similar had been the evidence of the Investigating Officer, and, if that be so, the place of occurrence described by the witness and the Investigating Officer was not an ambiguity and it was most explicit. 19. 19. Referring to the evidence of Ram Barat Singh (PW 1), and Sitaram Singh (PW 4), contentions are raised that since first hand information about incident had already been given by these witnesses to some other persons, that being the earliest version of the prosecution, the statement of Ramdeni Singh, which was considered to be the sheet anchor of the prosecution case, would not assume character of the earliest version. True it is that Ram Barat Singh (PW 1) stated to have met Rameshwar Chaukidar, to whom he narrated the incident and similar had been evidence of Sitaram Singh (PW 4), about he having rendered some statement before the Police, but for that reason, the earliest version about incident rendered by Ramdeni Singh (PW 7), would not loose its significance, which in fact assumed character of the first information report. One is to gauge as to what details were furnished by PW 1 to Rameshwar Chaukidar and similar was the case with PW 4 also, and hence even if some sort of information had been rendered by these two witnesses, preceding statement of Ramdeni Singh having been recorded by the police, that would not substitute first information report of which Ramdeni Singh was the maker. 20. Last and a formidable ground taken by the appellant was that taking prosecution case to be true on face value, since deceased had taken the lead and set the ball in motion, in assaulting Dhirendra Singh and also that as the appellant had acted without premeditation in sudden heat of passion on the sudden quarrel, case of the appellant would squarely be covered by explanation 4 of Section 300 IPC. Evidence on the record, however, explicitly suggests that after Narendra Singh had left the place of occurrence with firm determination to get his land irrigated from the channel water, appellant was seen rushing to the place of occurrence holding double barrel gun with him and that reflects premeditation of the appellant and betrays his defence that he had acted without premeditation in sudden heat of passion upon sudden quarrel. Since appellant had acted with premeditation holding lethal weapon, case of the appellant would squarely be covered by mischief of Section 302, IPC. 21. Since appellant had acted with premeditation holding lethal weapon, case of the appellant would squarely be covered by mischief of Section 302, IPC. 21. Having critically analysed evidences available on the record coupled with circumstances of the case, we are of the view that finding recorded by the Court below was well merited which did not leave little scope for interference. The appeal being meritless is accordingly dismissed. 22. I agree.