Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The appellant, Dinesh Singh is convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code and Section 27 Arms Act for killing one Ram Binod Singh by firing a shot at him from a country-made pistol He is sentenced by the Trial Court to rigorous imprisonment for life and for three years respectively for the two offences. 2. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the statement of Devendra Pd Singh (PW 4) made on 29.11.1986 at 9.10 a.m. at the railway crossing near Barauni flag railway station. The statement was made in presence of Vijay Shankar Singh (PW 1), Shri Narain Singh (PW 2) and Ashwini Kumar Singh (PW 3, son of the deceased) and it was recorded as fardbayan by the Officer InCharge, Teghra P.S. A formal FIR (Ext. 4/1) was later drawn up on the same day at 11 a.m. giving rise to Teghra P.S. Case No. 127 of 1986. 3. In the fardbayan the informant (PW 4) stated that in the morning of 29.11.1986 he had gone to Teghra at the house of Ram Binod Singh. At that time he was coming out of his house with a cycle. He accompanied him and requested him for going to the Divara for taking measurements of lands there. Thus talking, they reached near the Barauni flag station railway crossing. There, they met Vijay Shankar Singh and Shri Narain Singh who were the informants co-villagers. They were going somewhere out. They started talking there. Ram Binod Singh asked the informant to carry on along with the two saving that in the mean while he would go to Pandit Ji to show him the horoscope. The informant further stated that they were talking (informant Vijay Shankar Singh and Shri Narain Singh) for about half an hour when he saw Ram Binod Singh coming back on cycle towards the Gumti. At the same time he saw Dinesh Singh, Ramadhar Singh and Biswanath Singh standing together on the road at a distance of about 5-6 yards towards north of the Gumti. From a little distance. Dinesh Singh said Pranam to Ram Binod Singh and on this Ram Binod Singh stopped the cycle, planting his leg (s) on the ground without dismounting from the seat. At this point. Biswanath Singh fired a shot at him from a country-made pistol. From a little distance. Dinesh Singh said Pranam to Ram Binod Singh and on this Ram Binod Singh stopped the cycle, planting his leg (s) on the ground without dismounting from the seat. At this point. Biswanath Singh fired a shot at him from a country-made pistol. Dinesh Singh fired the second shot from a country-made pistol that hit him near the left ear. Ramadhar Singh also shot at him but it mis-fired. Then Ramadhar Singh hit him hard in the face with the butt of the pistol. Shri Ram Binod Singh fell down on the ground. It was 8.25 in the morning at that time. 4. He further said that the incident led to a stampede and the accused persons also fled away towards north in the direction of Barivarpur embankment. 5. The informant further stated that along with other villagers, he rushed to Ram Binod Singh but found him dead. 6. In the mean while a police party from Teghra P.S. reached the place of occurrence and on being told about the occurrence the police party went in pursuit of the accused. The informant and the two witnesses and a number of other villagers joined the police party in chasing them. While being pursued, accused Biswanath Singh threatened his pursuers brandishing his pistol and asked them to go back otherwise he would shoot at them. After much chasing Vishwanath Singh was apprehended by the police party and a country-made pistol was seized from his hand. The other two accused were successful in making good their escape. On opening the pistol seized from Biswanath Singh, it was found that a mis-fired shot had got stuck in it. 7. The informant further said that old enmity was the motive behind killing Ram Binod Singh. The statement was read out to him and on finding it correctly recorded, the informant put his signature which in course of trial was marked as Ext. 1 /1. The fardbayan was also signed by Ashwini Kumar Singh, the son of the deceased and his signature on the fardbayan was marked as Ext. 1. 8. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the three accused named in the fardbayan. The three accused were charged under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Accused Biswanath Singh was additionally charged under Section 307 of the Penal Code. 1. 8. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the three accused named in the fardbayan. The three accused were charged under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Accused Biswanath Singh was additionally charged under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The three accused, thus charged, were put on trial. 9. The trial of this case appears to have passed through much turbulence. The offence took place on 29.11.1986. The charges were framed on 21.5.1987. The first prosecution witness was examined on 18.6.1987 and the last witness, PW 8 from 19.9.1987 to. 30.11.1987. Upto this stage the case proceeded smoothly and, by the standards of this State, rather, promptly. But the judgment could be delivered by the Trial Court after about fourteen years, on 10.8.2000. It appears that a fire took place in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge I, Begusarai and in that fire the records of this case were also partially damaged. From the records it appears that the order-sheet, the fardbayan, the charge sheet and the depositions of witnesses were singed and burnt at the bottom and the edges. This might have been the cause of some delay in the final disposal of the trial. 10. But there were graver things to happen. 11. The case seems to come from a volatile part of the State (Begusarai) and from violent times. It has a (sic) trail behind it and ahead of it. The case had started with three accused persons facing trial. Two of them, namely. Ramadhar Singh and Biswanath Singh are reported to have been murdered while the trial was still unconcluded. Consequently, the name of Biswanath Singh was dropped from the trial proceedings vide orders, dated 6.2.1990 and 18.7.1990 and that of Ramadhar Singh by order, dated 4.5.1992. Further from the order, dated 9.9.1994 it appears that Devendera Singh (the informant, PW 4) too was killed before the trial was concluded. 12. These are some of the murders taking place after the occurrence that is the subject matter of the present appeal. In 1979 Ramudgar Singh (who was the father of Ramadhar Singh and father-in-law of Biswanath Singh) was killed in 1980 Rajendra Singh and Upendra Singh, two brothers of the informant Devendra Prasad Singh were killed. 12. These are some of the murders taking place after the occurrence that is the subject matter of the present appeal. In 1979 Ramudgar Singh (who was the father of Ramadhar Singh and father-in-law of Biswanath Singh) was killed in 1980 Rajendra Singh and Upendra Singh, two brothers of the informant Devendra Prasad Singh were killed. In 1981 Parshuram, brother of Ram Udgar was killed and in the same year Kari Singh, brother of Dinesh Singh was also killed. In his cross-examination the informant Devendra Pd. Singh (PW 4) admitted that he was facing trial as an accused in three different murder trials. Those trials were for the murders of Ramudgar Singh, his brother Parshuram and Kari Singh, the brother of Dinesh Singh, the present appellant. He (Devendra Pd. Singh, PW 4) of course said that he had been falsely implicated in those three cases. 13. It is in this background that the occurrence being the subject matter of this appeal took place. The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses and produced before the Court a large number of exhibits both documentary and material. Among the material exhibits produced before the Court were the country made pistol (M. Ext. XI} and one (mis-fired live cartridge) Ext. XII seized from the accused Bishwanath Singh. The prosecution also produced as material exhibits the articles belonging to and found near the body of the deceased Ram Binod Singh. These included, apart from the clothes, chappals etc. that he was wearing at the material time, two horoscopes, two semi-precious stones, one (pen) knife, one bicycle. 14. It is now time to examine the witnesses examined by the prosecution but before proceeding to do so. I would like to say a word about the way the cross-examination of the witnesses has been conducted. The cross-examinations appear to be interminable, meandering and in parts completely senseless. The witnesses were examined over several dates. And one has to plod through several pages of the witnesses deposition before one may come across any statement having some relevance to the issues involved in the case. It is inexplicable how and why did the trial Judge allow such meaningless cross-examination. 15. The witnesses were examined over several dates. And one has to plod through several pages of the witnesses deposition before one may come across any statement having some relevance to the issues involved in the case. It is inexplicable how and why did the trial Judge allow such meaningless cross-examination. 15. As noted above, there are eight prosecution witnesses in this case, PW 5 is a witness to the inquest report and PW 6 to the seizure list in regard to the articles that were found on the person of the deceased. PW 7 is the doctor who held post mortem on the body of the deceased and PW 8 is the I.O. who at the material time was the Officer Incharge, Teghra P.S. The rest of the four witnesses PWs I to 4 are eye witnesses of the occurrence. PW 4 is the informant; PWs 1 and 2 are the two persons with whom he was talking at the railway crossing at the time of the commission of the offence and PW 3 is the son of the deceased. He arrived at the place of occurrence on hearing the shots. He saw the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood and the three accused persons including the appellant fleeing away with pistols in their hands. 16. PW 7, the doctor stated before the Court that he had found the following antemortem injuries on the body of Ram Binod Singh : "(i) One 1 /4" circular wound on the back of the chest on the left side two inches away from midline and below left lower angle of scapula (wound of entrance). On further dissection the wound traversed anteriorly and piercing the right ventricle of the heart and coming out anteriorly in the midline below sternum making a half inch circular wound of exit. (ii) One half inch circular wound just at the upper end of left ear rupturing the pinna. On dissection the wound traversed through both parietal lobes of brain and came out after making an one inch circular whole in the right temporal bone. There is skin gap here of about 3" x 2" having lacerated injury. (iii) One lacerated wound over middle of upper lip, both central upper incisers are missing." 17. On dissection the wound traversed through both parietal lobes of brain and came out after making an one inch circular whole in the right temporal bone. There is skin gap here of about 3" x 2" having lacerated injury. (iii) One lacerated wound over middle of upper lip, both central upper incisers are missing." 17. The doctor gave his opinion that injuries (i) and (ii) were caused by fire-arm, such as pistol and injury No. (iii) was caused by some hard blunt substance, such as pistol butt. The death had resulted from injuries (i) and (ii) causing cardiac and brain injuries. 18. The medical evidence, thus, confirms that Ram Binod Singh died as a result of gun shot injuries and it fully supports the prosecution case. 19. The ocular evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 is equally consistent and fully supports the prosecution case on all material points. The informant stated about the occurrence from the beginning. He said that he went to the house of Ram Binod Singh to request him to go to the Diyara for taking measurements of the aluvial lands of the river. Taking, they came to the crossing of Barauni flag railway station. There they met PWs 1 and 2 who were his co-villagers and he began talking to them. There, Ram Binod Singh left him saving that he would come back after showing the horoscope to Pandit Ji. They were standing there talking when after half an hour, he saw Ram Binod Singh coming towards the railway crossing on his cycle. Ram Binod Singh stopped his cycle when appellant No. 1 said Pranam to him. He was still on the cycle with leg (s) planted on the ground when Biswanath Singh fired at him from behind. At the same time the appellant fired the second shot that hit him near the left ear and as a result of which he fell down on the ground. Then Ramadhar Singh too shot at him but it mis-fired. He then hit Ram Binod Singh hard on his face by the butt of his* pistol. The accused then fled towards north. In the mean while the police party arrived from Teghra P.S. They pursued the three accused and were able to apprehend accused Ramadhar who was still carrying the country-made pistol in his hand. He then hit Ram Binod Singh hard on his face by the butt of his* pistol. The accused then fled towards north. In the mean while the police party arrived from Teghra P.S. They pursued the three accused and were able to apprehend accused Ramadhar who was still carrying the country-made pistol in his hand. The pistol was seized and on being opened it was found to contain a shot that had got stuck into it. 20. He was then brought to the spot where the body of Ram Binod Singh was lying on the road and there his statement was recorded as fardbayan on which both he and Ashwini Kumar Singh put their respective signatures. 21. PWs 1 and 2 similarly gave a graphic picture of the occurrence from the point they met the informant and the deceased at the railway crossing. PW 3, the son of the deceased stated that his father, while leaving the house had told him that he was going to Pandit Ji for showing him the horoscope and the two stones and had asked him to come there a little later. He had, accordingly, proceeded from his house for going to the Pandit Jis place. When he was near the railway crossing, he heard two pistol shots and came rushing to the railway crossing. There he found his father lying dead on the road in a pool of blood and the three accused persons fleeing away with pistols in their hands. He was told by witnesses that his father had been killed by the three accused. He wanted to go in their pursuit but stayed back to try to tend his father but he was already dead. One of the accused Ramadhar Singh was apprehended by the policy party and he was brought to the place of occurrence. Here the fardbayan was recorded on which he also put his signature. 22. The evidences of all the four witnesses appear to be perfectly clear and consistent with each other. Their presence at the P.O. is fully explained and their evidences appear to be quite natural and reliable and I see no reason not to accept their evidence. 23. Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was a case of false implication. Their presence at the P.O. is fully explained and their evidences appear to be quite natural and reliable and I see no reason not to accept their evidence. 23. Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was a case of false implication. He submitted that from the murders taking place in the past, it was clear that there was a feud between Ram Udgar Singhs family and the family of the informant Devendra Pd. Singh. There was also clearly enmity between the informant Devendra Pd. Singh and the appellant Dinesh Singh inasmuch as the appellants brother Kari Singh was killed in 1981 and Devendra Pd. Singh was one of the accused in that case. Mr. Singh submitted that it was understandable that Dinesh Singh would try to kill the informant Devendra Pd. Singh but he had no reason to kill Ram Binod Singh with whom he had no previous history of enmity. According to the learned counsel, the natural target of Dinesh Singh would have been Devendra Pd. Singh and not Ram Binod Singh. 24. I am unable to accept the submission. In view of the clear, cogent and reliable evidence, the question of motive loses practically all significance. The motive for the appellant to kill Ram Binod Singh might not have come into sharp focus but it is clearly established from reliable evidence that he had fired the shot hitting Ram Binod Singh near his left ear and causing his death. Further, from the materials on record it appears that Ram Binod Singh used to help the accused in cases of murder of members of Ram Udgars family, that is to say, though not involved directly, he appeared to be helping and assisting the other side (prosecution side in this case) and that might very well have been the motive for the appellant and the two other accused to do away with him. 25. Mr. Singh next contended that the whole prosecution case was based on the fardbayan (Ext. 5) which, according to him, was a document fabricated by the informant Devendra Pd. Singh. Mr. Singh submitted that the first statement in regard to the murder of Ram Binod Singh was in fact made by his son Ashwini Kumar which was against unknown persons. But Devendra Pd. 5) which, according to him, was a document fabricated by the informant Devendra Pd. Singh. Mr. Singh submitted that the first statement in regard to the murder of Ram Binod Singh was in fact made by his son Ashwini Kumar which was against unknown persons. But Devendra Pd. Singh got that statement suppressed and substituted it by his own statement, citing the three accused, including the present appellant as the killers of Ram Binod Singh. Learned counsel made such a radical challenge to the prosecution case on the basis of two circumstances : one is the inquest report and the other is the statement of PW 3 as contained in para 32 of his deposition. Counsel pointed out that the fardbay an was recorded at 9.10 hours and the inquest report was prepared next at 9.30 hours. At the top of the inquest report, it was first written : "Ref:Fardbeyan of Ashwani Kumar, S/o Late Ram Binod Singh, Devendra Singh, S/o Ambika Singh of village Madhurapur Purwari Tola, P.S. Teghra, District Begusarai." 26. Later on "Ashwani Kumar, son of Late Ram Binod" was penned through and above it was written Devendra Singh, son of Ambika. 27. He also referred to para 32 of the deposition of PW 3 where he said that. Darogaji had taken his statement and the statement of Devendra Singh, Shri Narain Singh and Vijay Shankar Singh : that Darogaji read out the statement made by him and Devendra Singh and then they put their respective signatures on it. 28. It is on the basis of these two circumstances that Mr. Singh contended that the first statement in regard to the murder of Ram Binod Singh was in fact made by his son Ashwini Kumar Singh and the present FIR a fabricated document, was later substituted in place of the original. 29. In my view the circumstances relied upon by the learned counsel make a peg too weak and fragile to bear the weight of such a heavy and onerous allegation. The cutting in the inquest report is fully explained by I.O. himself in paras 33 to 38 of his deposition. He stated that the cutting was a matter of simple correction. The name of Ashwini Kumar was written by mistake and, therefore, it was cut and the name of he informant was correctly written in its place. The cutting in the inquest report is fully explained by I.O. himself in paras 33 to 38 of his deposition. He stated that the cutting was a matter of simple correction. The name of Ashwini Kumar was written by mistake and, therefore, it was cut and the name of he informant was correctly written in its place. He also denied that before recording the Jardbayan of Devendra Pd. he had taken down any statement of Ashwini Kumar son of the deceased. 30. I find no difficulty in accepting that the fardbay an of Devendra Pd. Singh was the first recorded statement in regard to the occurrence. There is nothing wrong in the first statement being made by a person other than the son of the deceased, more so as the son was not an eye witness to the actual occurrence. The contention of the counsel is further unacceptable in view of the fact that at least one of the three accused was caught by the police shortly after the occurrence. A country-made pistol and a mis-fired cartridge was recovered from him which were produced in Court as material exhibits XI and XII. There is, therefore, no question of the first statement being against unknown persons. I am, therefore, unable to accept Mr. Singhs submission that the prosecution case is based on a fabricated FIR. 31. Learned counsel next submitted that the position of the injuries said to have been caused by the appellant is not consistent with the ocular evidence. Learned counsel referred to PWs 1, 2 and 4 and pointed out that, according to them, the deceased was coming towards north: the appellant was standing towards north west of him, that is to say, he was in front of the deceased and slightly to his right. Mr. Singh submitted that from the position any shot fired by the appellant would hit the deceased in his face or forehead and not on the upper end of left ear. I do not find any substance in this submission either. The deceased had already received a shot at his back and as a result he would be slumping down. Then the appellant aims a pistol at him from the front. I do not find any substance in this submission either. The deceased had already received a shot at his back and as a result he would be slumping down. Then the appellant aims a pistol at him from the front. It is only natural that he would flinch and turn away his face and if the shot is fired in that position, he is very likely to receive it on his left ear. 32. Mr. Singh lastly submitted that much blood had already flown and three of the persons dramatis, that is, the two accused and the informant got eliminated even during the course of the trial. He made a forceful appeal that the Court should try to put an end to the blood bath and submitted that sending the appellant to jail after seventeen years of the occurrence would only keep the feud alive and might lead to further killings. He pointed out that after the death of the informant, the two other eye witnesses, namely, PWs 1 and 2 had filed a compromise petition jointly with the appellant on 9.9.1994. The Trial Court of course rejected it as the case was under Section 302 of the Penal Code. I am unable to clearly follow the import of the submission but the learned counsel relied upon a Supreme Court decision in Mahesh Chand and Another V/s. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111 and another decision of this Court in Jai Prakash Chaurasia V/s. State of Bihar, 1994 (2) BLJ 419 . In Mahesh Chand the Supreme Court had directed the Trial Court to allow the parties to compound the offence in a case under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The order was passed in the special facts and circumstances of the case. In Jai Prakash Chaurasia, the case before this Court, though the offences were under Sections 498-A, 406 and 494 of the Penal Code, the compounding was allowed having regard to the fact that the parties to the dispute were wife and husband. The facts of the two cases are completely different and they have no relevance to the case in hand. In fact I have noted down the submission simply because it was advanced by the counsel for the appellant. The facts of the two cases are completely different and they have no relevance to the case in hand. In fact I have noted down the submission simply because it was advanced by the counsel for the appellant. In a case of murder where the guilt of the accused is fully established on the basis of reliable and trustworthy evidence, there can be no question of any compounding. The appellant has committed the offence and must bear the consequences as laid down by the law. 33. On a careful consideration of the , materials on record and the submissions made on behalf of the parties. I find no merit in this appeal. The judgment and order passed by the Trial Court are accordingly confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. B.K.Jha, J. 34 I agree.