AFTAB ALAM, J.:- This appeal arises from the judgment and order, dated 9/14.11.2000 passed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 430 of 1998. By the judgment and order coming under appeal, the sole appellant Sujit Kumar Singh @ Kalpu Singh stands convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life; the Trial Court omitted to direct whether the imprisonment would be rigorous or simple. Though the appellant was separately charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act and though the trial court found it established that the murder was committed by a pistol, it did not convict him for that charge simply on the ground that conviction under Section 302 was already recorded. The trial court was clearly in error in taking this view. An offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act is a distinct and separate offence and once the ingredients were complete, the conviction and sentence for that offence must follow notwithstanding the conviction of the accused for other more serious offence(s). It is another matter that the Court in its discretion could have directed the sentences of imprisonment for two offences to run concurrently. It is further to be noted that the Trial Court had before it another accused Bisheshwar Singh @ Bisho Singh, also charged under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. By the judgment under appeal, the other-accused Bisheshwar Singh was acquitted. It is not clear how the Trial Court was able to distinguish his case from the present appellant. But as no appeal is before this Court against the acquittal of the other accused, it will not be proper to make any further observation in that regard. 2. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of statement made by one Bangali Sah, P.W.7 (father of the deceased Rajendra Sah) by the side of the dead body of this son, lying in the Janera field of Kuso Singh at village Shakh Mohan on 24.9.1996 at 11.15 A.M. The statement was recorded by A.S.I, R.N. Mahto of Bibhutipur P.S. in the form of fardbeyan (Ext. 3). A formal F.I.R. (Ext. 5) was later drawn up on the same day at 2.30 in the after-noon, giving rise to Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 120/1996. 3). A formal F.I.R. (Ext. 5) was later drawn up on the same day at 2.30 in the after-noon, giving rise to Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 120/1996. The F.I.R. was produced in Court and it was seen by the A.C.J.M. on 25.9.1996. 3. In the fardbeyan Bangali Sah stated that on 24.9.1996 at about 8.15 in the morning after taking meal he along with his son Rajendra Sah proceeded on cycle for Dalsingsarai for bringing articles for his shop. Behind him Madan Sah, P.W.6, Surendra Sah, P.W.5, Anup Narain Sah, P.W4 of his village were also going to Dalsingsarai on their respective cycles. At about 8.30 they reached the Janera field of Kuso Singh at the south western corner at a distance of 200 yards from his house. There Daya Singh, Bisho Singh and Sujit Kumar Singh @ Kalpu Singh (the appellant) who were hiding in the Janera field from before came out and stopped the cycle of his son. Gaya Singh and Bisheshwar Singh @ Bisho Singh ordered to shoot Rajenjra Sah saying that he was trying to become a 'hero'. On their exhortation Sujit Kumar Singh @ Kalpu Singh took out a pistol from the left side of his waist and with the intent to kill his son fired a shot from close range. The pistol bullet his son Rajendra Sah slightly below the left eye and came out near the right temple, tearing away a piece of flesh. On receiving the gun shot, the informant's son fell down writhing on the ground. The informant and those coming behind him rushed to his aid but he died on the spot. On the wailing and crying of the informant and others who were coming from behind, many people arrived there who also witnessed the occurrence and saw the accused persons fleeing away towards west. 4. As regards motive, the informant stated in the fardbayan that Kalpu Singh @ Sujit Kumar Singh, sitting at the door of Janardan Mahto, by the side of their house, used to make offensive remarks while his daughter-in-law had her bath under a hand pump in their Bari (thatched enclosure). On this his deceased son Rajendra Sah had protested and for this a Panchayati was also held in the village. 5. On this his deceased son Rajendra Sah had protested and for this a Panchayati was also held in the village. 5. The informant concluded by stating that he read his recorded statement and also got it read over in presence of his co-villagers Anup Narain Sah, P.W.4 and finding it correct put his signature. The informant's signature was later marked as Ext. 1 1/2. Anup Narain Sah had also put his signature on the fardbeyan which was marked in the Court as Ext. 1/1. 6. Though the fardbeyan named Gaya Singh also as one of the accused, on investigation only Bisheshwar Singh and the appellant were sent up for trial and the Trial Court convicted and sentenced only the appellant as indicated above. 7. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined nine witnesses. The defence also examined one witness in order to prove a letter said to have been written by the informant which was marked as Ex. A. 8. P.W.s 1 and 2 testified before the Court that on hearing hulla they went running to the place of occurrence and saw the accused persons, including the appellant, fleeing away. P.W.s 4 to 7 (P.W. 7, being the informant) are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.3 is a witness of the seizure list. P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.8 is the doctor who held post mortem over the body of Rajendra Sah. 9. From the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.8 and the post mortem report (Ext. 2) it appears that the deceased Rajendra Sah had the following ante-mortem injuries on his person: "i) One circular lacerated wound with inverted margin and blacking around the wound of ¼ " diameter x cavity deep on left side of cheek below left eye and 1" lateral to nose (wound of entry). "ii) One irregular lacerated wound with everted margin of ½” diameter x cavity deep over right mastoid region behind right ear. "iii) Multiple pin head size blackening of stain due to burn all over face, neck and upper part of chest. "Injury no.(1) & (2) is communicating. On deep dissection of skull, there were fracture of maxilay and right mastoid bone with laceration of meninges and brain matter. Blood and blood clot was present." The Doctor further opined that the time elapsed between death and post-mortem was within 36 hours. 10. "Injury no.(1) & (2) is communicating. On deep dissection of skull, there were fracture of maxilay and right mastoid bone with laceration of meninges and brain matter. Blood and blood clot was present." The Doctor further opined that the time elapsed between death and post-mortem was within 36 hours. 10. The medical evidence leaves no room for doubt that Rajendra Sah was Killed by a gun-shot injury. The only question, to be examined, therefore, is whether it was the appellant who caused the injury. 11. P.W.1 Mahendra Sah is the uncle and P.W.2 Sitaram Sah, a cousin of the deceased, being a nephew of the informant. They lived in a common house with the informant and his deceased son. P.W.1 stated that on the date of occurrence at about 8.30 in the morning he was at his house. On hearing hylla, he went to the place of occurrence. There he saw blood flowing from the body of Rajendra Sah and two persons Kalpu Singh (appellant) and Bisho Singh fleeing in the western direction. P.W.1 also stated about the appellant making objectionable remarks while the wife of the deceased had bath which had led to a Panchayati. 12. P.W.2 similarly stated that on the date of occurrence at about 8.30 he was at his house. On hearing hulla he rushed to the place of occurrence at a distance of 200 yards towards west where he saw Madan Sah, P.W.6, Anup Sah, P.W.4, Shailendra Sah, corrected to Surendra Sah, P.W.5 and Bengali Sah (the informant) P.W.7 raising hulla and the appellant and Bisho Singh fleeing hurriedly towards the west. There the dead body of Rajeshwar Sah @ Rajendra Sah was lying smeared with blood. He also stated about the previous quarrel between the deceased and the appellant that had led to a Panchayati. 13. Coming next to the eye witnesses it may be noted that P.Ws 4, 5, 6 and 7 are small village shop keepers. At the time of occurrence they were all going together to Dalsinghsarai-for bringing provisions and article for their shops. P.W 7 Bengali Sah and his son the deceased Rajendra Sah were on the same cycle with the deceased riding and the witness sitting behind on the carrier. They were slightly ahead, followed by P.Ws 4, Sand 6 on their respective cycles. 14. P.W 7 Bengali Sah and his son the deceased Rajendra Sah were on the same cycle with the deceased riding and the witness sitting behind on the carrier. They were slightly ahead, followed by P.Ws 4, Sand 6 on their respective cycles. 14. P.W. 7 in his deposition before the Court gave an identical account to the one already stated by him in the fardbeyan. He stated about the time, the exact spot where the assault took place, the manner in which the shot was fired at his son and the previous quarrel between his son and the appellant over the indecent remarks made by the appellant about his wife. He also named the persons (P.Ws 3 to 6 among them) who witnessed the occurrence and those (P.Ws 1, 2 and some others) who came to the spot on hearing hulla and saw the assailants, including the appellant, fleeing away. On recall he proved before the Court an informatory petition dated 1.8.1996 filed by his son in the Rosera Court against the appellant in regard to the previous quarrel between the two. The informatory petition was marked as Ext. 6. 15. P.Ws 4, Sand 6 also fully supported the prosecution case on all material points. 16. The defence also examined one witness Ram Baran Jha. He is a resident not of village Shak Mohan but of village Gangauli. He stated before the Court that he knew Bengali Sah (P.W.7), Sanjay Kumar son of Upendra Singh and Bisho Singh. About 3-3 1/4 years back he was at the shop of Bengali Sah when Sanjay came there carrying a letter for him and said that his father had called him. Bengali Sah expressed his inability due to illness but asked Sanjay to write down a letter as dictated by him; that Bengali Sah dictated a letter which was written down by Sanjay. Bengali Sah then read it and put his signature. The letter which was earlier marked X for identification was marked as Ext. A on being identified by the witness. In this letter purported to be dictated by P.W.7 it is stated that Bisho Singh had given him the threat that he would commit two more murders; that Bisho - Singh was earlier innocent but he now became guilty. The letter which was earlier marked X for identification was marked as Ext. A on being identified by the witness. In this letter purported to be dictated by P.W.7 it is stated that Bisho Singh had given him the threat that he would commit two more murders; that Bisho - Singh was earlier innocent but he now became guilty. Where should he (Bangli Sah) go from the village; and further that Kalpu Singh was falsely implicated not by him but by the villagers. 17. Mr. Keshav Srivastava, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant first assailed the testimony of P.Ws 1 and 2. He pointed out some discrepancies and omissions in their respective statements. Those are to my mind quite trivial and have no adverse effect either on the testimony of the two witnesses or on the over-all prosecution case. Mr. Srivastava further submitted that these two witnesses were at the house from which the place of occurrence was admittedly at a distance of 200 yards towards south-west. He contended that it was impossible to see anything from the house as the Janera crops were standing upto the height of 7-8 ft. He further submitted that the time taken in hulla being raised, the two witnesses hearing the hulla and in response to it running to the place of occurrence and finally arriving there would be so much as be sufficient for the assailants to make good their escape. According to him it was impossible for them to have been the appellant fleeing away towards west as claimed by them. He contended that P.Ws 1 and 2 had made an incorrect and false statement before the Court and they were not worthy of reliance. 18. Without going into the controversy whether it would be possible for P.Ws 1 and 2 to arrive at the place of occurrence from their house at a distance of 200 yards and to see the appellant fleeing away, even if their evidence is discounted, we are left with four eye witnesses of the occurrence whose testimony appears to be cm-impeachable. 19. Mr. Srivastava tried to persuade the Court to believe that the fardbeyan of Bengali Sah, P.W.7 was not the first version of the occurrence. 19. Mr. Srivastava tried to persuade the Court to believe that the fardbeyan of Bengali Sah, P.W.7 was not the first version of the occurrence. He stated that the matter was first reported to the Police by one Shailendra Singh (not examined as witness), another associate of the informant who had gone to the Bibhutipur Police Station. Though he reported about Rajendra Sah being killed, he did not name anyone as assailant (s) and it was for that reason that no F.I.R. was lodged but only a station-diary entry was made. Later on when the A.S.I. came to the place of occurrence a thought-after version was narrated to him in which the appellant was named as the assailant due to previous enmity. 20. The submission of Mr. Srivastava appears to be pure conjecture and there is no material in its support. The whole submission is built-up on the fact that earlier a station-diary entry was made at the Police Station in regard to the occurrence and that P.W.2 stated that Shailendra Singh had gone to the P.S. But on a careful examination of the materials on record the submission appears to be quite unfounded. 21. The I.O., P.W.9 in his deposition clearly stated that on 24.9.1996 while at the Police Station he heard a rumour that someone was killed at village Shak Mohan. He recorded a Sanha and came to the village (at a distance of about 15 KM) along with 3-4 of his colleagues. He reached at the place of occurrence at 11.15 and found Rajendra Sah lying dead. His father Bengali Sah was also there. He wrote down his statement as the fardbeyan. 22. It is noted above that from the fardbeyan itself it appears that it was recorded at 11.15 on 24.9.1996. It is thus evident that the news regarding murder having taken place at the village must have reached the Police Station between 9-10 A.M. and the Sanha entry, though not on record, must have been made at that time. On the contrary P.W.2 stated that Shailendra Singh went to the Police Station for giving the information; that he proceeded for the Police Station, at about 11-12; that he lodged the report and it was he who said that he had reported the matter to the police. Shailendra Singh himself was not examined. On the contrary P.W.2 stated that Shailendra Singh went to the Police Station for giving the information; that he proceeded for the Police Station, at about 11-12; that he lodged the report and it was he who said that he had reported the matter to the police. Shailendra Singh himself was not examined. It is, therefore, evident that either Shailendra Singh had wrongly told P.W.2 or that P.W.2 made that statement in some confusion. I, therefore, find no substance in the plea that the assailant (s) of the deceased was/were unknown, that in the first report of the occurrence no one was named as assailant (s) and that the fardbeyan (Ext.3) is not the first report but an after thought and concocted version of the occurrence. 23. Mr. Srivastava next submitted that the I.O. did not make seizure of the cycle on which the deceased and P.W.7 were going. He also did not seize any article (s), shopping list, blood stained clothes of the deceased etc. and the non-production of the cycle and the aforesaid articles before the Trial Court should give rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution. In regard to the non-seizure of the cycle he also relied upon a bench decision of this Court in Mazister Rai & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, 2000 (1) PLJR 471 (Para 10). 24. I am unable to accept the submission. The non-seizure of the articles pointed out by Mr. Srivastava may be described as a deficiency in the investigation but it caused no prejudice to the appellant and it can have no adverse effect on the prosecution case. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel was also on altogether different set of facts and it has no application to this case. 25. Mr. Srivastava next submitted that the occurrence took place on a narrow Aar (narrow ridge) separating two fields and it was at best a single file passage. He further submitted that there were bends in the path and the standing Janera crops would make it impossible for those coming behind (P.W.s 4, 5 and 6) to actually witness the occurrence. I am unable to accept the submission. A cycle is an extremely versatile mode of conveyance. He further submitted that there were bends in the path and the standing Janera crops would make it impossible for those coming behind (P.W.s 4, 5 and 6) to actually witness the occurrence. I am unable to accept the submission. A cycle is an extremely versatile mode of conveyance. It does not require much space and even on a village are 3-4 persons can easily follow each other quite closely and there should be no difficulty for those coming behind in witnessing the occurrence. 26. Mr. Srivastava next submitted that according to the prosecution case the murder was committed at 8.30 on 24.9.1996. The post mortem was held at 5.30 P.M. on the same day. The Doctor had found that rigor mortis was partially present and he had opined that the death had taken place within 36 hours of the post mortem. According to him, therefore, the death had taken place much earlier then 8.30 on 24.9.1996 and he was killed by some unknown person. The medical evidence does not justify any such inference. The Doctor simply said that the death had taken place within 36 hours of his examination. It cannot mean that the doctor examined the body after twelve hours of his being killed. 27. Mr. Srivastava also submitted that both the motive and the genesis of the occurrence were not free from doubt and therefore the prosecution story is liable to be disbelieved. I am once again unable to accept the submission. First in view of such un-impeachable occular evidence the question of motive loses much of its significance. Second, I find that the story of previous quarrel between the appellant and the deceased over the former making indecent remarks about his wife is well established. Mr. Srivastava lastly relied upon the letter Ext. A to submit that the appellant and the other accused were falsely implicated in this case. I am unable to place any reliance on the letter of which even the alleged writer was no examined. 28. On a careful consideration of all the materials on record and the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, I am of the view that the prosecution fully established its case and the conviction of the appellant was rightly arrived at. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant warrant no interference in appeal. 28. On a careful consideration of all the materials on record and the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, I am of the view that the prosecution fully established its case and the conviction of the appellant was rightly arrived at. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant warrant no interference in appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the direction that the sentence of imprisonment for life against the appellant would be rigorous.