Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-This is an appeal against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases & Addl. Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh dated 01.08.2000 in Sessions Case No.67/97 (136/97) convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC, Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/ -, in default thereof to further undergo two years’ simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act directing that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present matter are that on May 15, 1997, PW. 1 Gopal lodged a verbal report Exhibit P/1 (FIR) before PW. 21 Govind Singh, SHO, Police Station Badi Sadri stating inter alia therein that at about 7.45 PM while he was sitting at his house, his maternal nephew PW. 2 Loger came there and informed that Narbada Singh (since expired, hereinafter to be referred as ‘the deceased’), Jaita and he himself were on a motorcycle and going from Bhachedi to the house of Jaita to bring his wife and reached near the field of Bheru Singh, they found 10-12 persons standing at the way side. Accused Nanada was having a gun in his hand the other accused were having lathis and Dhariyas. Appellant Nanda then fired from his gun hitting the deceased in the chest and they fell down from the motorcycle. Choka, Kalu and Chaina then inflicted lathi blows on the person of PW. 2 Loger. Loger and Jaita managed to escape from the place of occurrence. He alongwith Loger and Meghraj then went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased there. It was also stated that the accused were in inimical terms with the deceased on account of some agricultural field dispute. On this report Exhibit P/1, a criminal case No. 163/94 under Secs. 323, 302, 147, 148, 149 and 341 was registered and investigation commenced. 3. During the course of investigation, PW. 21 Govind Singh, Investigating Officer proceeded on the spot and prepared Exhibit P/2 Panchayatnama in presence of Panchas. The Panchas were of the opinion that the deceased died due to gunshot pallet injury. Site was inspected and Inspection Note and Site-plan Exs. 3. During the course of investigation, PW. 21 Govind Singh, Investigating Officer proceeded on the spot and prepared Exhibit P/2 Panchayatnama in presence of Panchas. The Panchas were of the opinion that the deceased died due to gunshot pallet injury. Site was inspected and Inspection Note and Site-plan Exs. P/3 & P/4 respectively were prepared in presence of Raju and Pyara. Control soil and blood smeared soil was lifted from the spot and was seized and sealed through Exhibit P/5 in presence of Raju and Pyara. Photographer PW. 5 Jinendra Kumar took photographs of the dead body. The photographs and negatives are Exs.P/7 to P/9 & Exhibit P/10 respectively. PW. 8 Dr. Pooran Singh conducted postmortem of the dead body. Postmortem Report is Exhibit P/13. PW. 8 Dr. Pooran Singh medically examined loger and Jaita on 16.05.1997. Their injury reports are Exhibit P/6 and 15 respectively. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the brother of the deceased for cremation through Memo Exhibit P/22. The clothes of the deceased were seized and sealed through Memo Exhibit P/23. The accused appellant was arrested through Memo Exhibit P/33 on 18.05.1997. In the disclosure statement Exhibit P/38 made by the accused appellant, he stated that he has kept the gun at his residence, which he was willing to get it recovered. In pursuance of disclosure statement, the gun was recovered. The seized articles were sent for examination in the FSL. The FSL report regarding the gun recovered at the instance of accused appellant is Exhibit P/52. After recording statements and usual investigation, challan was submitted in the Court of Magistrate and thereafter ultimately it came for trial before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases & Addl. Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh. 4. During the course of trial, one of the accused namely Kering died and hence proceedings against him were dropped. The learned trial Court framed charge against accused appellant under Sections 148, 302, 323/149 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Charges were also framed against other accused persons. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. As many as 21 witnesses were examined and several documents were tendered in evidence. After close of the evidence, in the statement recorded under Section 313, the accused stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. No evidence in defence was led. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. As many as 21 witnesses were examined and several documents were tendered in evidence. After close of the evidence, in the statement recorded under Section 313, the accused stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. No evidence in defence was led. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides, acquitted other co-accused namely Kalu, Partha, Chokha, Chaina and Moda of the charges framed against them but convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated hereinabove. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the accused appellant so also the learned Public Prosecutor and carefully perused the material available on record. 6. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for appellant that in fact the witnesses examined in the Court have not placed the correct version of the incident because most of the part of their evidence has been disbelieved and the other co-accused have been acquitted, hence on the basis of the evidence that has been disbelieved, conviction on the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses, who are inimical to the accused appellant, cannot be based. It has next been contended that a gun alleged to have been recovered at the instance of appellant couldn’t be considered to be relevant in the present matter for the reason that no motbir witness in that behalf has been produced. The learned Counsel in the last submitted that as the deceased was a person of bad character, it is quite possible that somebody unknown might have killed him and the accused appellant has been implicated in the matter falsely. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases & Addl. Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh dated 01.08.2000. It has been submitted that by cogent and reliable evidence the guilt of the appellant has been proved without any manner of doubt, therefore no interference is required to be made by this Court in the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made before us and also thoroughly scrutinized the evidence available on record. 9. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made before us and also thoroughly scrutinized the evidence available on record. 9. In the present case, since other accused persons have been acquitted of the charges leveled against them and no State appeal has been filed challenging their acquittal, therefore, the point which requires to be determined now is as to whether the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Court against the accused appellant in relation to the charges framed against him are liable to be sustained or not. 10. It is to be seen that in the present matter PW. 1 Gopal has lodged the report. This witness has stated whatever was informed to him by PW. 2 Loger which was reported to the police and FIR was lodged. PW. 2 Loger is the witness who at the relevant time was with the deceased. PW. 2 Loger in his statement before the Court has stated that on the day of incident at about 7 PM in the evening while they were on motorcycle which was being driven by deceased Nirbhay Singh and he was sitting just behind Nirbhay Singh and Jaita at his back, while returning from his in-laws’ house in village Surkhadiya where they had gone to bring his wife and his father-in-law had told that his wife would be sent next day, on the way near the field of Bheru Singh Thakur, the accused persons who were hidden, appeared suddenly and came in front of the motorcycle. At that time, Nanda who was having a gun in his hand, fired at them from a very near distance. The witness in his cross-examination has stated that the distance was about 10 to 15 ft. It has come in the evidence that Narbada was not a person of good character. The other suggestions such as that accused persons were coming from marriage and the deceased ran towards them with a sword in his hand and further that some other person might have killed the deceased were denied. 11. Another eyewitness is PW. 16 Jaita. This witness has supported the version of PW. 2 Loger. The witness has stated that Nanda had a gun in his hand and he fired from the gun resulting in the death of the deceased. 11. Another eyewitness is PW. 16 Jaita. This witness has supported the version of PW. 2 Loger. The witness has stated that Nanda had a gun in his hand and he fired from the gun resulting in the death of the deceased. The witness has stated that after the gunshot, all the three persons on motorcycle fell down and he and PW. 2 Loger managed to escape. The incident was narrated to PW. 1. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the injury sustained by him was on account of fall from the motorcycle. The other suggestions having been denied, the witness has clearly supported the version of PW. 2 Loger. .12. The statements of PW. 2 & PW. 16 find corroboration from the testimony of PW. 8 Dr. Pooran Singh Rao. PW. 8 in his statement has stated that on 16.05.1998 while he was posted as Medical Officer in the Govt. Hospital, Badi Sadri, he medically examined PW. 2 Loger and PW. 16 Jaita. He found simple injuries on their persons. The witness has further stated that on police requisition he conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. The witness found following injuries on the person of deceased. 1. Lacerated wound (Ante mortem) 2" x ½" x ½" size on occipital region of scalp. 2. Lacerated wound (Ante mortem) 1¼" x 1¼" x ¼" size one inch below the lower lid of right eye. .3. Gunshot wound (Ante-mortem) 1. There were eight wounds of various size on front of lower portion of right side of chest. Surrounding skin of wound of entrance was blackened, scorched and tattooed. On dissection, subcutaneous tissue over an area of two to three inches round the wound of entrance was lacerated and muscles. Diaphragm lower portion of lower lob of right lung. Right lobe of liver was lacerated. About 1 to 1½ liter of blood found out from the body after trying a lot and x-ray technician of CHC Badi Sadri was on leave so the x-ray was not taken. 2. There was one wound on lower 1/3rd part of right arm (anterior laterally). Surrounding skin of wound of entrance was blackened, scorched and tattooed. On dissection, subcutaneous tissue and muscles over an area of ¼" x ½" round the wound of entrance was lacerated. Pallet was not found out. Injuries 3(a) & (b) were the result of gunshot fire. 2. There was one wound on lower 1/3rd part of right arm (anterior laterally). Surrounding skin of wound of entrance was blackened, scorched and tattooed. On dissection, subcutaneous tissue and muscles over an area of ¼" x ½" round the wound of entrance was lacerated. Pallet was not found out. Injuries 3(a) & (b) were the result of gunshot fire. In the cross-examination, he has stated that deceased was done to death by gunshot injury received from a distance of about 3 to 4 fts. 13. Another witness is the Investigating Officer PW. 21 Govind Singh. He has investigated the matter. The verbal report Exhibit P/1 was lodged before him. During the course of investigation he recorded the statements, made recoveries in the matter, seized materials and sent them for examination. The gun in the sealed condition was sent to the FSL. The FSL report received is Exhibit P/52. The report Exhibit P/52 under caption ‘Result of examination’ states as under:- 1. One SBML Gun (W/1) from packet ‘A-3’ is a serviceable firearm. 2. Theexamination of the barrel residue indicates that submitted SBML gun (W/1) had been fired. However, the definite time of its last fire could not be ascertained. 14. Both PW. 2 Loger and PW. 16 Jaita have stated that gun was fired from a distance of about 10 to 15 ft. The gun is Single Barrel gun. The length of gun normally is 5 to 6 ft. The gun was fired by the accused when the deceased was on a motorcycle and the speed of the motorcycle was slow. The doctor found marks, which further prove that from a very near distance the accused appellant fired the gun, which resulted in the death of the deceased. The version of the eyewitnesses thus appears to be fully corroborated by the medical evidence. 15. With regard to the submission of the learned counsel that there is only one entry wound on the person of the deceased therefore it cannot be presumed that the deceased sustained gunshot, we find no merit in the submission for the reason that in the present case it was a single barrel gun and the deceased sustained pallet injuries at 8 places on the chest and it is quite possible that pallets after entering into the body might traveled in other parts of the body by the blood circulation. The argument of the learned Counsel further is not tenable for the reason that the eye witnesses PW. 2 and PW. 16 clearly stated that the deceased died because of gunshot injuries and PW. 8 Dr.Pooran Singh Rao has also corroborated their testimony. Further, Exhibit P/52, the FSL Report also corroborates the testimony of the eyewitnesses that deceased died due to a gunshot injury. 16. We have carefully scrutinized the above evidence. In the present case, PW. 2 Loger and PW. 16 Jaita are the eyewitnesses, whose evidence has been discussed hereinabove and PW. 1 Gopal, PW. 4 Meghraj, and PW. 17 Lokesh are the witnesses to whom the incident was narrated by PW. 2 Loger. The testimony of above eyewitnesses has not been shaken with regard to the factum that it was the accused appellant who had a gun in his hand and he fired from the gun, as a result of which deceased sustained injuries as would appear from the statement of PW. 8 Dr. Pooran Singh Rao also. According to the statement of PW. 8, the gunshot injuries (caused by pallets) were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The suggestion put to the doctor that had a proper treatment would have been to the deceased was it possible to save his life or not, the witness replied that even by giving immediate treatment the deceased could not be saved. Thus, when direct evidence of the eye witnesses is available then on the basis of argument of the learned Counsel that since other accused persons have been acquitted the accused appellant should also be acquitted is of no consequence in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case reported in 1981 SCC (Cr.) 428 (State of U.P. vs. Shanker) that ‘time and again this Court has pointed out that in this country it is rare to come across the testimony of a witness which does not have a fringe or an embroidery of untruth although this evidence may be true in the main. It is the function of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff and accept what appears to be true and reject the rest. It is only where the testimony of a witness is tainted to the core, the falsehood and the truth being inextricably interwined, that the Court should discard evidence in toto’. 17. It is the function of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff and accept what appears to be true and reject the rest. It is only where the testimony of a witness is tainted to the core, the falsehood and the truth being inextricably interwined, that the Court should discard evidence in toto’. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case, on similar lines to the present one, reported in 1985 SCC (Cr) 486 (Dalip Singh & Orthers Vs. State of Punjab), wherein the firing started suddenly by the accused persons from wayside culvert on persons sitting in a moving jeep and though there was confusion about the firearm used in causing injuries on the deceased but looking to the corroboration of evidence by the medical evidence the appeal against conviction was rejected and the conviction and sentence of the accused appellants was confirmed. 18. Having thoroughly scrutinized the evidence of the eye witnesses PW . 2 Loger and PW . 16 Jaita, we find that the evidence of above two witnesses find support from the medical evidence and further the gun having been recovered at the instance of accused on the basis of disclosure statement from his residence, for which the accused had no licence, even bad character of the deceased will not entitle the accused to kill someone. 19. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel that since other accused persons have been acquitted of the charges leveled against them, therefore he should also be acquitted of the charge of murder. 20. The contention of the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity too has no merit for the reason that the witnesses will not leave the actual culprit and involve a person in the case of murder who has not committed the crime only because of enmity. 21. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the guilt of the accused has been established by the direct evidence of eye witnesses which has been corroborated by the medical evidence, therefore, the findings of guilt recorded by the learned trial Court against the accused appellant appears to be based on cogent reasons and no interference is required to be made by this Court. The finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Court against the accused appellant deserves to be confirmed. 22. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.