ORDER SADANAND MUKHERJEE, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment passed in Sessions Trial No. 111 of 1993 wherein and where under accused Nagendra Singh (presently the sole appellant) was convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and accused Tulsi Singh (dead) was convicted under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and further convict Nagendra Singh was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One thousand) under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and also sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Tulsi Singh (dead) was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. It may be mentioned that in this appeal accused Nagendra Singh is the sale appellant. During the pendency of the appeal, the father of' Nagendra Singh, namely Tulsi Singh died and hence presently appeal was heard on behalf of the sole appellant. 3. In Sessions Trial no. 111 of 1993, accused Nagendra Singh, Gajendra Prasad Singh, Shobha Devi, Dropadi Devi, Tulsi Singh and Indu Devi stood trial. Accused Nagendra Singh was charged with Offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for intentionally committing murder of the deceased Rameshwar Singh and he was further charged with offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act for keeping fire arm i.e. pistol, in unlawful possession intending to use the same for unlawful purpose to commit murder of the deceased Rameshwar Singh. Accused Nagendra Singh, Gajendra Prasad Singh, Shobha Devi, Dropadi Dev and Indra Devi were charged with the offence under Section 302/149 of the I.P.C. for being members of an unlawful assembly armed with country made pistol, bhala etc. with the common object to commit murder of the deceased Rameshwar Singh. In course of trial, Gajendra Singh died and, therefore, his name was deleted on 19.3.1997. 4. The prosecution case as detailed in fardbeyan of the informant Bishwanath Singh (Ext. with the common object to commit murder of the deceased Rameshwar Singh. In course of trial, Gajendra Singh died and, therefore, his name was deleted on 19.3.1997. 4. The prosecution case as detailed in fardbeyan of the informant Bishwanath Singh (Ext. 3) is that as the informant stood along with his brother deceased Rameshwar Singh was at his Darwaza (main door), Tulsi Singh (dead) armed with Mushal, Nagendra Singh armed with country-made pistol, Gajendra Singh (since dead) armed with bhala, Dropadi and Indu Devi came to the 'Darwaza' and all of a sudden accused Tulsi Singh started hitting the window of the informant with Mushal on which the informant and his brother protested. In the meantime, Dropadi Devi, Indu Devi, Shobha Devi started pelting brick bats and stones. On the order of accused Tulsi Singh, Nagendra Singh fired which firstly did not hit anybody. Gaj mdra Singh also exhorted Nagendra SinJh to fire. Thus, on the order of Tulsi Singh and Gajendra Singh, accused Nagendra Singh again fired from his country-made pistol which caused injury on the left side of forehead of deceased Rameshwar Singh and he fell down. On the sound of first shot his neighbours, namely, Ram Lagan Singh (not examined), Shiv Jee Singh (P.W.1), Lalan Singh (P.W. 2), Shiv Nath Singh (not examined), Nagendra Singh (P.W.3) and other arrived and saw the occurrence. The accused persons fled towards west. The informant along with the aforesaid persons brought the deceased to Primary Health Centre, Raghopur but the deceased was referred to Patna from there. On the way he succumbed to injury. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbayan, Raghopur P.S. Case No. 38 of 1989 was instituted and on completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted. Pursuant to commitment of the case, in course of trial whereas accused Nagendra Singh and Tutsi Singh were convicted in the manner aforesaid, the female accused persons Indu Devi, Dropadi Devi and Shobha Devi were acquitted. 6. The defence case is that the appellant is innocent they have not committed any offence. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and accused persons have been falsely implicated in view of enmity between the parties. 7. The prosecution case was also assailed on the ground that the medical evidence occurring in the postmortem examination report also falsifies the eye-witness account on the point of distance between the alleged main assailant and the deceased. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and accused persons have been falsely implicated in view of enmity between the parties. 7. The prosecution case was also assailed on the ground that the medical evidence occurring in the postmortem examination report also falsifies the eye-witness account on the point of distance between the alleged main assailant and the deceased. 8. It is to be seen whether the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused Nagendra Singh under Section 302 of the I.P.C. by cogent and reliable evidence. 9. The prosecution has produced as many as 9 witnesses. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are said to be the eye witnesses. P.W. 6 is the informant P.W. 5 is a formal witness, and P.W. 7 is the wife of the deceased. P.W. 8 is Dr. Anil Kumar Sinha, who held postmortem examination, P.W. 9 is Investigating Officer. 10. P.W.1 Shiv Jee Singh heard shot of firing at about 6 P.M. on the date of occurrence from the western direction of the house of the deceased Rameshwar Singh. He rushed there and found accused Tulsi Singh armed with Mushal, Gajendra Singh armed with bhala, Nagendra Singh (the appellant) armed with country-made pistol. Tulsi Singh and Gajendra Singh exhorted accused Nagendra Singh to kill, whereupon accused Nagendra Singh fired, which hit the left forehead of the deceased who fell down unconscious and taken to Fatehpur hospital on cot. This witness also accompanied the deceased. On being referred to Patna, the deceased succumbed to injury on way to Patna and, therefore, the dead body was brought to Raghopur Police Station, where P.W.1 along with other witnesses were examined. In course of cross examination this witness stated about the boundary of the place of occurrence and his evidence regarding the place of occurrence does not deviate from the description given by I.O. (P.W.9) The defence has questioned the credibility of this witness, that this witness cannot be eye witness of the occurrence as the manner of occurrence, the location of the place of occurrence (P.O.) considering the topography of the P.O. are suggestive of the fact that this witness could not have seen the occurrence, and defence attempts to establish that this witness could not have seen firing on the deceased. However, it appears that in the cross-examination, this witness cannot be said to have been discredited. However, it appears that in the cross-examination, this witness cannot be said to have been discredited. The evidence in cross-examination is that he heard sound of firing from a distance of 25-30 yards, there is a ditch on the adjacent south of the house of the informant and there was knee-deep water in the ditch. His evidence further goes to show that accused Nagendra Singh fired shot from a distance of 7-8 feet south from the deceased and informant Bishwanath Singh was on the Sehan beneath the Veranda. The evidence of this witness clearly shows that accused Nagendra Singh had fired shot at a distance of 10 feet from the deceased. I find that existence of ditch on the south of the informant's house or the topography in the boundary is in no way an obstacle for P.W.1 to proceed towards the 'Darwaza' of the informant and see the occurrence. The manner of occurrence as delineated in the prosecution case considering the version of the witness it appears that prosecution evidence on the whole indicates that there were more than one firing. He had gone to the place of occurrence after hearing shot of firing. This in no way stands in the way of the prosecution version. That this witness is an eye witness and that he had seen the accused firing the fatal shot are reliable. Eye witness account of this witness has not been controverted in course of cross-examination and the evidence of this witness regarding firing resorted to by accused Nagendra Singh proving fatal to the deceased stand intact. 11. P.W.2 Lalan Singh is also an eye witness at the time of occurrence. He was feeding his cattle at his 'Darwaza'. Hearing the sound of firing he reached near the house of the informant at a distance of 30-40 yards and saw accused Nagendra Singh firing shot at the deceased by pistol which hit the left side of the forehead of the deceased Nagendra Singh (sic-Rameshwar Singh ?) who fell down after the fatal shot. This witness found Nagendra Singh with country made pistol, Tulsi Singh armed with Mushal, Gajendra Singh armed with bhala and the pieces of brick bats in the hands of the female accused. The deceased fell down near his 'Darwaza'. He was taken to Fatehpur hospital and thereafter referred to Patna as he was not treated there. He died on the way. The deceased fell down near his 'Darwaza'. He was taken to Fatehpur hospital and thereafter referred to Patna as he was not treated there. He died on the way. The informant Bishwanath Singh (P.W.6) gave his fardbayan before the police. This witness also had signed, as a witness on the fardbeyan (Ext. 1) in the Police Station. The statement of this witness and other witnesses were recorded. The occurrence took place in view of land dispute. This witness also was cross-examined at length. He has also stated about topography. His description of boundary of the P.O. does not belie the prosecution case. When there was firing, he had reached near the, tree on the eastern side of the house of Rajendra Singh. He had heard the shot from his 'Darwaza'. Second shot was fired, when he reached near the place of occurrence at a distance of 10-12 hath east from the southern side. His evidence relating the details of reaching the place of occurrence and the manner of his movement towards the P.O. considering, the topography does not at all dispel the probability of his being the eye-witness, rather the version of this witness appears to be most natural. Existence of a dispute between this witness and accused Gajendra Singh (since dead) and consequent criminal case between the informant and Gajendra Singh over land dispute does not discredit the prosecution case on the corroborative nature of the evidence of this witness and others. The evidence of this witness is cogent and reliable. 12. PW 3, Nagendra Singh was feeding his cattle at the time of occurrence. At about 6 to 6.15 P.M. he heard sound of firing he reached at a distance of 35-40 yards near the house of informant Vishwanath Singh. He saw that aCCused Nagendra Singh shot the deceased Rameshwar Singh with a country-made pistol which hit his forehead and Rameshwar Singh fell down. He has corroborated other witnesses by saying that accused persons Nagendra Singl'1, Tulsi Singh and Gajendra Singh were armed with pistol, Bha/a Mushal respectively and ladies had brick bats. His evidence furtl-)er is that on the exhortation by Tulsi SI 19r accused Nagendra Singh had fired at he deceased. On the way to Patna for treatment, the deceased succumbed to injury. His evidence furtl-)er is that on the exhortation by Tulsi SI 19r accused Nagendra Singh had fired at he deceased. On the way to Patna for treatment, the deceased succumbed to injury. His evidence In cross-examination that when he reached near the place of occurrence the deceased had fallen down unconscious and during his stay other witnesses came, does not impeach his credit as an eye witness to the firing made by accused Nagendra Singh as the chain of occurrence is not disturbed. It has also been indicated above that this witness was at a distance of about 25-30 yards when he saw the specific overt act of firing by accused Nagendra Singh and it is but natural that when he reached at the place of occurrence, the deceased fell unconscious and other witnesses also had come at the place of occurrence. 13. P.W.4 Poonam Devi, the daughter of the deceased Rameshwar Singh in her evidence has stated that at the time of occurrence, she was in the house. The accused persons started breaking the rods of the window of the western wall of the informant. Her deceased, father and Vishwanath Singh had protested on which they abused and pelted brick bats. Her evidence further is that thereafter the deceased and the informant came back to their 'Darwaza'. Accused Nagendra Singh was armed with Pistol. Her evidence further shows that on the exhortation by Tulsi Singh and Gajendra Singh, Nagendra Singh fired and the second firing made by Nagendra Singh hit the forehead of her father, who fell down and the accused persons had fled away. The statement of P.W.4 as an eye witness is not impeached as she came running from inside and it cannot be said that she has been discredited in any manner considering the tenor of her evidence. It is manifest that on a second firing the deceased was hit. The evidence of PW 4 that she came out from the house on 'Hulla' (noise) and found her father unconscious does not rule out her presence nor her credit as eye witness during the occurrence is disturbed. Her evidence corroborated the prosecution case in its material particulars. Eye witness account of this witness, therefore, stands the test of cross-examination. 14. PW 5 is a seizure witness of the empty cartridges found from the eastern side of the wall of the informant. Her evidence corroborated the prosecution case in its material particulars. Eye witness account of this witness, therefore, stands the test of cross-examination. 14. PW 5 is a seizure witness of the empty cartridges found from the eastern side of the wall of the informant. The signature of this witness on the seizure list is Ext. 1/A. Evidence of this witness that in his presence an empty cartridge was recovered corroborates the fact that firing was made twice, one went blank and other hit forehead of the deceased. 15. PW 6 is the informant Vishwanath Singh himself. He was sitting at his 'Darwaza' at about 6.30 P.M. on 26.9.1989. Tulsi Singh armed with Mushal, Nagendra Singh armed with countrymade pistol, Gajendra Singh with Bhala came there and they started to break the rods of the window on the western side of his house. His deceased brother protested. The female accused persons started abusing. The deceased protested for the second time. On exhortation by Tulsi Singh and Gajendra Singh accused Nagendra Singh made firing which did not hit anyone upon which Tulsi Singh and Gajendra Singh again exhorted, whereupon accused Nagendra Singh resorted to second firing which hit the forehead of the deceased Rameshwar Singh, who fell down. The evidence of the informant is that the deceased was rushed to Raghopur Hospital and on the way to Patna he died. Thereafter, they went to the Police Station and fardbayan was recorded in the P.S. The signature of this witness on the fardbayan has been proved as Ext. 1/ B. His evidence in cross-examination that having been hit by fire arm shot, the deceased fell down and on alarm (hulla) being raised witnesses came there, does not discredit the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2, 3 and 4 regarding their trustworthiness as eye witnesses as the sequence is not disturbed. It has already been indicated that these witnesses were at some distance and on hearing the sound of ring they rushed to the plate of occurrence and they had seen the occurrence. It is true that PW 1, PW 2, and PW 3 were at some distance when they heard the sound of firing but in view of the proximity of the distance from where they rushed, their trustworthiness and competence as eye witness to the entire occurrence are not negated. 16. It is true that PW 1, PW 2, and PW 3 were at some distance when they heard the sound of firing but in view of the proximity of the distance from where they rushed, their trustworthiness and competence as eye witness to the entire occurrence are not negated. 16. PW 7 is wife of the deceased, who has been tendered for cross-examination. This witness has stated about the boundary of the house where the occurrence took place. 17. PW 8 is Dr. Anil Kumar, who had performed the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, who had found the following ante-mortem injury:- “Lacerated wound I” in diameter on the left side of forehead. The margins were inverted charred directed posteriously and down ward. On opening the skull there was fracture of the left parietal bone. Membrane and brain matter were completely lacerated. Blood and blood clots were present. One bullet was recovered from the cranial cavity which was sealed and labelled in vial and was handed over to the accompanying Constable. On opening the thorax both sides' lungs were pale, right side's chambers full of dark staining blood and left side's chambers were empty. On opening the abdomen all visceras were pale except spleen which was congested. Bladder was full. Substance used was fire arm, may be pistol. Time elapsed since death and postmortem examination, within 24 hours. Death in the opinion of the doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury no. 1 which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 17. The doctor has proved the postmortem report marked as Ext. 2. His evidence is that the maximum distance of the injured and the assailant would be about 10 feet and he volunteered that his opinion was that the assailant might have fired from a distance 4-6 feet. The consistent version of the prosecution witnesses on the distance between the assailant and the deceased is that of about 10 feet. The witnesses may not be accurate on distance but the accuracy and inaccuracy do not in any way affect the veracity of the version of the other witnesses regarding the killing of the deceased by the' sole appellant Nagendra Singh. The witnesses may not be accurate on distance but the accuracy and inaccuracy do not in any way affect the veracity of the version of the other witnesses regarding the killing of the deceased by the' sole appellant Nagendra Singh. The defence has taken the plea that prosecution case is shadowed by doubt in view of the distance made out in the eye witness version and medical opinion which is at variance. Doctor is not a ballistic expert and hence non-mention of dimension of bullet recovered from the deceased as also the shape of the bullet recovered from the deceased does not affect veracity of the prosecution case. 18. PW 9 is the Investigating Officer in this case. The informant Bishwanath Singh had made a fardbayan (Ext. 3) and this witness took up investigation prepared inquest report of the deceased (Ext. 4) recorded the statement of the witnesses and visited the P.O. His evidence is that the place of occurrence is the Sehan (Courtyard) adjacent to the main door (Darwaza) of the house of the informant situated in 'Paschim Tola' of village Fatehpur. The house is made of the bricks and tiles (Khapra) facing east. There is Varanda (Osara) in the Eastern side. The courtyard (Sehan) is 2.0-25 feet in width and 40-50 feet in length from the north to south adjacent to the main door; I.O. found blood in large quantity and a Chouki (cot) was found beside main door towards north having stain of blood. The I.O. has described the house having width from East to west and length from north to south. The north to south boundary wall was brick built. Boundary wall of the informant is towards the southern side, a Tiled (Khaprail) house of the accused persons is to the adjacent south of the house of the informant. The I.O. further found a ditch 25 feet wide 30 feet length dug by accused persons adjacent to the western boundary wail of the informant and he also found the second window of the western boundary wall and the third window of the north with two rods and wooden frame broken which appeared to be hit by the hard substance. Trampling mark was also found on the land. He seized the blood stain on earth and prepared seizure list (Exts. 5 and 6). He prepared the sketch map of the P.O. (Ext. 7). Trampling mark was also found on the land. He seized the blood stain on earth and prepared seizure list (Exts. 5 and 6). He prepared the sketch map of the P.O. (Ext. 7). His evidence is that after completion of investigation he submitted chargesheet. 19. The defence has taken the plea that in the evidence of I.O. the I.O. has stated that profuse blood was found out side adjacent to main door. It is also to be noticed that the I.O. has also stated in his evidence that blood stain has also been found on the 'Chouki' beside the main door. According to the sketch map (Ext. 7), 1he Sahan is the adjacent to the main door, the chauki was also kept adjacent to the main door, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any discrepancy as regards the place of occurrence. In the context of the topography indicated in the description of the place of occurrence in the evidence of I.O. the eye witness account has been assailed by the defence saying that considering the topography P.Ws 1, 2 and 3 could not have seen the occurrence. It appears from the evidence of I.O. that the sketch map (Ext. 7) clearly shows place of occurrence on north-south direction. P.W.1 heard the sound of firing from western side. Although there is a ditch to the south of the house of the informant, there is no question of disbelieving him there can be no obstacle for this witness to reach the place of occurrence and it appears that appellant Nagendra Singh had fired shot from a distance of about 10 feet. So far as the distance in reaching the P.O. is concerned in the context of the evidence of I.O., the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be disbelieved. 20. So far as topography is concerned, PW 2 also has given the description of the P.O. which is consistent with the evidence of I.O. The suggestion relating to false implication because of the previous litigation between this witness and accused Gajendra Singh cannot belie the eye witness account and the same does not stand close scrutiny. He has categorically stated about the appropriate distance of' all the structure of the informant Bishwanath Singh from the main door. He has categorically stated about the appropriate distance of' all the structure of the informant Bishwanath Singh from the main door. His house appears to be at a reasonable distance and his arrival at the place of occurrence hearing the sound of firing is most natural which inspire evidence. 21. P.W.3 also heard the sound firing from west. The evidence of I.O. regarding the topography and the investigation of the P.O. read with the manner of description of P.O. compared with the version of the witnesses on the P.O. lend a convincing account by the aforesaid witnesses. 22. The defence contention that the evidence of the eye witness account of P.W.1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 is not credible does not appear to have substance inasmuch the witnesses had seen the occurrence from a visible distance, if the evidences of these witnesses are assessed in entirety such evidence appears to be highly corroborative. Defence contention that the witnesses are interested in view of the relationship with the deceased also does not tilt the balance against the veracity of the prosecution in view of the aforesaid discussion. The other contention of the defence regarding veracity of the place of occurrence does not stand to scrutiny inasmuch as the prosecution has established that the occurrence has taken place near main door and Sahan of the informant's house. The description of the boundary and topography given by the P.W 1, P.W 2, P.W 3, P.W 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 is consistent with the I.O. and the witnesses corroborate each other in this aspect. It is consistently established that the deceased was shot and received fatal injury in his Sahan adjacent to main Darwaza. There is no inconsistency in his evidence or evidence of prosecution witnesses. 23. It is worthwhile to point out that the defence has questioned the prosecution version of the distance from which firing was made by the accused Nagendra Singh and the deceased. The prosecution version of the evidence is that the distance is approximately 10 feet in the medical evidence. PW 8 the Doctor has initially stated with reference to the Postmortem report market as Ext. 2H that the maximum distance of the injured and the assailant would be about 10 feet but he volunteered that his opinion was that the assailant might have fired from a distance of 4-6 inches. PW 8 the Doctor has initially stated with reference to the Postmortem report market as Ext. 2H that the maximum distance of the injured and the assailant would be about 10 feet but he volunteered that his opinion was that the assailant might have fired from a distance of 4-6 inches. In this context AIR 1956 S.C. page 526 has been cited in which a larger bench of the Supreme Court at paragraph 5 while examining the medical evidence in this respect observed that if there were burnt edges of the wound the distance between the muzzle and the victim would only be a few inches and not more than nine inches. In this context it is stated that in the present case the following burnt edges of the wound had been found on the deceased "Lacerated wound 1" in diameter on the left side of forehead. The margins were inverted, charred directed posteriously and down ward" by evidence of PW 8 Dr. Anil Kumar. The Supreme Court in the matter of burnt edges of the wound in the aforesaid cited case observed as follows: "The ballistic expert, Dr. Goyle, examined as P.W.11 said that if there were burnt edges of the wound the distance between the muzzle and the victim would only be a few inches and not more than nine inches. This opinion is in substantial accord with what is found in some of the text books on medical jurisprudence. For instance, it is stated in Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, Vol. 1, 10th Edition, at page 441, under the heading. "Burning of the Wound". "It is impossible to state rules as to the precise distance from which it is possible to produce marks of burning, for this depends on the quantity & nature of the powder, the method of charging, and the nature of the weapon. It is unusual, however, to get marks of burning beyond a yard or a yard and a half with a shot gun, or at more than half a yard with a revolver. 24. It has been contended on behalf of the defence that the nature of injury evinced in the "burnt edges" is not possible if the distance made out in the prosecution case is believed. 25. 24. It has been contended on behalf of the defence that the nature of injury evinced in the "burnt edges" is not possible if the distance made out in the prosecution case is believed. 25. It is clear from the aforesaid decision that the ballistic experts have not contemplated about the home made country guns which may have characteristic of its own and such country-made guns do not have the characteristic of commercially made weapons. In this connection it was opined in the Book "Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology" (-M.V. Cox - 5th Edition page 291) that Antique and home made country-guns may not have the characteristic of commercially made weapons, therefore, the wounds from these guns may not correspond to the usual description. On behalf of the prosecution 1999 see page 428, Mohan Singh and Another Vs State of M.P. has been cited wherein it was held as follows: "Mere variance of the prosecution story with the medical evidence, in all cases, should not lead to the conclusion, inevitably to reject the prosecution story. Efforts should be made to find the truth this is the very object for which Courts are created. To search it out, the Courts have been removing the chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust as all these things clog the very truth. So long as chaff, cloud and dust remain, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the Courts not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the Court, within permissible limit, to find out the truth. It means on the one hand that no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see that no person committing an offence should go scotfree. If in spite of such effort, suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused. For this, one has to comprehend the totality of the facts and the circumstances as spelled out through the evidence depending on the facts of each case by testing the credibility of eyewitnesses including the medical evidence of course, after excluding those parts of the evidence which are vague and uncertain. For this, one has to comprehend the totality of the facts and the circumstances as spelled out through the evidence depending on the facts of each case by testing the credibility of eyewitnesses including the medical evidence of course, after excluding those parts of the evidence which are vague and uncertain. There is no mathematical formula through which the truthfulness of a prosecution or defence case could be concretized. It would depend on the evidence of each case including the manner of deposition and his demeanour, clarity, corroboration of witnesses and overall, the conscience of a Judge evoked by the evidence on record. So courts have to proceed further and make genuine efforts within the judicial sphere to search out the truth and not stop at the threshold of creation of doubt to confer benefit of doubt". 26. In the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court at paragraph no. 21 it was observed as follows: "In Kamail Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1971)3 SCC 616 : 1971 SCC (Cri)732: AIR 1971 SC 2119 , this court held that where it is proved beyond doubt that the evidence of the eyewitnesses is trustworthy in a case where the accused person committed murder by gunshots, the inconsistency between the opinion of the expert and the eyewitnesses relating to the distance from which gunshots were fired carries no weight. If the eyewitnesses stand the test of their credibility, they have to be believed. Looking to the present case we see even the doctor's opinion is not clear as he admitted that he cannot give a clear opinion about the distance from which the shot was fired. But he records that it was fired from a higher pedestal which corroborates with the prosecution story. This, coupled with the fact that the eyewitnesses also corroborate to the same effect, the submission on behalf of the accused for all the aforesaid reasons with respect to the first point cannot be sustained." 27. In this case the doctor has opined that the distance may be between 4-6 inches (earlier version was that the distance between the assailant and the deceased may be 10 feet) do not change the veracity of the prosecution case in view of the fact that a home-made country made pistol had been used which defies the inferences usually made in respect of fire arm injury by the usual type of commercially made weapons. 28. On behalf of the defence the case diary has been exhibited as ext. A. Ext. B is certified copy of the Raghopur P.S. Case No. 68 of 1986, Ext. C Certified copy of the FIR in Raghopur P.S. Case No. 54/ 1988, Ext. D. Certified-copy of chargesheet of Raghopur PS. Case no. 54/1988, Ext, E Certified copy of bail bond of Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Ext. F Certified copy of bail bond of Suresh Kr. Thakur have been exhibited to show previous enmity and litigation between the parties and the cases lodged by the defence side against the prosecution party. The enmity does not itself demolish prosecutions case, in this case eye witnesses stand the test of credibility and they also corroborated the prosecution case. The account of the eye witness coupled with medical evidences and the evidence of the Investigating Officer, the corroborative totality of the evidence in support of the prosecution case, spelt out through the evidence do not create doubt in the veracity of the prosecution case as alleged by the appellant Nagendra Singh. 29. The genesis of occurrence the occurrence arising out of breaking of the window, manner of assault substantiated in the evidence of the witnesses and the consistent approach, of the prosecution witnesses on the identity of the place of occurrence has a conglomerated effect in proving the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 30. In view of the aforesaid finding, we conclude that the conviction and sentence of appellant Nagendra Singh are maintained and the appeal fails. In the result the appeal is dismissed.