JUDGMENT 1. The sole appellant, on being tried under Section 302 I.P.C and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, was found guilty as charged by the Trial Judge. He was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act and for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a direction that the sentence of five years will merge with the sentence of imprisonment for life. The present appeal by Sheo Dayal Singh @ Charku Singh is against the said conviction and sentence. 2. The appellant is the son of Bishwanath Singh D.W.3. Deo Raj Singh D.W.1 is the brother of the appellant. They were residents of village - Harrah within the police limits of Chanho. The deceased Nand Kishore Singh was also residing in the same village along with his father P.W.1 Bhanu Prasad Singh, brother P.W.2 Braj Kishore Singh. P.W.4 Girdhari Singh is the nephew of the deceased and P.W.5 Moti Singh is the cousin of the deceased. They were also residinig in the same village. On 5.3.1995, Baijnath Singh, Hari Singh and Rameshwar Singh said to have assaulted Phuchai Munda. A complaint was lodged and the appellant was entertaining a suspicion that the said complaint was given at the instance of the deceased since Phuchai Munda was cultivating the land of P.W.1 on lease. This is said to be the motive for the occurrence which took place at 1.00 p.m. on 7.3.1995. 3. At 1.00 p.m. on 7.3.1995, P.W.1 Bhanu Prasad Singh along with his son, who is the deceased in this case, and other son Braj Kishore Singh P.W.2 was sitting in the courtyard. They were engaged in a conversation. At that time, the appellant came from the backyard of his uncles house and proceeded towards them. He was having a gun in his hand. While he was proceeding, he was heard abusing the witnesses and the deceased. When the appellant was approaching the house, the deceased went towards him. At that time, the appellant shot at the deceased as a result of which the deceased sustained gum shot injury and fell down. The witnesses started crying. The appellant ran away from the place. P.W.1 Bhanu Prasad Singh gave Ext.1, the fardbeyan, to the Police Officer at Chano police station on the basis of which a F.I.R was registered at 1.50 p.m. Investigating Officer P.W.10 Md. The witnesses started crying. The appellant ran away from the place. P.W.1 Bhanu Prasad Singh gave Ext.1, the fardbeyan, to the Police Officer at Chano police station on the basis of which a F.I.R was registered at 1.50 p.m. Investigating Officer P.W.10 Md. Sanaullah reached the scene of occurrence and after conducting inquest, during which witnesses were examined, sent the body for post mortem with his requisition. 4. On receipt of the requisition, Doctor Niranjan Minz, who was examined Page 1291 as P.W.11, conducted autopsy and he found the following firearm injuries: A wound entering the left cheek and adjoining left side of chin and adjoining left fronto lateral neck on the upper part. The wound was 9 7 c.m. The injury was seen passing soft tissues, blood vessels breaking the left side of mandible bone and breaking maxillary bone into pieces. The injury was found after the base of the scalp. Hyoid bone was found broken. It also caused fracture of scalp. The Doctor issued Ext.5, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that injuries would have been caused by firearm and death is on account of the said injuries. He also noticed pellets on the dead body, which were removed. 4. The investigation continued and after the completion of investigation, P.W.9 Sahay Lakra filed the final report against the appellant. 5. The appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances. Three witnesses were examined on his side as D.W.1 to D.W.3. D.W.1 Deo Raj Singh is the brother of the appellant, while D.W.3 Bishwanath Singh is the father of the appellant. D.W.2 Santosh Singh was examined and he stated in his evidence that he came to the place of occurrence on receiving the information about the occurrence. He stated that he found the police officers entering the forest, who arrested the accused and recovered the gun. D.Ws.1 and 3 were examined to say that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of incident. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 being closely related to the deceased, the trial court ought not to have accepted their evidence to find the appellant guilty. The counsel further submits that the blood stains from the scene of occurrence was not seized by the Investigating Officer and hence, the prosecution case cannot be accepted. The counsel further submits that the blood stains from the scene of occurrence was not seized by the Investigating Officer and hence, the prosecution case cannot be accepted. On the above contention, we have heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the State. 7. Before we proceed to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 and the truth or otherwise of the prosecution case, we will first consider the evidence of D.Ws 1 and 3, who were examined to say that the appellant was a juvenile. Though two witnesses, one, the brother and the other, father, were examined to prove that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of incident, no document was produced by the defence. Learned Counsel in all fairness admitted before this Court that a plea was taken that the appellant was a juvenile before the committal and the same was rejected. The counsel went on to admit that when the order was challenged, it was dismissed and the order was upheld by the High Court. It is, therefore, clear that the order rejecting the contention of the appellant even before the proceedings commenced that he is a juvenile was rejected by the competent court, which had become final. Therefore, the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 3 will have no bearing on the issue, more so when no document was produced by the defence to conclusively prove that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of incident. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant had given his age as 19 years and the said statement was record on 8.1.1996, which will show that the appellant was not a juvenile as he was above 16 on the date of incident as he had completed 17 and was running 18. There is no dispute that the case of the appellant is governed by Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (53 of 1986), which defines Juvenile as a boy who has not attained the Page 1292 age of 16 years. We, therefore, hold that the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 3 is of no use to the appellant and that he has not established that he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. 8. We will now take up the prosecution case as brought out through P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 to find out whether it can be accepted. Dr. We, therefore, hold that the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 3 is of no use to the appellant and that he has not established that he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. 8. We will now take up the prosecution case as brought out through P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 to find out whether it can be accepted. Dr. Niranjan Minz, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Nand Kishore Singh, was examined as P.W.11 and through him, Ext.5, the post mortem certificate issued by him, was marked. The Doctor in his evidence stated that he found the injuries and noted them in the post mortem certificate, Ext.5. According to the Doctor, Nand Kishore Singh died on account of fire arm injuries. It is, therefore, clear that Nand Kishore Singh died on account of homicidal violence, when he was fired at by a fire arm. 9. P.W.1 Bhanu Prasad Singh, the father of the deceased, P.W.2 Braj Kishore Singh and P.W.5 Moti Singh cousin of the deceased, were examined to prove that it was the appellant who shot at the deceased and caused his death. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that on 5.3.1995, a complaint was given against Baijnath Singh, father of the appellant, Hari Singh and Rameshwar Singh on the allegation that they had assaulted one Phuchai Munda, who was the lessee under P.W.1. The appellant was entertaining a suspicion that the said complaint was given by Phuchai Munda on the instigation of P.W.1 and his family members. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 further shows that on the date of incident when the witnesses and the deceased were sitting in front of their house and engaged in a conversation, the appellant, who came from the backside of his uncles house armed with a weapon, moved towards the house of the deceased and that he was found abusing the deceased and his family members. On seeing the appellant coming with a fire arm and abusing, the decease went towards him. At that time, the appellant opened fire, as a result of which the deceased suffered fire arm injury on his left jaw and fell down. On going through the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5, we find no reason to reject their evidence. It is no doubt that all the three witnesses are related to the deceased. At that time, the appellant opened fire, as a result of which the deceased suffered fire arm injury on his left jaw and fell down. On going through the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5, we find no reason to reject their evidence. It is no doubt that all the three witnesses are related to the deceased. The relationship by itself will not be a reason to reject their evidence. It is common knowledge that the close relations of the deceased will be more interested in seeing that the real assailant is brought to book and will not give a false complaint against another merely on account of an earlier dispute. We, therefore, accept the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 by rejecting the contention of the counsel that since all the witnesses are related to the deceased, their evidence is to be rejected. Their evidence is also supported by P.W.14, the fire arm expert. We have already noticed that P.W.11 Dr. Niranjan Minz removed the pellets from the dead body and sent it to the police. P.W.14 A.K. Sinha issued Ext.6, his report and stated that he has examined the double barrel gun before preparing the report. According to him, the said double barrel gun was received from Chanho police station in connection with Chanho P.S. Case No. 13/ 1995. He further stated that he fired from the said gun from both barrel and found that the impression received on the cartridges fired from the left barrel was similar to that which he found on the used cartridge sent by the police along with the gun. The gun was marked as material Ext.III. The above evidence of P.W.14 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 will conclusively show that the appellant fired at the deceased and caused his death. In fact, D.W.2, who was examined on the side of the defence, stated in his evidence that he reached the scene of occurrence on getting information of the occurrence at about 2.30 or 3.00 p.m. and that the Police Officers Page 1293 effected the arrest of the appellant from whom the gun was seized. We, therefore, find that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 is trust worthy, cogent and convincing. Their evidence is also supported by the medical evidence as well as by P.W.14, who examined the gun. We, therefore, find that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 is trust worthy, cogent and convincing. Their evidence is also supported by the medical evidence as well as by P.W.14, who examined the gun. The case of the prosecution is further strengthened by the admission of D.W.2 that the appellant was arrested within two hours of the occurrence and the said gun was seized from his person. We, therefore, accept the prosecution case and find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.