S. K. JAIN, J. This Criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3. 3. 1982 passed by the learned Session Judge, Pilibhit in Session Trial No. 207/81 whereby the appellant Ram Chandra has been convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The brief facts mentioned in the F. I. R. lodged by Sukhlal at P. S. Barkhera, District Pilibhit on 25. 7. 1981 at 9. 30 a. m. are that on that day he along with the deceased Suresh who was his labourer, had gone to his agricultural field to uproot the saplings. Nearby, in the field of Moolchand, the son-in-law of Mool Chand Ram Bharosey was sowing the sapling. At a little distance there from Dod Raj was ploughing his field. Appellant Ram Chandra had also gone there to plough his field. The appellant after sometime went back to his house. At about 8. 30 a. m. the appellant armed with his licensed gun came to the agricultural field of the first informant Sukhlal. The appellant asked Suresh as to why he had cut his mend. The deceased Suresh replied he did not cut the mend why he was being tortured. During this quarrel, the deceased went towards the east to take cover behind the tank of tube well. The appellant called the deceased and said come here show me the mend. As soon as the deceased came towards the mend, the appellant fired at the deceased. The deceased received gun shot injuries on his chest and fell down in the agricultural field of Mool Chand and died. The appellant along with his gun went towards west north. The occurrence was witnessed by the first informant, Sukhlal and Ram Bharosey. Hearing the gun shot, Dod Raj and others came who saw the appellant going away armed with gun. 3. Head Moharrir on the basis of written report Ex. Ka -1 prepared the check report Ex. Ka-2, made entries in the G. D. as per Ex. Ka-3. S. I. Megh Singh, P. W. 4 took up the investigation. He interrogated the complainant and head Moharrir and proceeded to the place of occurrence. He found the dead body of Suresh lying near the mend. He appointed the Panch and prepare inquest report. Photo Lash and Chalan Lash Ex. Ka-4 to Ex-Ka-6. Ka-3. S. I. Megh Singh, P. W. 4 took up the investigation. He interrogated the complainant and head Moharrir and proceeded to the place of occurrence. He found the dead body of Suresh lying near the mend. He appointed the Panch and prepare inquest report. Photo Lash and Chalan Lash Ex. Ka-4 to Ex-Ka-6. After sealing the dead body he sent the same for post-mortem through constable Sumer Singh whose affidavit is Ex-Ka-12. He recorded the statement of Ram Bharosey Lal and on his pointing out prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-7. He also found an empty cartridge on the spot. He took the same into possession, sealed the same and prepared its recovery memo Ex. Ka-8. He also took into possession the blood stained and ordinary earth from the place of occurrence and prepared its recovery memo. After recording the statement of Dod Raj and recovering the gun of the appellant from a gun shop in, Tilhar, he sent the gun and cartridge to ballistic expert. The report of the ballistic expert is Ex. Ka-13. The cartridge could not be matched with gun as firing pin of the gun was found tampered. After completing investigation, he remitted charge-sheet against the appellant which is Ex. Ka-10. 4. Dr. K. P. Dube, Medical Officer, District Hospital Pilibhit, PW. 5 conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Suresh on 26. 7. 1981 at 2. 30 p. m. He found the following ante-mortem injuries: 1. Gun shot wound of entry 3 cm x 3 cm. rounded in shape, over the right side of chest 3 cm medial to right nipple at 3 O clock position. Blackening, tattooing " present, edges are inverted: 2. Abrasion 2 cm. x 1 cm over the left side chest 4 cm. medial to left nipple at 8 O Clock position. 3. Abrasion 3 cm. x 2 cm. Over the left side front of chest. On the internal examination, third and fourth ribs were found fractured, right lung was lacerated through and through and one liter of blood was found in the pleural cavity. 5. In the opinion "of Doctor the death was due to shock and haemorrhage and the deceased could have died at 8. 30 a. m. on 25. 7. 1981. He further opined that the injury No. 1 was caused from a distance of four feet. 5. In the opinion "of Doctor the death was due to shock and haemorrhage and the deceased could have died at 8. 30 a. m. on 25. 7. 1981. He further opined that the injury No. 1 was caused from a distance of four feet. The prosecution examined the first informant, Sukhlal as P. W. I, Ram Bharosey Lalas P. W. 2, Dod Raj as P. W. 3. These three witnesses are witnesses of fact. Megh Singh is the Investigating officer of the case and has been examined as P. W. 4 and Dr. K. P. Dubey has been examined as P. W. 5. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. No defence evidence was adduced. The appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 6. Learned Session Judge, Pilibhit after considering the evidence on record convicted the appellant as aforesaid. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. Shri V. S. Misra, learned Amicus Curiae and Danish Iqbal Faridi, learned A. G. A. and perused the record carefully. 7. Sukh Lal, P. W. I in his examination chief repeated the prosecution story given by him in his written report Ex. Ka-1. This witness was cross-examined at length. It has also come in his statement that the appellant had fired at the deceased from a distance of 6/7 feet. It has also come in his deposition that sala of Suresh, first went to the police Station, brought "darogaji on the place of occurrence who inspected the site. Then Daroga took Sukh Lal to the police station where the report was got written by Pandey Moharrir. 8. P. W. 2, Ram Bharosey Lal in his examination chief has corroborated the prosecution story. It has come in his cross-examination that the appellant was 2/3 paces away from the southern mend of his agricultural field. When the deceased started from the water tank, the appellant proceeded 2/3 paces forward and fired at the deceased. 9. P. W. 3, Dod Raj stated that the deceased was murdered at about 8. 30 a. m. . He was ploughing his field which is at a distance of 150/200 yards from the field of Sukhlal, He heard the gun shot. He ran to-wards west and saw Suresh lying dead while Sukhlal and Ram Bharosey were standing near the dead body. 30 a. m. . He was ploughing his field which is at a distance of 150/200 yards from the field of Sukhlal, He heard the gun shot. He ran to-wards west and saw Suresh lying dead while Sukhlal and Ram Bharosey were standing near the dead body. He saw the appellant going away with gun. It has come in his cross-examination that about 20/22 year before this occurrence, a quarrel had taken place between him and the appellant. But no case was registered. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the F. I. R. in this case is doubtful as according to PW. l he got the report scribed after sub-inspector had come to the spot on the information given by brother-in-law of the deceased. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per the statement of P. W. I, Sukhlal, the appellant fired at the deceased from a distance of 6/7 paces and as per the statement of P. W. 2 Ram Bharosey Lal this distance comes to 4 - 5 paces. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that according to the post-mortem report the blackening and tattooing was present indicating that the shot was made from a close range and as per the statement of Doctor it was made from a distance of four feet. It has been further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that P. W. 3, Dod Raj could not have recognised the appellant from a distance of 150 yards. 11. Per contra the learned A. G. A. submitted that the prosecution story can not be rejected on the ground that P. W. I stated that the F. I. R. was scribed after a cursory inspection by a Sub-inspector on the spot. The evidence of the prosecution can also not be disbelieved on the ground that there is variation in the statement of witnesses about the distance from which the appellant had made fire at the deceased. In this case the deceased, is the real brother of the appellant. The appellant committed murder of the deceased on the suspicions that he had cut the mend of his agricultural field. There is no reason for P. W. I, Sukhlal or P. W. 2, Ram Bharosey Lal to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. The murder took place at 8. The appellant committed murder of the deceased on the suspicions that he had cut the mend of his agricultural field. There is no reason for P. W. I, Sukhlal or P. W. 2, Ram Bharosey Lal to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. The murder took place at 8. 30 a. m. The appellant belongs to the village of P. W. 3, Dod Raj and as such there was no difficulty in recognising him by P. W. 3 Dod Raj. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 13. P. W. I, Sukhlal in his examination in chief regarding making of the F. I. R. has stated that after the occurrence he went to the village Berkhera where he got the written report scribed by Pandey Moharrir who wrote the report on his dictation and after hearing the contents of the same he put his thumb impression on the report and thereafter he took the same to the police station where he handed over the same. It has come in his cross-examination that nobody was sent by "darogaji" to the place of occurrence before lodging of the report. However, in his cross-examination in para 15, he has stated that the brother-in-law of Suresh first went to the police station. He had brought Sub-Inspector to the place of occurrence who inspected the place of occurrence, thereafter, he took him to the police station where the report was got scribed by Pandey, Moharrir. 14. Learned Counsel for the appellant has failed to point out as to how does this statement make the contents of the report doubtful. In our opinion if the report was lodged after visit of the sub-Inspector to the place of occurrence, this fact by itself is not enough to reject the prosecution evidence. We have to analyse whether, this fact in any way creates doubt about the prosecution case. 15. It is also true that P. W. I, Sukhlal stated that the appellant had fired at the deceased from a distance of 6-7 paces while P. W. 2, Ram Bharosey Lal gave this distance as 4-5 paces and in the opinion of Doctor the fire was made from a distance of 4 feet. The variation in the distance of making fire in the statement of witness is not too big. The variation in the distance of making fire in the statement of witness is not too big. The witnesses are illiterate, belong to the village and just because there is variation in their statement regarding distance from which the fire was made, their testimony can not be rejected. We also find no force in this argument that Dod Raj, P. W. 3 could not identify the appellant from a distance of 150 yards.-It is a day light incident. Dod Raj, P. W. 3 and appellant belong to the same place as such we find that there was no difficulty for Dod Raj in identifying the appellant. 16. The deceased and the appellant were real brother. The occurrence took place at 8. 30 a. m. on 25. 7. 1981. The fact of murder of the deceased is not disputed. From the statement of P. W. I, Sukh Lal, P. W. 2, Ram Bharosey Lal, P. W. 3, Dod Raj, their presence on the date, time and place of occurrence is quite probable. P. W. I, Sukh Lal and the deceased were working on the field of Sukh Lal. P. W. 2, Ram Bharosey Lal was working in the field of his father-in-law which as per the site plan is towards the south of the field of Sukh Lal. P. W. 3, Dod Raj was also working at his agricultural field. Nothing has come in their examination to suggest that they had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant in this case for the murder of his own brother. The appellant and the witnesses belong to the same village. Therefore, there was no difficulty for the witnesses to identify the appellant. There is nothing to indicate that the witnesses falsely implicated the appellant for the murder of his real brother. 17. The evidence of three eyewitnesses is consistent in all material details and in all vital points. We do not find any reason to view the evidence tendered by three eye-witnesses with suspicion. Three eye-witnesses are independent witnesses. No suggestion has been given to either of the three witnesses that they would depose falsely against the accused person. The evidence of the three eyewitnesses is corroborated by medical evidence on the record. Three eye-witnesses deposed that the deceased died by single shot made by the appellant. It is a case where real brother shot dead his brother. No suggestion has been given to either of the three witnesses that they would depose falsely against the accused person. The evidence of the three eyewitnesses is corroborated by medical evidence on the record. Three eye-witnesses deposed that the deceased died by single shot made by the appellant. It is a case where real brother shot dead his brother. There is no evidence that the appellant took any step for lodging the report of murder of his real brother which, in itself, is a very strong circumstance against the appellant. 18. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Pilibhit. The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. 19. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him is hereby confirmed. 20. Send a copy of this judgement to the concerned Session Judge for compliance. The compliance be reported within one month from today. Learned Amicus Curiae shall be paid a sum of Rs. 3000/- by the State for the assistance rendered by him to this Court in this case. Appeal Dismissed. .