M. CHAUDHARY, J. Since both the appeals and criminal revision have arisen out of one and same judgment and order dated 30th of May, 2002 passed by ASJ-Fast Track Court No. 3, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 1211 of 2000, State v. Munnawar and others, all the three have been taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the accused appellants from judgment and order dated 30th of May, 2002 parsed by ASJ-Fast Track Court No. 3 Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 1211 of 2000, State v. Munnawar and others, convicting the accused appellants under section 307 IPC and sentencing each of them to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000. 00 with default stipulation. All the three accused above named were acquitted of the charge levelled against them under section 302 IPC by the impugned judgment. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment acquitting the accused under section 302 IPC State filed the Government Appeal and Shamoon, the first informant preferred revision. Since co-accused Yakub absconded he is being tried separately. 4. Facts of the case as unfolded during trial in nutshell are: Usman, Suleman, Fateh Mohammad and Wali Mohammad were real brothers. Yamin, Shamoon and Yusuf were the sons of Fateh Mohammad. Ibnesaud was the son of Wali Mohammad. Anwar, Sannawar, Ashraf, Yusuf, Yakub, Akbar Ali and Munnawar were real brothers being sons of Khuda Bux. Shamshad and Qasim were the sons of Sannawar. Zuber is the son of Munnawar. Akbar Ali, brother of Munnawar was murdered some three years ago and in that murder Usman, Suleman, Ibnesaud and Fateh Mohammad were named as the assailants. Thereafter Shamshad, brother of Qasim and nephew of Munnawar was murdered on 8th of January, 2000 and in that murder Usman, Suleman, Yusuf and one Wahid were named as the assailants, In that murder case Yusuf, son of Fateh Mohammad was in jail. Yamin, son of Fateh Mohammad was also murdered. In the forenoon of 20th of May, 2000 Shamoon alongwith his father Fateh Mohammad and tau Wali Mohammad came from village Bisaula by bus for Civil Courts Meerut in pairvi of their case and alighted from the bus at Mawana bus stand (private) and proceeded for the Civil Courts. Yamin, son of Fateh Mohammad was also murdered. In the forenoon of 20th of May, 2000 Shamoon alongwith his father Fateh Mohammad and tau Wali Mohammad came from village Bisaula by bus for Civil Courts Meerut in pairvi of their case and alighted from the bus at Mawana bus stand (private) and proceeded for the Civil Courts. At about 11:15 a. m. as they stepped about 20-25 paces and reached in front of the office of Sardhana Bus Union Yaqub, Munnawar Qasim and Zuber armed with country made pistols met them and all the four fired-at Fateh Mohammad with countrymade pistols. Immediately Shamoon and Wali Mohammad retreated towards Sardhana Bus Stop raising hue and cry and took side of a bus standing there. After firing at Fateh Mohammad all the four assailants ran away. Receiving fatal firearm injuries Fateh Mohammad fell down. Immediately Shamoon and Wali Mohammad taking Fateh Mohammad in a rickshaw went to Jaswant Rai Hospital where injured Fateh Mohammad was admitted by his son Shamoon at 11:30 a. m. Then Shamoon himself scribed report of the occurrence and went to police station Meerut Civil lines situate at a distance of about two furlongs from the place of occurrence and handed over written report of the occurrence to the police there at 12. 05 noon promptly. The police registered a crime against the accused and made entry regarding registration of the crime in GD. 5. Injured Fateh Mohammad was medically examined by Dr. Anil Kapoor, Surgeon which revealed below noted injuries on his person: 1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x depth not probed with inverted margins on right side of chest 8 cm from right nipple at 2 Oclock position, fresh bleeding present. Tattooing also present in an area of 17 cm x 4. 5 cm. 2. Tattooing present in an area of 9 cm x 3 cm without any wound over right side neck obliquely and vertically starting at the level of mastoid process and 4 cm. posterior thereto. 3. Lacerated wound 5 cm x 2 cm x depth not probed with inverted margins on left side of face 2 cm below left eye fresh bleeding present. Tattooing present around the wound in an area of 6 cm x 5 cm. 4. posterior thereto. 3. Lacerated wound 5 cm x 2 cm x depth not probed with inverted margins on left side of face 2 cm below left eye fresh bleeding present. Tattooing present around the wound in an area of 6 cm x 5 cm. 4. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x depth not probed with inverted margins on back of left hand 13 cm below left acromion process, fresh bleeding present. Tattooing present in an area of 4 cm x 3 cm around the wound. 5. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm x depth not probed with inverted margins over anterior lateral side of left forearm, fresh bleeding present. 6. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 2 cm x depth not probed with inverted margins on right scapular region 7 cm from post auxiliary line, fresh bleeding present. 7. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm x depth not probed with inverted margins on left scapular region 6 cm from midline, fresh bleeding present. Patient was conscious but irritable, BP 60 mm systolic, pulse rate 130 feeble (carotid ). Respiration rate 42 per minute. Both lower limbs were paralyzed with sensory loss. Plantars ineluctable. The doctor opined that injuries No. 1, 3, 6 and 7 were grievous and 2, 4 and 5 simple and fresh in duration. He advised that Neuro surgeon was to be consulted. The patient was also advised resuscitation. 6. SI Dhani Ram Arya to whom investigation of the crime was entrusted went to Jaswant Rai Hospital and recorded statements of the witnesses including Wali Mohammad. Thereafter he sent information for recording dying declaration of injured Fateh Mohammad. At 8:15 p. m. on 20th May, 2000 Sri Raj Deo Singh, Additional City Magistrate, Meerut recorded dying declaration of injured Fateh Mohammad in presence of Dr. Narendra Trivedi. SI Dhani Ram Arya then went to the scene of occurrence, inspected the site with the help of Shamoon and prepared its site plan map. Then he searched for the assailants but in vain. Narendra Trivedi. SI Dhani Ram Arya then went to the scene of occurrence, inspected the site with the help of Shamoon and prepared its site plan map. Then he searched for the assailants but in vain. Fateh Mohammad succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the said incident on 25th of May, 2001 at 3:05 a. m. On receiving information at the police station SI Subhash Chaudhary went to the Hospital and drew inquest proceedings on the dead body of Fateh Mohammad and handed over the dead body in a sealed cover alongwith necessary papers to Constables Jaivir Singh and Shailendra Singh for being taken up for its post mortem. 7. Autopsy on the dead body of Fateh Mohammad was conduced by Dr. M. K. Gupta, Physician, P. L. Sharma Hospital Meerut on 25th of May, 2000 at 4:00 p. m. which revealed below noted ante mortem injuries on the dead body: 1. Stitched wound 3 cm long with three stitches on back of right side chest. 2. Infected wound 1. 5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on right side chest lower part in anterior axillary line. 3. Septic wound 1 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on right side chest 6 cm inner to right nipple at 2 O clock position. 4. Infected wound 3 cm x 3 cm x muscle deep on back of left forearm middle part. 5. Infected wound 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x muscle deep on front of left forearm upper part. 6. Infected wound 11 cm x 4 cm x muscle deep on outer back and right side of neck. 7. Stitched wound 4 cm long with six stitches on left side face. On internal examination 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs on right side were found fractured. Right lung was punctured and pleura lacerated. The doctor opined that death was caused due to septicemia and shock as a result of ante mortem injuries. 8. On 25th of May, 2000 the crime was altered under section 302 IPC vide GD Entry No. 7 at 4:15 a. m. Then investigation of the case was taken up by Station Officer Jasvir Singh Pundir in his hantls. After taking accused Munnawar, Qasim and Zuber on custody remand on 5th of July, 2000 SI Jasvir Singh Pundir recovered two countrymade pistols of. After taking accused Munnawar, Qasim and Zuber on custody remand on 5th of July, 2000 SI Jasvir Singh Pundir recovered two countrymade pistols of. 315 bore each at the instance of accused Qasim and Zuber from the shrubs on the side of Meerut-Mawana Road that very day at 9:40 p. m. The investigating officer sealed them in separate packets and prepared recovery memo thereof. After completing investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the accused accordingly. Charge was framed against the accused under section 302 IPC only. 9. The prosecution examined Shamoon (PW 1) and Wali Mohammad (PW 2) as eye witnesses of the occurrence. PW 4 Dr. Anil Kapoor who medically examined injured Fateh Mohammad on 20th of May, 2000 at 11:30 a. m. proved the injury report (Ext ka 3 ). PW 6 Dr Narendra Trivedi who certified that Fateh Mohammad was fully conscious at the time of recording dying declaration by the Executive Magistrate stated the said fact. PW 10 Sri Raj Deo Singh, the then Additional City Magistrate, Meerut who recorded dying declaration of injured Fateh Mohammad proved the same (Ext ka 12 ). PW 3 Dr N. K. Gupta who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Fateh Mohammad proved the post mortem report (Ext ka 2 ). PW 7 Clerk Constable Khalid Khan who prepared check report on the basis of written report handed over to him by Shamoon and made entry regarding registration of the crime in the GD proved these papers (Exts ka 10 and ka 11 ). PW 4 SI Dhani Ram Arya who investigated the crime in main proved the police papers including site plan map of the place of occurrence (Ext ka 15 ). PW 5 SI Subhash Chaudhary who drew inquest on the dead boy of Fateh Mohammad proved the inquest papers (Exts ka 4 to ka 8 ). PW 8 Constable Jaivir Singh who took body of Fateh Mohammad in a sealed cover alongwith necessary papers for its post mortem stated the said fact. PW 9 SI Jasvir Singh Pundir who investigated the case after alteration of crime under section 302 IPC and recovered two country made pistols at the instance of accused Qasim and Zuber and prepared their recovery memo proved the police papers and also appeared as a recovery witness (Ext ka 13 ). PW 9 SI Jasvir Singh Pundir who investigated the case after alteration of crime under section 302 IPC and recovered two country made pistols at the instance of accused Qasim and Zuber and prepared their recovery memo proved the police papers and also appeared as a recovery witness (Ext ka 13 ). However he admitted that he did not get the two country made pistols recovered at the instance of accused Qasim and Zuber sent to Ballistic Expert for expert opinion; probably because no empty cartridge etc. was recovered from the scene of occurrence. PW 11 SI Uma Shanker Sharma who investigated the crime under section 35 of the Arms Act proved the police papers. PW f3 Inspector Suresh Singh Chauhan who after completing investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused under sections 302 and 307 IPC proved the same (Ext ka 23 ). PW 14 Constable Ravindra Kumar who made entry regarding receipt of memo mentioning death of Fateh Mohammad from the Guard of Jaswant Rai Hospital and made entry in the GD regarding thereto proved the said GD entry (Ext ka 24 ). 10. The accused denied the alleged occurrence altogether stating that they were got implicated in the case falsely. Zuber and Qasim also denied the alleged recovery of country made pistols at their instance and having made any statement regarding thereto to the investigating officer. 11. The accused examined DW 1 V. Rai, Ballistic Expert, Forensic Science Laboratory Lucknow, DW 2 Sanjay Gaur Administrative in-charge Jaswant Rai Hospital Meerut and DW 3 Ram Avtar Sharma, RSO Police Control Room (Dehat) in their support. DW 1 V. Rai, Ballistic Expert deposed that firearm injuries sustained by the injured would have been caused by small firearms such as revolver, pistol or country made pistol and that septic could develop in the wounds if bullet remains inside the body. DW2 Sanjay Gaur stated that memo sent to the police station (Ext Kha 2) was in his hand writing and signature; that he had seen Inspector J. S. Pundir along with several persons and that he had sent the memo aforesaid to the police station that Fateh Mohammad was admitted in the Hospital by Inspector J. S. Pundir. DW2 Sanjay Gaur stated that memo sent to the police station (Ext Kha 2) was in his hand writing and signature; that he had seen Inspector J. S. Pundir along with several persons and that he had sent the memo aforesaid to the police station that Fateh Mohammad was admitted in the Hospital by Inspector J. S. Pundir. However he admitted in his cross-examination that at the Reception Shamoon, son of the injured was present and he told that he had come with the injured and that he affixed his thumb impressions on Bed Head Ticket as the person admitting injured Fateh Mohammad in the Hospital. 12. On an appraisal of the parties evidence the learned trial Judge convicted the accused appellants under section 307 IPC sentencing each of them to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000. 00 there under but acquitted them under section 302 IPC. 13. Aggrieved by the impugned. judgment accused appellants Munnawar, Qasim and Zuber preferred criminal appeal for redress. The State preferred Government Appeal and first informant Shamoon also preferred revision from the impugned judgment and order acquitting the accused under section 302 IPC. 14. We have heard Sri P. N. Misra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Raghuraj Kishore, Advocate for the accused appellants in Criminal Appeal and for accused respondents in Government appeal, Sri M. A. Siddiqui, learned AGA for the State respondent in Criminal Appeal and for the appellant in Government Appeal and Sri D. N. Wali, learned Counsel for the revisionist as well. 15. After going through the impugned judgment and record of the case we are unable to concur with the findings recorded by the Court below for the following reasons: 16. 15. After going through the impugned judgment and record of the case we are unable to concur with the findings recorded by the Court below for the following reasons: 16. PW 1 Shamoon, son of the deceased and the first informant stated all the facts of the occurrence from the beginning to the end as stated above deposing that at about 11:15 a. m. he along with his father Fateh Mohammad and Tau Wali Mohammad got down from the bus at Mawana Bus Stand and proceeded towards the Civil Courts Meerut and as they reached in front of office of Sardhana Bus Union covering a distance of 20-25 paces Yaqoob, Munnawar, Qasim and Zuber armed with country made pistols met them and all the four fired at Fateh Mohammad; that immediately he and his tau retreated for their lives towards Sardhana Bus Stop raising hue and cry; that after firing at his father all the assailants ran away and that then he alongwith his tau taking his injured father Fateh Mohammad in a rickshaw went to Jaswant Rai Hospital and got him admitted there. He further deposed that then he scribed report of the occurrence himself and went to police station Civil Lines and handed over written report of the occurrence to the police there (Ext ka 1 ). PW 2 Wali Mohammad corroborated him stating likewise. Testimony of both the eyewitnesses stands corroborated by FIR of the occurrence lodged promptly at the police station and medical evidence on the record. Both the witnesses were subjected to rambling and gruelling cross-examination but nothing substantial could be elicited there from to discredit their testimony. Medical evidence leaves no room for doubt as to the factum of the occurrence and the prosecution case with regard to its time and the weapons used in the assault also receives corroboration from it. A perusal of the medical papers goes to show that the patient was admitted by his son Shamoon in Jaswant Rai Hospital at 11:30 a. m. soon after the occurrence. PW 4 Dr. Anil Kumar, Surgeon who medically examined him found his condition critical as his pulse was, carotid feeble and both the lower limbs were paralyzed with sensory loss. The patient was advised resuscitation. PW 3 Dr. PW 4 Dr. Anil Kumar, Surgeon who medically examined him found his condition critical as his pulse was, carotid feeble and both the lower limbs were paralyzed with sensory loss. The patient was advised resuscitation. PW 3 Dr. M. K. Gupta conducting autopsy on the dead body found right lung punctured and pleura lacerated and 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs on right side fractured. He stated that ante mortem injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. DW 1 Dr. V. Rai, Ballistic expert stated that septicemia develops if bullet remains inside the body. Considering all the facts, we are of the view that the offence squarely falls under section 302 IPC and the accused appellants are guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. However, the accused appellants learned Counsel advanced the following arguments and now we shall see if any of them has got any force: 17. First, the appellants learned Counsel vehemently argued that since both the eye-witnesses namely PW 1 Shamoon and PW 2 Wali Mohammad are closely related to the deceased as Shamoon is son of the deceased and PW 2 Wali Mohammad his real brother no reliance should be placed on their interested testimony. It is well settled that testimony of a close relative cannot be discarded on the ground of close relationship with the deceased if otherwise it is found to be trustworthy and credible. Relationship is not the factor to effect credibility of a witness as ordinarily a close relative would not conceal actual culprit and make false allegations against innocent persons. The only requirement in such cases is that the Court has to analyse the evidence cautiously and carefully to find out whether it is cogent and credible and if on careful scrutiny the evidence is found to be true and trustworthy it can well be acted upon. In the instant case, both the eye witnesses above named stood the test of incisive cross-examination firmly and nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to shake their credibility. Their sworn testimony stands corroborated with the FIR of the occurrence lodged promptly without losing any time and medical evidence as well. The said argument advanced by the appellants learned Counsel has got no life and is repelled. 18. Their sworn testimony stands corroborated with the FIR of the occurrence lodged promptly without losing any time and medical evidence as well. The said argument advanced by the appellants learned Counsel has got no life and is repelled. 18. Secondly, the appellants learned Counsel strenuously argued that presence of PW 1 Shamoon and PW 2 Wali Mohammad is doubtful on the spot as it has come in evidence that injured Fateh Mohammad was admitted by the police in the Hospital and therefore it appears that they came subsequently from the village after receiving information of the occurrence and hence no reliance should be placed on their testimony. No doubt, DW2 Sanjai Gaur, in-charge Administration, Jaswant Rai Hospital deposed that he had sent a memo on 20th of May, 2000 to the police station mentioning that injured Fateh Mohammad was admitted in the Hospital by Station Officer J. S. Pundir (Exts ka 1 & ka 2 ). However he could not withstand his cross- examination as he stated in his cross-examination that several persons accompanied injured Fateh Mohammad and he did not know any of them personally; that he identified the inspector through name plate on his livery and that it has been mentioned in the BHT that injured Fateh Mohammad was got admitted in the Hospital by his son Shamoon at 11:30 a. m. He further stated in his cross-examination that at that time at the reception he enquired as to who accompanied Fateh Mohammad as by that time Inspector J. S. Pundir returned back and Shamoon told that he was son of the injured and he accompanied him. A perusal of the memo (Ext Kha 2) goes to show that on 20th of May, 2000 Sanjai Gaur informed the police at police station Civil Lines that injured Fateh Mohammad was admitted in the Hospital by Station Officer J. S. Pundir and the entry regarding thereto was made in GD at 1:30 p. m. (Ext kha 1 ). A perusal of the memo (Ext Kha 2) goes to show that on 20th of May, 2000 Sanjai Gaur informed the police at police station Civil Lines that injured Fateh Mohammad was admitted in the Hospital by Station Officer J. S. Pundir and the entry regarding thereto was made in GD at 1:30 p. m. (Ext kha 1 ). However PW"9 SI J. S. Pundir stated in his cross- examination that he had not accompanied injured Fateh Mohammad to the Hospital and he was in the Civil Courts on law and order duty on 20th of May, 2000; that after learning about the incident he went to the Hospital at 11:30 or 11:45 noon and that in the Hospital family members of the victim met him and he talked to them but he could not see the injured. A perusal of the BHT (Paper No. 33-A) goes to show that injured Fateh Mohammad was admitted by his son Shamoon in the Hospital on 20. 5. 2000 at 11:30 a. m. Further, PW 1 Shamoon and PW 2 Wali Mohammad have given such a graphic statement of the incident that their cogent and consistent testimony cannot be doubted. PW 1 Shamoon stated in his cross-examination that after sustaining the firearm injuries his father Fateh Mohammad fell down and since he was not in a position to move he and his uncle Wali Mohammad lifted him and made him sit in a rickshaw and then went to Jaswant Rai Hospital. He also stated emphatically that he did not see any blood or flesh piece lying on the spot. PW 2 Wali Mohammad too stated in his cross-examination that all the four fired at Fateh Mohammad with countrymade pistols from the front. PW 1 Shamoon also deposed that the accused fired at his father from a distance of 1 or 2 paces. It has also been argued by the appellants learned Counsel that since both the eye-witnesses could not tell as to which of the shots fired by each of the assailants hit which part of body of the victim it is doubtful if any of them was present at all at the scene of occurrence. This argument advanced by the appellants learned Counsel is wholly fallacious. If has come in evidence that all the four assailants armed with countrymade pistols fired at Fateh Mohammad almost simultaneously from the front. This argument advanced by the appellants learned Counsel is wholly fallacious. If has come in evidence that all the four assailants armed with countrymade pistols fired at Fateh Mohammad almost simultaneously from the front. Under the circumstances it is next to impossible for any person to tell as to which of the shots fired by which of the assailants hit which part of body of the victim. For the above, presence of PW 1 Shamoon and PW 2 Wali Mohammad cannot be doubted at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time. 19. Thirdly, the appellants learned Counsel laid much emphasis upon the fact that no reliance should be placed on the alleged dying declaration of the deceased recorded by Sri Raj Deo Singh, ACM, Meerut on 20th of May, 2000 at 8:15 p. m. His contention in this regard is two fold: (i) The doctor has not certified that the injured was in a fit mental condition to make declaration; and (ii) identity of the injured at the time of recording his alleged dying declaration was not established. Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible and unless evidence is tested by cross-examination it is not creditworthy. A dying declaration made by a person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. The shadow of impending death by itself is guarantee of truth of the statement of the person making declaration regarding circumstances leading to his death. A perusal of the dying declaration (Ext Ka 12) goes to show that the doctor certified that the injured was fully conscious. If the doctor did not mention the exact words that the injured was in a fit mental state to make declaration it would not render the dying declaration unreliable. In fact the person in authority who recorded the dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement. If the doctor did not mention the exact words that the injured was in a fit mental state to make declaration it would not render the dying declaration unreliable. In fact the person in authority who recorded the dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement. PW 10 Sri Raj Deo Singh, ACM deposed that at 8:15 p. m. on 20th of May, 2000 when he recorded statement of Fateh Mohammad he was fully conscious and it was also certified by the doctor; that after recording his statement he asked Fateh Mohammad if he was giving statement under pressure of any person or to implicate anyone falsely he replied in the negative and that he had put the said question to the injured for his satisfaction. He further stated that after, recording the statement he read over the same to the injured and thereafter got his thumb impressions affixed thereon. Thus we have no hesitation in finding that the dying declaration appears to be true and voluntary. PW 6 Dr. Narendra Trivedi who certified that Fateh Mohammad was fully conscious proved the certificate. PW 10 Sri Raj Deo Singh also deposed that injured Fateh Mohammad was identified by his family members. Besides it, injured Fateh Mohammad himself narrated the incident concisely to the Executive Magistrate who recorded the same in his hand. Under the circumstances, question of identity of injured Fateh Mohammad whose statement was recorded by PW 10 Sri Raj Deo Singh, ACM cannot be doubted. 20. Lastly, the appellants learned Counsel argued that FIR of the occurrence is ante timed. In support of his said argument, relying upon a wireless message from Police Control Room (Rural) that the assailants who fired at the victim belonged to village Bisaula PS Echauli he contended that after admitting injured Fateh Mohammad in Jaswant Rai Hospital the police sent information through wireless at 11:35 a. m. and then relatives of the injured were informed regarding the occurrence and that it was thereafter that Shamoon and Wali Mohammad reached the Hospital and next morning FIR was framed in consultation with the police at the police station. Since DW 3 Ram Autar Sharma, Police Control Room (Dehat) deposed that the said wireless had been weeded out according to the Rules it is not known as to on whose information that wireless was sent at 11:35 a. m. the day the alleged incident occurred. Shamoon, son of the injured lodged FIR of the occurrence at the police station promptly at 12:05 noon after admitting his injured father in Jaswant Rai Hospital. PW 7 constable Khalicj Khan deposed that he prepared check report on the basis of written report handed over to him at the police station at 12:05 noon and made entry regarding registration of the crime in GD (Exts ka 10 & ka 11 ). We see no plausible reason to doubt the veracity of time of lodging FIR mentioned in the check report and GD entry which were prepared by the public official in the discharge of his official duties. 21. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the accused appellants along with one another armed with country made pistols in furtherance of their common intention to commit the murder of Fateh Mohammad fired at him with their respective weapons thereby causing fatal firearm injuries to him. 22. As to the offence made out, the appellants learned Counsel contended that since proper medical care and treatment was not provided to the injured he died due to septicemia and hence offence punishable under section 302 IPC is not made out. In our opinion contention of the appellants learned Counsel that had proper medical treatment and attention been given the victim would not have died is not sustainable. 23. PW 3 Dr. N. K. Gupta who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Fateh Mohammad deposed that the ante mortem injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Thus we are of the considered view that all the three accused appellants committed an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC as the attack was preplanned. 24. Government Appeal 4195 of 2002, State v. Munnawar and others, is allowed and the impugned judgment and order is hereby set aside. Accused appellants Munnawar, Qasim and Zuber are hereby convicted under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and each of them is sentenced to imprisonment for life there under. 24. Government Appeal 4195 of 2002, State v. Munnawar and others, is allowed and the impugned judgment and order is hereby set aside. Accused appellants Munnawar, Qasim and Zuber are hereby convicted under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and each of them is sentenced to imprisonment for life there under. Conviction of the accused appellants under section 307 IPC and sentence awarded there under is hereby set aside. Criminal Appeal 2154 of 2002, Munnaivar and others v. State and Criminal Revision 953 of 2002, Shamoon v. Munnawar and others stand disposed of accordingly. 25. Accused appellants Munnawar, Qasim and Zuber are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut is directed to get all the three accused appellants arrested and send them to jail to serve out the sentence imposed upon them. Office is directed to send copy of the judgment and record of lower Court to the Court below immediately for ensuring compliance under intimation to this Court within two months from today. Government Appeal Allowed. .