S. K. JAIN, J. This criminal appeal has been filed by the two appellants, namely, Anwar and Ikbal against the judgment and order dated 3. 9. 1982 passed by learned Ilnd Additional District Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 1980, State v. Anwar and another under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, P. S. Rampur District Saharanpur whereby learned Sessions Judge convicted two appellants for offences under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. 2. During the pendency of appeal, appellant Ikbal died and his appeal stood abated vide order dated 10. 8. 2007. 3. The facts which are essential for the purpose of this appeal are as follows: 4. That there was criminal litigation between the deceased party and party of the appellants. Both parties are resident of the same village. The party of the deceased was acquitted by the Sessions Court, Saha-ranpur against which Ikbal and others had filed appeal before High Court. The groves of the complainant side and appellants side are near to each other. About three days before the present occurrence, there was hot exchange of words between the deceased Dilshad and appellant Ikbal. Ikbal said to Dilshad that he had been acquitted from the Court but he would not be spared by them. They would soon make some arrangement to eliminate him. 5. This occurrence took place on 25. 11. 1979 at about 8. 30 p. m. in the grove of Ashraf Ali Khan in the village Harpali within the circle of P. S. Rampur, District Saharanpur. On the date of occurrence i. e. 25. 11. 1979, the deceased Dilshad, his father first informant Ashraf Ali Khan, his brother Shamshad and their servant Quasim were irrigating their grove from tube well with the help of tractor. At about 8. 30 p. m. the appellant, Anwar armed with gun and his real brother appellant Ikbal armed with country made pistol with two other unknown persons who were armed with guns, came in their grove. Appellant Anwar pointing out towards deceased Dilshad told his brother Ikkbal and their two unknown companions that Dilshad has made their life hell, today he should be taught a lesson for litigation and for being aggressive. On this, all the four accused opened fire at Dilshad from their weapons. Appellant Anwar pointing out towards deceased Dilshad told his brother Ikkbal and their two unknown companions that Dilshad has made their life hell, today he should be taught a lesson for litigation and for being aggressive. On this, all the four accused opened fire at Dilshad from their weapons. Dilshad received five firearm injuries, fell down on the ground. On an alarm being raised by the first informant Ashraf Ali Khan, Ali Ullah Khan and Nazeer Hasan came who witnessed the occurrence in the light of tractor and also recognised the two appellants, Anwar and Ikbal. The two unknown persons accompanying the appellants could not be identified. The four assailants succeeded in running away. Dil- shad was taken on cot to his village to give him medical aid, but he succumbed to his injuries in the way. His father, first informant, Ashraf Ali Khan left his dead body in the Baithak and got report of the occurrence scribed by Shamshad Ali Khan and went to the police station along with Raghubfr Pradhan, Shiam Singh Saini, Re-htu Lal Saini, Telu Gujjar and Rudra Datt Sharma. This report was lodged at P. S. Rampur on 26. 11. 1979 at about 00. 30 hrs. The distance between police station and place of occurrence was seven miles. On the basis of this written report Ex K-l, head Moharrir Ishlam Mohd. wrote chick F. I. R. Ex. Ka-2 and registered the case in G. D. No. 3 at 00. 30 hrs. as per Ex Ka-3. 6. P. W. 3 Sunpat Singh who was posted as Station Officer and in whose presence this case was registered took up the investigation. After recording the statement of head Moharrir he with A. S. I. Maksood and other constables reached village Harpali in the morning at 7. 00 a. m. He got the inquest report, Chalan lash, photo lash and other papers for post mortem prepared by the said inspector, Maqsood Hasan. Under his directions, the dead body of the deceased Dilshad was sealed and was sent through constable Bal-ram and constable Mahender Singh to Saharanpur for post-mortem. After recording the statements of Shamsad and Quasim, he prepared site plan on pointing out of Ashraf Ali Khan, he also took into possession blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared its recovery memo. After recording the statements of Shamsad and Quasim, he prepared site plan on pointing out of Ashraf Ali Khan, he also took into possession blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared its recovery memo. He also found three empty cartridges of 12 bore on the place of occurrence he took them into possession and prepared its recovery memo. tiklis" and pallets were also found on the place of occurrence. They were also taken into possession and the recovery memo was prepared. The tractor was found on the spot and its Supurdagi was given to the first informant. On inspection three lights of the tractor were found in working condition and after completing the investigation remitted charge sheet against two appellant. 7. The autopsy on the dead body of Dilshad was conducted by Dr. A. K. Jain, P. W. 4 on 27. 11. 1979 in S. B. D. hospital, Saharanpur at 11. 00 a. m. The following ante mortem injuries were found: 1. Lacerated punctured wound 3 cm x 3 cm. circular in shape on the upper part/of right side of face 2 cm. away from right ear brain cavity deep. Charring present around the wound of entry. 2. Lacerated punctured wound 4 cm. x 2-1/2 cm on the back of right arm muscle deep. Charring around the wound present. Wound of en-try. 3. Lacerated punctured wound 9 cm. x 8 cm. chale cavity deep on the right side chest 8 cm. below right nipple at 8 O Clock position charring around wound present. Wound of entry. 4. Contusion 3 cm. x 2 crri. On the right side of chest just adjacent to injury No. 3. 5. Multiple punctured wound in the area of 12 cm. x 9 cm. on, the left side chest upper part, some skin deep some muscle deep and some lung cavity deep. Injuries are adjacent to left nipple. Wound of entry. 6. Contusion 1 cm. x 1 cm. circular on the left side of abdomen outer part. 7. Contusion 1 cm. x 1/2 cm on the left side abdomen outer part 4 cm medial to injury No. 6. 8. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries caused by fire arm. In the opinion of doctor injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. 7. Contusion 1 cm. x 1/2 cm on the left side abdomen outer part 4 cm medial to injury No. 6. 8. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries caused by fire arm. In the opinion of doctor injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. 61 small metalic pallets and 3 pieces of wadding were recovered from the body of the deceased which were sealed by doctor. About 300 gms semi digested food material was present in the body and as per statement of doctor the deceased should have taken meals two hours before his death. 9. The prosecution in order to bring home charges levelled against the accused examined father of the deceased Ashraf All Khan as P. W. I, Shamshad Ali Khan, real brother of the deceased as P. W. 2, Sunpat Singh, Investigating officer of the case, has been examined as P. W. 3 and Dr. A. K. Jain, medical officer who conducted the postmortem examination of Dilshad as P. W. 4. Affidavits of head constable, Radhey Shyam, head Moharrir Malkhana has been filed to show that on 31. 3. 1980 five sealed packets of this case property was sent for chemical examination and the packets were received back on 22. 7. 1980 after chemical examination. Affidavit of constable, Budh Pakash was also filed to say that he had deposited the sealed packets in Malkhana and did not permit anybody to touch the packets. Affidavit of Soran Singh has been filed to say that he had taken two packets for chemical examination. Constable Bhag Singh has been examined as P. W. 7 to prove G. D. written by Ishtyak Ahmad. 11. The case of the appellant was of denial. No oral evidence in defence was adduced. 12. Learned Sessions Judge found the evidence adduced by the prosecution trustworthy and reliable and recorded the findings of conviction as aforesaid. 13. We have heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel, Shri P. N. Misra, assisted by the learned counsel, Shri Apul Misra for the appellants and Ms. Usha Ki-ran, learned A. G. A for the State and perused the record carefully. 14. 13. We have heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel, Shri P. N. Misra, assisted by the learned counsel, Shri Apul Misra for the appellants and Ms. Usha Ki-ran, learned A. G. A for the State and perused the record carefully. 14. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Sessions Judge erred in placing reliance on the evidence of the two eye witnesses who apart from being close relatives of the deceased were highly interested witnesses, inasmuch as even according to the prosecution version there was enmity of the appellants with them also, therefore, they had a very strong motive to falsely implicate the appellants in this case. None of these eyewitnesses were injured in the incident even though they should have also been the target of attack because of long-standing litigation between them and the appellants. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellants in support of his contention has relied upon the case of Achhaibar Pandey v. State (1. 1989 (26) ACC 414) wherein it has been observed by this Honble Court that where the witness was main target of the accused and no injury was received by him, his presence at the time of incident is doubtful. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (1. 2003 (46) ACC 785 (SC) = 2003 (6) AIC 228 (SC)), where the above view of this Court has been upheld by Honble Apex Court. 16. It has also been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the occurrence did not take place at the time i. e. 8. 30 p. m. On 25. 11. 1979, as alleged by the prosecution and it took place around 11. 00 p. m. as about 300 gms semi digested food material was found in the stomach of the deceased Dilshad which shows that Dilshad had taken meals two hours before the incident. 17. Learned A. G. A contended that the incident took place in the grove of first informant. The evidence of two eyewitnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence on record. P. W. I, Asharaf Ali Khan who is father of the deceased and P. W. 2, Shamshad who is real brother of the deceased have specifically stated in their statement that they were present at the place of occurrence at about 8. The evidence of two eyewitnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence on record. P. W. I, Asharaf Ali Khan who is father of the deceased and P. W. 2, Shamshad who is real brother of the deceased have specifically stated in their statement that they were present at the place of occurrence at about 8. 00 p. m. where deceased was irrigating the grove with the help of tractor from 3. 00 - 4. 00 p. m. They being father and brother of the deceased had gone to their grove as such their presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence is natural and probable. It has further been submitted by the learned A. G. A that in this case the F. I. R. was promptly lodged. The fact that two eyewitnesses suffered no injuries in the incident cannot be a ground to reject their testimony. Their testimony is fully corroborated by the medical evidence on record. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel that servant Quasim who was present on the spot could not be examined in this case as he left the service of the informant and joined service of the appellant Anwar. Other two witnesses also entered into relationship with the appellants as such they were won over by the appellant. The testimony of the two eyewitnesses can not be rejected on the ground that they are close relatives of the deceased. 18. In this case, as per the prosecution, the incident took place on 25. 11. 1979 at 8. 30 p. m. F. I. R. Ex. Ka-1 was lodged at Police Station in the same night of 25/26-11-1979 at 00. 30 Hrs. The distance between police station and the place of occurrence is seven miles. The deceased was first taken to his village for treatment and in way he succumbed to his injuries and thereafter written report was got subscribed by Shamshad Ali Khan and lodged at the police station. Under these circumstances, in this case, the F. I. R. was promptly lodged. 19. This fact is also not disputed that the deceased died of gun shot injuries. Perusal of the ante mortem injuries of the deceased suggests that the gunshot injuries were caused to him from different directions and possibility that these injuries were caused by four assailants can not be overruled. Dr. 19. This fact is also not disputed that the deceased died of gun shot injuries. Perusal of the ante mortem injuries of the deceased suggests that the gunshot injuries were caused to him from different directions and possibility that these injuries were caused by four assailants can not be overruled. Dr. A. K. Jain, P. W. 3 in his examination in chief has stated that the deceased could die because of these injuries on 25. 11. 1979 at 18. 30 p. m. 20. Admittedly, there was enmity between first informant and his sons and the appellants due to long-standing litigation. 21. Honble Apex Court in the case of Shyam v. State of M. P (2. 2007 (58) ACC 298. ). has observed that there is no proposition in the law that the relatives are to be treated as untrustworthy witnesses. On the contrary reason has to be shown when the plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to save the actual culprits and falsely implicate the accused. 22. In the case of Shushil and others v. State of U. P (3. 1995 Supp (1) SCC 363 ). it has been observed that the mere fact that the witnesses are either relatives of the deceased or inimical towards the accused by itself is not circumstances tc throw away their testimony. The evidence is to be scrutinised with care and cautior and if found to be consistent and support able there is no reason to discard the same. 23. Ashraf Ali Khan, P. W. I is the fa ther of the deceased and Shamshad Ali Khan, P. W. 2 is the brother of the deceased, as such, they are close relatives of the deceased. P. W. I, Ashraf Ali Khan deposed before the Court that two appellants belong to his village with whom they had ancestral litigation. Two years before the present occurrence Ikbal had filed a case against him, his brother and deceased Dilshad for the injuries suffered by Ikbal and Israr. A cross case of this incident was filed by one Pahal Kumar and he was a witness in the cross case. Deceased Dilshad was acquitted in the case and in the case filed by Pahal Kumar also accused persons were acquitted. The appeals were filed before the High Court in both cases which were pending. A cross case of this incident was filed by one Pahal Kumar and he was a witness in the cross case. Deceased Dilshad was acquitted in the case and in the case filed by Pahal Kumar also accused persons were acquitted. The appeals were filed before the High Court in both cases which were pending. Three days before the present occurrence, the deceased Dilshad was ploughing his agricultural field. Appellant Ikbal met him and told him that though he was acquitted but he would be taught a lesson. Giving the details of the occurrence, he deposed that on 25. 11. 1979 at about 8. 30 p. m. this occurrence took place. Deceased Dilshad and their servant Quasim were irrigating their grove by tube-well with the help of tractor since 3-4 p. m. He with his son P. W. 2, Shamshad reached there at 8. 60 p. m. The front of the tractor was towards south and its front and rear lights were switched on and it was moon lit night. He along with Shamshad Ali Khan and Quasim were sitting towards east side of the tractor. At about 8. 30 p. m. from the south four persons came. Ikbal was armed with country made pistol and Anwar was armed with double barrel gun and two unknown persons were also armed with guns. Anwar pointing towards deceased Dilshad said that Dilshad had made their life hell, today he should be taught a lesson for litigation and for being aggressive. He should be killed. First fire was made by Ikbal from his country made pistol and thereafter three accused made fire from their guns at Dilshad. On an alarm being raised by him, Ali Ullah and Nazeer Hasan also arrived there. The accused persons ran away toward east. Deceased Dilshad was alive but was not able to speak. He was brought on a cot to village to consult a doctor, but he succumbed to his injuries in the way. 24. P. W. 2, Shamshad Ali Khan has corroborated the statement of P. W. I, Asharaf Ali Khan and further stated that the witness Ali Ullah belongs to the family of the appellant, Anwar and witness, Nazeer Hasan after 3-4 months of the occurrence has also established his relationship in the family of the appellant though his wife. 25. 24. P. W. 2, Shamshad Ali Khan has corroborated the statement of P. W. I, Asharaf Ali Khan and further stated that the witness Ali Ullah belongs to the family of the appellant, Anwar and witness, Nazeer Hasan after 3-4 months of the occurrence has also established his relationship in the family of the appellant though his wife. 25. From the statement of these two witnesses, it appears that at the time of occurrence the deceased Dilshad was west of the tractor while these two witnesses along with their servant Quasim were sitting towards east of the tractor. It is also clear from the evidence that the deceased Dilshad was only target of the accused persons as when they arrived at the place of occurrence the appellant Anwar only pointed out towards the deceased Dilshad and thereafter the deceased was fired at by two appellant and by two unknown persons. Thereafter the appellants left the place of occurrence. There is nothing to suggest that the appellants had seen these two eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence. It is also to be noticed here that there was hot exchange of words three days before this occurrence had taken place between the deceased and the appellant Ikbal. Thus, under these circumstances, two eyewitnesses were not injured. Therefore, we do not find any force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that because these two eyewitnesses were not injured in the incident, their presence at the time of occurrence is doubtful. In view of the above, law laid down in the case of Achchaibar Pandey v. State (1989 (26) ACC 414.) and Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2003 (46) ACC 785 (SC) = 2003 (6) AIC 228 (SC ).), supra is hot-applicable in the facts of this case. 26. Next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was done to death by some unknown person at about 11. 00 p. m. as 300. gms semi digested food was found irfni^ stomach and the doctor A. K. Jain, P. W. 4 in his cross examination has stated that the deceased could die on 25. 11. 1979 at 11. 00 p. m. We do not find any force in this ar-j gument of the learned Counsel for the appellants. 00 p. m. as 300. gms semi digested food was found irfni^ stomach and the doctor A. K. Jain, P. W. 4 in his cross examination has stated that the deceased could die on 25. 11. 1979 at 11. 00 p. m. We do not find any force in this ar-j gument of the learned Counsel for the appellants. There is no evidence on record to suggest that as to when the deceased Dil-shad had taken his meals. Dr. A. K. Jain has specifically stated in his examination-in-chief that the deceased Dilshad could die at the time of occurrence i. e. 8. 30 p. m. on 25. 11. 1979. 27. The presence of the two eyewitnesses having been challenged by the learned Counsel for the appellants the moot point for consideration is whether their presence was probable at date, time and place of occurrence as alleged which took place in the grove of first informant on 25. 11. 1979 at 8. 30 p. m. As per the prosecution story the deceased Dilshad alongwith his servant Quasim was irrigating the grove with the help of tractor since 3-4 p. m. Thus, it was natural for Asharaf Ali Khan, P. W. I being father of the deceased and Shamsad Ali Khan, P. W. 2 being his real brother to go to the grove since it was becoming dark. 28. The two eye-witnesses right from the stage of first information report which was promptly lodged at the police station have given vivid description about the manner in which the accused caused injuries to the deceased. The evidence of the doctor and his autopsy report clearly indicate that the deceased has suffered ante mortem injuries which were caused by fire arm. According to the prosecution story, four accused opened fire at the deceased and gun shot injuries suffered by the deceased are on different parts of his body indicating that the fire was made from different directions. Empty cartridges besides "tiklies" and pellets were found from the body of the deceased at the time of autopsy. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution is also supported by the medical evidence on record. These two eye-witnesses were subject to lengthy and searching cross-examination but nothing has been brought on record to discard their testimony. Their testimony is natural, convincing and trustworthy. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution is also supported by the medical evidence on record. These two eye-witnesses were subject to lengthy and searching cross-examination but nothing has been brought on record to discard their testimony. Their testimony is natural, convincing and trustworthy. Under these circumstances, just because the two eye witnesses are close relatives and inimical towards the appellants, their testimony can not be rejected. On scrutiny we find their evidence convincing and trustworthy. 29. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the appellant Anwar under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code is affirmed. The appellant is on bail. His personal bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence awarded to him. 30. Certify the judgement to the lower Court concerned within a week for compliance. The record of the case be also transmitted to the lower Court immediately. The compliance shall be reported by the concern Court within a month from the date of receiving copy of this judgment. Appeal Dismissed. .