Judgment D.K Sinha, J.-The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code whereby the appellant has been sentenced life imprisonment. He has further been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years. Both the sentences passed by the Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 86 of 1997 arising out of Pathar Gama P.S. Case No. 18 of 1997 (Ext. 4) against the appellant Bhagirath Yadav are directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution was launched on the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant (P.W. 5) Moti Lal Yadav recorded on 15.2.1997 at about 16.00 hours near Barki Bandh. The informant narrated that having received the information in respect of certain altercation when his son Gopal Yadav (since deceased) proceeded towards Kharihani Hatia to verify the information followed by the informant himself and as soon as his son Gopal Yadav arrived near the bridge known as Barki Bandh, the accused persons namely, Bhagirath Yadav(appellant) with musket, Gulabi Yadav with pistol, Kistu Yadav, Kartik Yadav and Sheonath Yadav with sticks suddenly appeared from the opposite direction and it was alleged that the accused Gulabi Yadav and Kistu Yadav commanded the appellant to shoot Gopal Yadav so that the land dispute could be settled once for all. It was further alleged that all the accused persons surrounded Gopal Yadav and the appellant pursuant to such command, fired shot from his musket which caused injury at his lateral part of right chest, as a result of which he fell down on the earth and died instantaneously. On the cry of the informant, father (P.W. 5) the villagers assembled at the place of occurrence and having seen the appearance of the villagers the assailants escaped. It was further narrated by the informant that Jhagru Yadav (P.W. 1) and Mostt. Sahodri Yadav (P.W. 3) wife of late Mahabir Yadav were coming behind the accused who witnessed the occurrence. It was further alleged that when the informant rushed back to his home to inform the occurrence he was fired upon by Gulabi Yadav but without any injury on his person. The informant by speculating the motive suggested that the occurrence was given effect to by them on account of land dispute. 3. It was further alleged that when the informant rushed back to his home to inform the occurrence he was fired upon by Gulabi Yadav but without any injury on his person. The informant by speculating the motive suggested that the occurrence was given effect to by them on account of land dispute. 3. The police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against all the five named accused persons. The Trial Judge framed the charge against the appellant, Bhagirath Yadav under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code simplicitor and separate charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act against the remaining four accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The specific defence of the accused persons as well as the appellant before the Trial Judge was of their innocence and false implication on account of persisting land dispute but no evidence was adduced either oral or documentary in support of such defence by them. We find from the judgment impugned that death of Gopal Yadav caused by fire arm was not disputed and that it was further admitted that the informant on the one side and the accused persons on the other side were on litigating terms since long, much before the occurrence and thus they were inimical. 5. The prosecution had produced and examined altogether eight witnesses viz. P.W.1 Jhagru Yadav, P.W.2 Mostt. Narkalwa Devi, wife of the deceased, P.W. 3 Mostt. Sahodri Yadav wife of late Mahabir Yadav, P.W. 4 Rajendra Yadav, P.W. 5 (informant) Moti Lal Yadav, P.W. 6 Dr. Kula Nand Choudhary who held postmortem examination on the body of Gopal Yadav, P.W. 7 Shri Narayan Singh, Investigating Officer and P.W. 8 Kanaiya Prasad Singh, another Investigating Officer who submitted charge-sheet. 6. The prosecution further proved the post-mortem report (Ext.1). Fardbeyan (Ext.2), inquest report of the deceased (Ext.3), formal FIR (Ext. 4) and the seizure list (Ext. 5). 7. We find that the Trial Judge while adverting to the evidence in judgment, categorized the prosecution witness viz. PWs. 2, 4 and 5 being closely related to the deceased and members of one and same family whereas P.W. 1 (Jhagru Yadav) and P.W. 3 Mostt. Sahodri Yadav, wife of late Mahabir Yadav being the witnesses named in the FIR by the informant. 8. PWs. 2, 4 and 5 being closely related to the deceased and members of one and same family whereas P.W. 1 (Jhagru Yadav) and P.W. 3 Mostt. Sahodri Yadav, wife of late Mahabir Yadav being the witnesses named in the FIR by the informant. 8. On the other hand, the defence of the appellant and other accused was their false implication due to enmity. It was submitted that at the earlier occasion a case was lodged in the year 1985 by the appellant's side in which the informant, Motilal Yadav and his son Gopal Yadav (since deceased) and P.W. 4 Rajendra Yadav were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each. The learned counsel submitted that the trial court though disbelieved the testimony of P.W. 4, Rajendra Yadav but sustained conviction of the appellant believing the testimonies of P.W. 1, Jhagru Yadav, P.W. 3 Mostt. Sahodri Yadav and P.W. 5 (informant) Motilal Yadav. The specific case of the informant as per his narration before the police was that he proceeded on information of a quarrel but source of such information was not disclosed at any point of time by him either before the police or in his substantive evidence. It would be relevant to mention, the learned counsel submitted, that the finding of the trial court is on erroneous consideration as on the same set of evidence adduced and produced on behalf of the prosecution the trial court believed that the appellant fired shot causing death of Gopal Yadav but disbelieved the other part that the co-accused Gulabi Yadav fired shot from his pistol while the informant was returning to his home to inform the inmates about the occurrence. Therefore, the trial court had different scales to examine the veracity of the statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution. 9. Advancing his arguments, the learned counsel submitted that statement of the informant recorded by the police as well as lodging of the FIR were antetimed. P.W. 7 Shri Narayan Singh of Godda police station deposed that on 15.2.1997 while he was officer-in-charge of pattargama police station and was conducting investigation in relation to an accident of a tractor, he heard rumour at about 15.30 hours that a person of village Pattar Chatti was shot dead and that he after getting this information entered in his personal diary proceeded to Pattar Chatti village with the police party. On the other hand, the informant, P.W 5 testified that after the occurrence of murder of his son, he sent his another son to the police station and pursuant to that the officer-in-charge of the police station came and recorded his statement. P.W 4, Rajendra Yadav testified the occurrence in different manner that he went to the police station and took the police with him to the place of occurrence where the police recorded the statement of his father. The learned counsel further pointed out that no station diary containing the said entry made therein of the police station bearing the report or information of P.W 4 Rajendra Yadav wasbrought on the record so as to prove the consistency of the prosecution case and to make it fool proof. Similarly, the testimonies of P.W. 1 Jhagru Yadav, P.W 3 Mostt. Sahodri Yadav wife of late Mahabir Yadav and P.W 5 (informant) Motilal Yadav are contradictory to each other but the Trial Judge based the conviction of the appellant relying upon their statements. P.W. 1 Jhagru Yadav testified that on the date of occurrence there was fair in the village and he was returning from the fair with ladies, children and the accused persons. Amongst ladies were the wife of the informant, wife of the accused, Gulabi Yadav and widow of Mahabir Yadav and amongst the accused were the appellant Bhagirath Yadav, Gulabi Yadav, Kartik Yadav. He further testified that Bhagirath Yadav fired shot from his pistol which caused injury towards right side of the chest of Gopal Yadav and he fell down though he claimed having seen the occurrence at the distance of 10 steps but he could not explain the shape of a musket. The P.W. 1 Jhagru Yadav fairly admitted before the trial court having narrated the occurrence for the first time without an earlier opportunity of his statement before the police under Section 161 Cr. P.C. in this case and therefore, his testimony lacks evidentiary value. This witness further admitted before the Trial Judge that he had dispute with the appellant Bhagirath Yadav and another Gulabi Yadav and in this manner he was a partisan witness but the trial court erroneously recorded the judgment of conviction against the appellant basing his reliance on the statement of this witness. The learned counsel further submitted that the statement, of P.W. 3 Mostt. The learned counsel further submitted that the statement, of P.W. 3 Mostt. Sahodri Yadav is also not consistent with the statement of P.W 1 Jhagru Yadav. She claimed having seen the occurrence from at the distance of about 8/10 hundred yards from behind but at the same time she admitted having heard the noise and that some one from the mob communicated her that Bhagirath Yadav fired shot, causing death of Gopal Yadav. She further admitted having poor visibility for the last 3-4 years. The learned counsel emphatically submitted that the testimony of this P.W. 3 Sahodri Devi does not contain substance so as to prove the guilt of the appellant of committing murder. 10. Advancing his arguments, the learned counsel exhorted that presence of the informant (P.W. 5) Motilal Yadav at the alleged place of occurrence is conspicuously absent in the statement of P.W. 1 or P.W. 3 and therefore, there was no corroborative evidence on the record that the informant was present at the place and time of occurrence so that he could be able to witness the occurrence. The trial court perhaps lost sight of this fact and did not analyse this situation P.W. 2, Mosstt. Narkalwa Devi, widow of the deceased by making substantial development testified that it was Kartik Yadav who informed her husband, Gopal Yadav (since deceased) and father-In-law Motilal Yadav about the altercation and pursuant to such information both proceeded. She further narrated that when they arrived at the corner of Bandh, they were surrounded by Bhagirath Yadav, Gulabi Yadav, Kisto Yadav and Shivnath Yadav and on the command of Gulabi Yadav it was the appellant who fired shot which caused injury on the right chest of her husband and he died instantaneously. She further developed the story by testifying that when her father-in-law was returning to home after the occurrence he was followed by all the five assailants and it was the accused Gulabi Yadav who fired shot on him but it missed the target. She further testified by admitting that she appeared at the place of occurrence on hearing alarm and fire by musket and there she was apprised by Jhagru Yadav that her husband Gopal Yadav was shot dead by the appellant and therefore, she can not be put in the category of eye witness. 11. She further testified by admitting that she appeared at the place of occurrence on hearing alarm and fire by musket and there she was apprised by Jhagru Yadav that her husband Gopal Yadav was shot dead by the appellant and therefore, she can not be put in the category of eye witness. 11. We find that autopsy of the deceased Gopal Yadav was conducted by P.W. 6 Dr. Kula Nand Choudhary on 16.2.1997 who found the following antemortem wounds:- (i) one wound of entry over the right arm on outer aspect 1.5. c.m. oval, margins inverted, a little charring" and singeing all around the wound passing through and through the arm and coming out on the inner aspect of the right arms causing 2 c.m. oval wound, again entered inside the chest in anterior auxiliary line in the fourth inter coastal(space between two ribs) space causing similar entry wound (1.5 c.m. oval) traverssing through out the chest cavity and ultimately, coming out through the wound being stated below. (ii) Wound of exit over the left side of chest in anterior auxiliary line in the sixth intercoastal space 2 c.m. oval, inverted margins, oozing present, charring and singeing also present. On dissection the witness found the following:-Inside the chest cavity heart was found ruptured through and through along the course of the bullet as also the lungs perforated on both sides, collection of liquefied blood amounting to about one litre in the cavity. In his opinion cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of the above injuries caused by fire arm. He proved the post-mortem report Ext. 1. Time elapsed since death was assessed within 18 hours. In the cross-examination the witness admitted having found blackening on the exit wound and further observed that the cause of death of Gopal Yadav was multiple effects of all the wounds. 12. From the post-mortem report (Ext. 1) it is crystal clear that single shot was fired from a powerful fire arm as a result of which the bullet after entering in the right arm of Gopal Yadav, through and through entered in the right chest, below arm pit, travelled inside the chest cavity leaving behind trail of injuries in the lungs, heart and passed out causing its exist wound. From the above injuries we find (i) the fire arm used was powerful may be a musket and (ii) the same was fired from either point blank range or short range. Since the informant Motilal Yadav (P.W. 5) specifically alleged that shot was fired from musket, the allegation stands corroborated in respect of use of fire arm which also speaks about the dominant intention of the assailant. 13. We find from the statement of the I.O. Shri Narayan Singh, P.W. 7 that while he was posted as officer-in-charge at Pattargama police station on 15.2.1997 and was conducting investigation in relation to an accident of a tractor at different village, he heard rumour at about 15.13 hours that a person of the village Pattarchatti was shot dead to which he entered the information in his personal diary and came to Pattarchatti with the police party and recordd the statement of the informant. His statement indicates that he came to the place of occurrence directly on information without visiting the police station and therefore, it is logical that he was not aware of the fact as to whether any information was given at the police station in his absence by the witnesses. 14. On the point of assault and the complicity of the appellant therein we find that the trial court relied upon the statement of P.W. 1 Jhagru Yadav, P.W. 5 (informant) Motilal Yadav and P.W. 3 Mostt. Sahodri Yadav. From the testimony of the informant (Motilal Yadav), who claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence we find that on the date of occurrence at about 3 O'clock while he was in his house, one Kartick came and communicated that his son Rajendra Yadav (P.W. 4) had certain altercation with some one during the match and pursuant to that, he alongwith Gopal Yadav (deceased) proceeded to the football ground and on the way they confronted with Gulabi Yadav and Kisto Yadav at the corner of Bank Bandh who commanded the appellant that it was an opportunity to kill. Pursuant to such command, the witness testified that the appellant Bhagirath Yadav fired shot towards right side of Gopal Yadav (since deceased) by musket as a result of which he fell down after sustaining injury and when Gulabi and Kisto again commanded to commit murder of the informant, latter escaped and he was chased up to his house. Pursuant to such command, the witness testified that the appellant Bhagirath Yadav fired shot towards right side of Gopal Yadav (since deceased) by musket as a result of which he fell down after sustaining injury and when Gulabi and Kisto again commanded to commit murder of the informant, latter escaped and he was chased up to his house. In the cross-examination the witness admitted that he proceeded on the information received from Kartick alongwith Gopal Yadav (since deceased) and that wife of Mahabir and all the three came to the place of occurrence where Gopal Yadav was shot dead. He came across another son Rajendra Yadav (P.W. 4) on the place of occurrence which was located at the distance of about 500 yards from the play ground. He admitted that there was no altercation prior to such incident and that shot was fired without provocation and good number of people assembled there including Jhagru Yadav (P.W. 1), Rajendra Yadav (P.W. 4) and wife of Gopal Yadav. His statement was recorded by the police at the corner of Bandh though he had narrated the occurrence at his house itself and at that time Rajendra Yadav as well as wife of Gopal Yadav (since deceased) were present there. Nothing much less any incriminating material could be elicited from his cross-examination so as to discredit his veracity and we do not find any discrepancy in his evidence which is reliable and trustworthy . His statement stands corroborated from the• testimony of P.W. 1 Jhagru Yadav, who testified that on the date of occurrence he was returning from fair with ladies, children and accused persons. Amongst ladies were wife of informant, wife of accused Gulabi Yadav, widow of Mahabir Yadav (P.W. 3). Amongst accused were the appellant Bhagirath Yadav, Gulabi Yadav, Kartik Yadav. Adverting to the manner of the occurrence the witness testified that the appellant, Bhagirath Yadav fired shot from his pistol which caused injury to Gopal Yadav towards his right side of his chest and he fell down. The witness claimed having seen the occurrence at the distance of ten steps but he could not explain the nature of weapon. Adverting to the manner of the occurrence the witness testified that the appellant, Bhagirath Yadav fired shot from his pistol which caused injury to Gopal Yadav towards his right side of his chest and he fell down. The witness claimed having seen the occurrence at the distance of ten steps but he could not explain the nature of weapon. Though the witness Jhagru Yadav fairly admitted before the trial court having narrated the occurrence before the court for the first time and that his statement was not earlier recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but we find consistency in his evidence even if it was recorded in the trial court for the first time on material facts particularly of firing shot by the appellant causing death of Gopal Yadav. We find that name of the witness appears in the charge-sheet and that the witness after his deposition had put his thumb impression which indicates that he is illiterate and could not properly explain. P.W 2 Mostt. Narkalwa Devi is the widow of the deceased who went to the place of occurrence on the information that her husband was shot dead. She was apprised by the PW 1 Jhagru Yadav at the place of occurrence that the appellant had shot dead her husband (Gopal Yadav). 15. We find that the statement of P.W 3 Mostt. Sahodri Yadav, wife of late Mahabir Yadav is relevant to the prosecution case in respect to the manner of occurrence. She being an independent witness, unconcerned with either party testified that she heard sound of fire and Gopal Yadav (since deceased) was surrounded by several people. The fire was shot by the appellant, Bhagirath Yadav with an instrument which she found in his hand and Gopal died instantaneously. In her cross examination she admitted that she had no clear visibility. She stood to the test of cross examination in respect of firing shot by the appellant inflicting injuries and causing death of Gopal Yadav. 16. In this manner, on further reappraisal of the evidence brought on the record we are firm in opinion that the trial court was justified in placing reliance on the testimonies of P.W. 1 Jhagru Yadav, P.W. 3 Mostt. Sahodari Devi and the informant P.W. 5 Motilal Yadav. 16. In this manner, on further reappraisal of the evidence brought on the record we are firm in opinion that the trial court was justified in placing reliance on the testimonies of P.W. 1 Jhagru Yadav, P.W. 3 Mostt. Sahodari Devi and the informant P.W. 5 Motilal Yadav. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellant does not call for interference which is upheld and affirmed. This Criminal appeal is dismissed. D.G.R. Patnaik, J.-I agree.