Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh and Shailesh Kumar Sinha JJ. 1. Appellant is sole accused convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C) and Section 27 of the Arms Act by the judgment under appeal dated 29.8.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-Vlth, Begusarai in Session Trial No. 78 of 2000 arising out of Nao Kothi P.S. Case No. 90 of 1998. After hearing on question of sentence by order dated 2.9.2002 the appellant has been awarded life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and also a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default R.I. for one year. For the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act no separate sentence has been awarded. 2. The prosecution case is based upon fardbeyan of P.W. 6, Ram Rekha Singh recorded by A.S.I. Sheo Mangal Singh (P.W.7) of Nao Kothi Police Station on 6.9.1998 at 2 P.M. at Pahsara Chowk. According to the prosecution case the informant who is father of the deceased, Rajeev Kumar had started on bicycle at about 10 A.M. for going to Bakhri. At about 12 in the noon he was on the Pahsara-Bakhri road at a distance of 100 yards south from Chamardiha near the house of one Ganesh Singh resident of Pahsara. From a distance he saw a Tata 407 Bus coming towards him. On that bus his son Rajeev Kumar aged about 18 years was engaged in duty as a conductor and at the relevant time was collecting fare from passengers sitting on the roof of the bus. Suddenly, one boy took out pistol and fired a shot at Rajeev Kumar and as a result he fell down on the roof of the bus. The informant proceeded towards the bus and raised hulla that his son has been shot. In the meantime the assailant Ganesh Singh aged about 22 years, the appellant, started fleeing away towards south with pistol in his hand. On the hue and cry raised by the informant some police guards posted at Chamardiha started chasing the appellant. The informant also ran but the assailant managed to flee away. The informant wanted the bus driver to stop the vehicle but seeing the serious condition of his son the driver took away the bus to Begusarai for treatment. On the hue and cry raised by the informant some police guards posted at Chamardiha started chasing the appellant. The informant also ran but the assailant managed to flee away. The informant wanted the bus driver to stop the vehicle but seeing the serious condition of his son the driver took away the bus to Begusarai for treatment. The informant made a categorical statement that appellant had shot at his son Rajeev Kumar only because he had asked for payment of bus fare. 3. It is further case of the prosecution that the injured Rajeev Kumar was taken on bus to Begusarai Hospital where the doctor found him dead. The inquest was prepared by an official of Begusarai Town Police Station at 2.10 P.M. and subsequently it was handed over to the Investigating Officer, P.W. 7. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination on same day and the post mortem was conducted at 4-15 P.M. After completing investigation the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The F.I.R. was initially under Sections 326/307 of the I.P.C. and Section 26/27 of the Arms Act but Section 302 I.P.C. had been added subsequently on order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai dated 9.9.1998. 4. After cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Session. The appellant denied the charges and hence was put to trial. From the trend of cross-examination, arguments and the statement of the accused/ appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it appears that the appellant has denied the prosecution case that on the relevant date he was traveling on Tata 407 vehicle and he also claimed absolute ignorance regarding deceased Rajeev Kumar. Thus, the main defence appears to be wrong identification by witnesses and false implication. However, no defence witness is examined nor any document has been brought on record on behalf of the defence. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether 7 witnesses. P.W. 1 Lalan Singh is a brother of the informant whose name appears to be mentioned as a witness in the fardbeyan. He has clearly supported the prosecution case only as a hearsay witness. He has stated that at about 12 in the noon of 6.9.1998 he came to know from Suresh Singh (P.W. 4) that his nephew has been shot. He has clearly supported the prosecution case only as a hearsay witness. He has stated that at about 12 in the noon of 6.9.1998 he came to know from Suresh Singh (P.W. 4) that his nephew has been shot. He immediately went to Pahsara Chowk and there he learnt from his brother Ram Rekha Singh (P.W. 6, the informant) that Ganesh Singh had injured the deceased by firearm shot. He also came to know that because of the serious condition, the injured had been taken for treatment to Begusarai Hospital. In the meantime, the A.S.I. of Police arrived at Pahsara Chowk and recorded the fardbeyan of his brother on which he also signed as a witness. 6. P.W. 2, Dr. Azad Hind Prasad conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Rajeev Kumar on 6.9.1998 at 4.15 P.M. His findings fully support the prosecution case as he found (1) wound of entry 1 3/4" x 1" going inside the chest cavity on the upper part of right anterior axillary fold. The margin was inverted blackened and charred and covered with gun powder. Apparently, the bullet had travelled downwards and was recovered from the left side of back of front 1 1/2 below the costal margin. In the way it has passed through the right lung, diaphram and punctured the stomach and spleen. In the opinion of the doctor death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to above injury caused by firearm. In cross-examination he has replied that rigor mortis was partially present in all the four limbs and it was in the ascending order. He has also replied that rigor mortis is complete within 12-15 hours. Thus, clearly death had taken place within 12-15 hours. 7. P.W. 3, Gauri Shankar Singh, P.W. 4, Suresh Singh and P.W. 5, Hari Nandan Jha have claimed to be eye witnesses as they were traveling on the roof of the bus in question on the fateful date. From their evidence it is clear that as per prosecution case the deceased was collecting fare from the passengers on the roof of the bus and at that time he had altercation with the appellant who did not like demand of fare from him and in no time the appellant took out a firearm and shot at the deceased from very close distance. There is some difference in their versions regarding where the bus was passing through at the exact time when the occurrence took place but this is natural because at the crucial time admittedly the bus was moving and these witnesses had their attention fixed at the altercation followed by the occurrence of shooting of the deceased by the appellant. Nonetheless they are consistent on the material aspect i.e. the identity of the appellant as the person who shot the deceased on the roof of the bus when fare was demanded from him. In spite of cross-examination and suggestion the defence has failed to elicit.any material from these witnesses to doubt their independence and trustworthiness. Although suggestion was made to P.Ws. 3 and 4 that they are distantly related to the informant but they have denied such suggestion and the informant has also denied that these witnesses are his relations. 8. P.W. 6, Ram Rekha Singh is father of the deceased and he has fully supported the earliest version of the occurrence given by him in the fardbeyan. The place of occurrence given by him has been fully supported by the Investigating Officer, Sheo Mangal Singh (P.W. 7). P.W. 6 has denied the suggestion that he had any enmity with the appellant or his family. The other material witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 have also denied suggestion of enmity and there is no material on record to show that the eye witnesses including the informant had any motive to faisely implicate the appellant in a case of such serious nature. P.W. 7, Sheo Mangal Singh has admitted in his evidence that in course of investigation he received from Sub-Inspector of Police, Begusarai Town Police Station Shri J.P. Singh a fardbeyan and inquest report. He has proved the fardbeyan of the informant, the F.I.R. as well as the inquest report as exhibits. In cross-examination it has been categorically stated by him that he came to know of the occurrence from the fardbeyan and therefore he had not made entry of the other fardbeyan sent by J.P. Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, in the case diary. He has proved the fardbeyan of the informant, the F.I.R. as well as the inquest report as exhibits. In cross-examination it has been categorically stated by him that he came to know of the occurrence from the fardbeyan and therefore he had not made entry of the other fardbeyan sent by J.P. Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, in the case diary. The defence did not ask him as to whether the copy of that fardbeyan was available in the records or not and whether the same could be produced or not and instead a question was put to the I.O. whether name of the assailant was given in the said fardbeyan or not and in reply he said that name of the accused was not mentioned therein. The Trial Court has given its remarks in paragraph-4 of the cross-examination of P.W. 7 that the I.0. deposes beyond the case diary. 9. On behalf of appellant it was submitted that since the I.O. and the prosecution have suppressed the fardbeyan sent by Sub-Inspector, J.P. Singh of Begusarai town Police Station an adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution more so when the I.O. has deposed that the said fardbeyan was against unknown. It has further been submitted that non-inspection of the bus in question has been a deliberate act of the I.O. because if he had inspected the bus he may not have found blood on the roof of the bus and that would have made the prosecution case doubtful. 10. We have gone through the evidence on record carefully and considered the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the appellant and also general defence that he has been falsely implicated and he was not present at the time of the occurrence on the bus. It is found that the defence in this case has not succeeded in challenging the time, place or manner of occurrence nor it has made any serious attempt to do so. The main defence appears to be that the assailant was an unknown person who could not be identified and the appellant has been falsely implicated by the witnesses and the informant. Keeping this aspect of the case in mind, we have examined the evidence of the witnesses particularly of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6. We find that the evidence of P.Ws. Keeping this aspect of the case in mind, we have examined the evidence of the witnesses particularly of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6. We find that the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 is of independent persons with whom the appellant had no enmity and their claim that they identified the appellant as the person who shot at the deceased and caused him injury cannot be disbelieved as there is no good reason to disbelieve these witnesses. The identification by these three witnesses is sufficient, in the facts of the case to hold the appellant guilty of the charge that he fired at the deceased and caused him injury due to which the deceased died as found by the doctor as soon as he was taken to the Begusarai hospital. Even the evidence of P.W. 6 the informant is prima facie reliable and even if for sake of arguments the defence criticism that he is a chance witness is accepted and for the sake of argument it is presumed that he may have reported the matter on hearing the same from others it would not affect the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 & 5 who were not related to the deceased and have no enmity with appellant. Even P.W. 6 is independent in the sense that he has no enmity with the appellant and being father of the deceased he would not be party to implicate an innocent person so as to leave the real culprit. 11. So far as conduct of the I.O. is concerned, we find that he has been careless in not inspecting the bus on which the occurrence took place but as indicated earlier in the facts of the case such lapse is not material because the P.O. is not under challenge and has been sufficiently established by the ocular evidence of reliable witnesses. So far as the fardbeyan of one Dinesh Singh is concerned, its contents or either time of its recording is not known and the I.O. was incompetent to say whether it was against unknown or not. If defence wanted to take advantage of the said fardbeyan, it had to examine Dinesh Singh, its maker or the Sub-Inspector of Police who had recorded the same but that was not done. If defence wanted to take advantage of the said fardbeyan, it had to examine Dinesh Singh, its maker or the Sub-Inspector of Police who had recorded the same but that was not done. In the facts of the case the prosecution case cannot suffer on account of the said fardbeyan allegedly given by one Dinesh Singh who is neither cited as a witness nor is the relation of the deceased or the informant. 12. For all the aforesaid reasons we find that prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubts. There is no good reason to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court against the appellant leading to his conviction for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On the question of sentence also we find no good materials to take a different view. Hence the appeal is found to be without merits. It is dismissed accordingly. We would like to add that in case the fine of Rs. 10,000/- is paid by the appel-lant then the same should be paid to the informant (P.W. 6) or to his heirs.