JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.K. Roopanwal, J.—This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.5.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge /Special Judge (E.C. Act), Jaunpur, in S.T. No. 272 of 2003, State v. Satish, whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default in payment of fine further simple imprisonment for six months. 2. It appears from the case of the prosecution that the uncle of the first informant Prakash Singh was the Pradhan of village Mania, Police Station Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur, and had good relations with the police. On 14.7.2002 the police raided the house of the appellant but none was arrested. On the same day cousin brother of the appellant named Sanjay Kumar Singh was arrested by the police in a case of Ganja. The appellant suspected that the father of the informant named Indrasen Singh had managed the raid at his house and the arrest of Sanjay Kumar Singh. He started having enmity and had also threatened the father of the first informant but no heed was paid by him. 3. On 27.11.2003 the deceased Indrasen Singh was coming back to his village on a bicycle from Sahkari Inter College, Mehrawan. The informant and his uncle joined him at Itori Bazar. They all started for the village Mania. Indrasen Singh was ahead of the informant. At about 4.30 P.M. when all reached in front of village Oodli the appellant Satish Kumar Singh and another accused Dabbu Singh (now dead) abused Indrasen Singh and said that he would be taught a lesson as he had managed the raid at their house. Both started firing upon him. The deceased fell down from the bicycle and tried to run away towards village Oodly but the accused persons shot him dead. After committing the incident the accused ran away. 4. The informant Prakash Singh gave a written report of the incident at Police Station Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur. On the report FIR at Crime No. 87 of 2003 was registered on the same day at 5.20 P.M. 5. The investigation of the case was taken up by S.I. Maskoor Alam, the then Station Officer, Police Station Sarai Khwaja. 4. The informant Prakash Singh gave a written report of the incident at Police Station Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur. On the report FIR at Crime No. 87 of 2003 was registered on the same day at 5.20 P.M. 5. The investigation of the case was taken up by S.I. Maskoor Alam, the then Station Officer, Police Station Sarai Khwaja. He copied out the FIR and the GD in the case diary and reached at the place of occurrence. He got Panchayatnama and other connected papers of the deceased Indrasen Singh prepared from S.I. Mata Prasad Singh under his instructions and also signed the papers. He sealed the dead body and sent it for post mortem through constable Subba Yadav and Constable Manmohan Mishra. He then recorded statement of Prakash Singh, informant, and prepared site plan (exhibit Ka-15), collected blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared its memo. He also collected shoes of the deceased and prepared its memo. He also collected empty cartridge, sealed it and prepared its memo. He also took out two pens and some papers from the pocket of the deceased and prepared its memo. He gave the bicycle of the deceased in the supurdagi of the informant. 6. Later on the investigation was conducted by the subsequent Station Officer, Police Station Sarai Khwaja, Harendra Yadav. He recorded the statements of Amardev Singh, Anil Kumar and of the accused appellant. The appellant wished to get the recovery of the weapon of the assault effected and so his police custody was taken. However, no recovery could be made. After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet. 7. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the appellant was charged under Section 302, I.P.C. to which he denied and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution in order to prove the charge examined PW1 Prakash Singh (the first informant), PW2 Gajraj Singh as the so-called eyewitness of the occurrence, PW3 Constable Subba Yadav, witness of Panchayatnama, PW4 Jag Narayan Yadav, witness of docket etc., PW5 Head Constable Mata Prasad Singh, the witness of Panchayatnama, PW6 S.I. Harendra Yadav, subsequent I.O. of the case, PW7 Maskoor Alam, earlier I.O. of the case, PW8 Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased, were produced as formal witnesses. 9. Ashok Kumar Singh, who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased, were produced as formal witnesses. 9. In the post-mortem the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased : (1) Firearm lacerated wound. 2 cm x 2 cm x Brain Cavity deep at Rt. Perietal bone of skull 10 cm above from pinna of Rt. ear. Collar of abrasion was present around the wound. Blackening, tattooing and charring present around the wound. Blood clot present. Base of skull fractured. Trachea oesophagus and right carotid vessels teard. Right side first cervical and sternal end of right clavicle. Margins inverted. (2) Firearm wound right side neck 3 cm x 3 cm x cavity (Neck) deep. Margin everted. Clotted blood present. (3) Firearm lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on left side back of chest 4 cm medial from the angle of left scapula bone. Collar abrasion present. Blackening around the wound. Margins inverted. Blood clot present. Fracture of 9th & 10th ribs. Left lung and heart ruptured. (4) Firearm lacerated wound left side of front of chest 3 cm above left nipple 3 cm x 3cm x chest cavity deep. 4th and 5th ribs fractured of left side.Clotted blood present. (5) Abrasion left side mandible 1 cm x.5 cm. 2 cm lateral from chin. 10. The doctor opined that the death was possible on 27.1.2003 at 4.30 P.M. with country made pistol or revolver. 11. The appellant was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. in which he denied from the prosecution case. In his defence he examined DW1 Manvendra Pratap Singh, who tried to prove that the appellant was present at his N.G.O. in Chhattisgarh at the time of the alleged occurrence. 12. The trial Judge after analysis of the whole evidence on the record found the case of the prosecution proved against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and convicted and sentenced him in the manner as stated above. 13. This case was taken up in the revised list. None of the counsel for the appellant was present. A large number of appeals are pending before the Court. Reasonable opportunity has been given to the counsel for the appellant. This shows that sufficient opportunity of hearing has been given to the appellant regarding his appeal and thus, we proceeded further and heard Mr. None of the counsel for the appellant was present. A large number of appeals are pending before the Court. Reasonable opportunity has been given to the counsel for the appellant. This shows that sufficient opportunity of hearing has been given to the appellant regarding his appeal and thus, we proceeded further and heard Mr. Karunanand Vajpayee, learned AGA on the basis of the ratio laid down in Bani Singh and others v. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 2439 . 14. It has been argued by learned AGA that the eyewitness PW1 and PW2 were reliable witnesses and were rightly believed by the trial Court. 15. It appears from the impugned judgment that before the trial Court it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was not possible for the eyewitnesses to identify the assailants as at the time of the alleged occurrence as there was fog, that the FIR was made ante time with the consultation of the police, which is apparent from the fact that in the FIR description of the weapon was not mentioned, that the witnesses named in the FIR were not examined and an unknown witness Gajraj Singh was produced, who could not be relied upon, that no recovery of bicycle was made from the place of occurrence, that according to the doctor PW8 Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh all the injuries received by the deceased were inflicted independently, hence, it was wrong to say that the deceased was fired twice, that it was not possible for the deceased to go for 10-15 steps after receiving the first injury and that no recovery of the weapon was made. 16. The trial Court considered all the arguments in the impugned judgment. 17. Regarding the argument that there was no possibility of identification of the accused, the trial Court was of the opinion that the witnesses of prosecution had stated that there was sunlight at the time of occurrence. He also mentioned that there being no evidence to the effect that there was fog at the time of the occurrence, hence the accused could well be identified. We feel that the observation of the trial Court is correct and does not require any interference. 18. He also mentioned that there being no evidence to the effect that there was fog at the time of the occurrence, hence the accused could well be identified. We feel that the observation of the trial Court is correct and does not require any interference. 18. Regarding the fact that in the FIR description of the weapon used in the incident was not mentioned, the trial Court was of the opinion that it was not necessary. We feel that it was not at all necessary to mention the weapon in the FIR when it was averred therein that the firing was done upon the deceased. 19. Regarding the examination of PW2 Gajraj Singh, the trial Court was of the opinion that mere absence of the name of Gajraj Singh in the FIR could not be a ground to discredit him. The informant had written in the FIR the names of those, who were with him. We feel that this finding of the trial Court deserves approval. The trial Court was of the opinion that the presence of Gajraj Singh, PW2, is believable as it was possible that he would be going to Bazar for purchasing Urea. This Gajraj Singh had given the complete description of the incident in the manner as disclosed in the FIR. He had no enmity with the appellant to falsely implicate him. He could not be belied on the point of place, time and the manner of occurrence. Thus, PW2, inspite of the fact that he was not shown as a witness in the FIR was rightly believed by the trial Court and there could be no justification for disbelieving him on the ground that his name was not shown in the FIR. 20. So far as the recovery of bicycle is concerned, in that regard the I.O. of the case PW7, Masqoor Alam had clearly stated that the bicycle was given in the supurdagi of the first informant and there is nothing on the record to disbelieve him on this point. Thus, the prosecution story could not be disbelieved merely on the point that the bicycle was not recovered from the spot. 21. The trial Court elaborately discussed the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the death of the deceased was caused with four injuries and not with two injuries as was the case of the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution story could not be disbelieved merely on the point that the bicycle was not recovered from the spot. 21. The trial Court elaborately discussed the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the death of the deceased was caused with four injuries and not with two injuries as was the case of the prosecution. The argument was developed as the doctor had said that all the four injuries were independent. The trial Court did not agree with this argument that the deceased died of four firearm entry wounds. In this connection we would like to refer the statement of PW8 Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh. He in his statement has said that five injuries were found on the person of the deceased. The margins of injury No. 1 were inverted, hence it was an entry wound. The margins of injury No. 2 were everted, hence it was definitely an exit wound. Injury No. 3 had inverted margins, hence it was an entry would and the margins of injury No. 4 were everted, hence it was an exit wound. Thus, on the body of the deceased two entry and two exit wounds were found, which supported the prosecution version that two fires had hit the deceased. Injury No. 5 was only an abrasion. 22. In view of the above, it was perfectly justified to hold that the doctor had intended only this much that the injuries were not over lapping. He had not said that four injuries were inflicted upon the deceased. 23. Regarding the presence of PW1 the trial Court was of the opinion that it was quite possible for PW1 to go to the market and join his father (deceased). It was also believable that the informant and his uncle would be following the deceased. He immediately lodged the FIR. His statement was supported by the medical evidence on the record and thus, the trial Court was perfectly justified in placing reliance on PW1. We have also gone through the statement of PW1 and we have no doubt that the presence of this witness at the time of the alleged occurrence is completely believable. 24. The trial Court also dealt with the motive of the incident. We have also gone through the statement of PW1 and we have no doubt that the presence of this witness at the time of the alleged occurrence is completely believable. 24. The trial Court also dealt with the motive of the incident. The appellant was grudging enmity as he had suspected that the deceased was instrumental in the raid at his house and also in the arrest of his cousin brother Sanjay Kumar Singh. We feel that this motive could very well prompt the appellant to eliminate the father of the first informant. 25. Before the trial Court it was argued that the deceased could not go for 10-15 steps after receiving the first shot. We feel that this argument was a presumptive one. No evidence was brought on the record by which it could be said that after receiving the first shot he could not be able to travel up to 10-15 steps. When the witnesses said it in clear term that he went up to 10-15 steps after receiving the first shot, there could be no point at all to disbelieve them. Thus, on this point the prosecution story could not be disbelieved. 26. The trial Court rightly disbelieved the plea of alibi taken by the accused- appellant. The trial Court was of the opinion that the defence witness did not prove the attendance register or the salary register to prove the presence of the appellant in Chhattisgarh at the time of the alleged occurrence. We do not find any impropriety in this finding. 27. From the record it is apparent that immediately after the lodging of the FIR the I.O. proceeded to the place of incident and completed all the formalities. Nothing is in the investigation, which could falsify the prosecution case. 28. Thus, in view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the trial Court was perfectly justified in believing the prosecution and finding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. Consequently, the impugned judgment does not require any interference by us. 29. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. As the appellant is in jail, there is no need for his surrender. 30. A copy of this order be sent to the C.J.M. concerned for necessary action. ————