Surendra Singh, J. - The chal­lenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 9.11.1982 passed by 3rd Addi­tional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, in ST No. 271 of 1981 convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 302 IPC for the life imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case as gleaned from the FIR lodged at the police station Asother, District Fatehpur by the injured (Informant) Baij Nath on 1.2.1981, at about 2:45 p.m., is that, he was issueless and he used to reside with Shiv Balak son of his cousin. He executed a sale-deed for two Bighas of his agricultural land in favour of cousin, Shiv Balak. Later on, he started living with his real brother, Dwarika and had executed a Will of his remaining prop­erty in favour of his sons, namely, Vijay Pal (accused-appellant) and Babu Lal on 28.8.1978. After some gap of time, when he started feeling inconvenient in residing along with his brother, Dwarika, he left him and again started living with Shiv Balak for about one and a half years before the date of incident. It is further alleged that two months before the incident, he sold his residential house and 18 Biswa of agricultural land by executing a sale-deed in favour of Mahadeo son of Shiv Balak, the cousin. On account of this, his real nephew, Vijay Pal, accused-appellant got annoyed and started harassing him. It is further al­leged that two days before the incident the accused-appellant asked him to execute the sale-deed in his favour of remaining im­movable property else he should not trans­fer his land to others in the aforesaid man­ner. On this, he kept silent and did not ut­ter a word. The accused-appellant ex­pressed his view that he would get his en­tire land after finishing him. 3. On 1.2.1981 i.e. on the date of oc­currence, at about 2 p.m. when the Informant/Deceased was going to meet village Pradhan, Ram Swaroop and reached near the field of Lahi crop, the accused-appellant, Vijay Pal armed with a pistol had fired a shot at him from a close range causing fatal injuries. On hearing sound of fire and shrieks of the injured, the persons working nearby in their fields reached and chased the accused-appellant, but he could not be apprehended. 4. Soon thereafter the injured was taken to the police station where he re­ported this incident orally. On hearing sound of fire and shrieks of the injured, the persons working nearby in their fields reached and chased the accused-appellant, but he could not be apprehended. 4. Soon thereafter the injured was taken to the police station where he re­ported this incident orally. Head Constable, Ishwar Deo Singh (PW-6) registered the offence under section 307 IPC, prepared the chik FIR (Ex Ka-1) and relevant GD Entry (Ex Ka-2) and then sent the In­jured/Informant to the hospital for the treatment and medical examination. Infor­mant/Injured, Baij Nath lost the battle of his life on the way to the hospital, conse­quently, offence was altered to sections 302 IPC from 307 IPC vide GD Entry (Ex Ka-3). 5. SI, Ran Vijay Singh prepared the inquest report, photo nash and challan nash of the corpse and other papers as well as (Ex Ka-4 to Ex Ka-7) and entrusted Con­stable Chandra Pal Sharma with the sealed corpse and necessary papers for post­mortem examination. Investigation of this case was entrusted to S.I., Suresh Chandra Sen (PW-4) who interrogated Constable, S.I. Ran Vijay Singh, Ram Dhani (PW-1), Km. Dhanpatiya (PW-2), Ram Kripal (PW-3) and others. He prepared site plan ((Ex Ka-8). Thereafter on 2.2.1981, S.O., K.P. Singh (PW-5) took up the investigation of the case and submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant on 7.4.1981 vide (Ex Ka-9). 6. Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 2.2.1981 about 2 pm by Dr. J.S. Rai (PW-7) who proved the autopsy report as (Ex Ka-10). The deceased was 65 years of age, having an average built body. Rigor mortis was absent in up­per limbs and present in lower limbs. Ab­domen was distended and greenish discol­ouration was present in iliac fossae. Intes­tines were coming out of the wound. Apart from this he found the following injuries; (i) Gun shot wound of entrance 1-1/2" x 1-1/4" x cavity deep on upper and outer part of left but­tock. .Margins were inverted. Blackening and tattooing was pres­ent. Duration was one day old. Di­rection was from left to right up­ward and front. There was fracture of iliac bone; (ii) Gun shot wound of exit, two in number each 1/4" x 1/4" x cavity deep on front of lower abdomen 2-1/2" below umbilicus. Margins everted. No blackening was seen. Five big shots and one wadding piece were recovered from the ab­domen. 7. Di­rection was from left to right up­ward and front. There was fracture of iliac bone; (ii) Gun shot wound of exit, two in number each 1/4" x 1/4" x cavity deep on front of lower abdomen 2-1/2" below umbilicus. Margins everted. No blackening was seen. Five big shots and one wadding piece were recovered from the ab­domen. 7. On internal examination, the doc­tor found that the peritoneum was lacer­ated. About 2 Lb of blood was found in the cavity. About 5-1/2" Oz. Semi-digested food was present in the stomach. Small in­testines were found lacerated with small quantity of digested food. In the large in­testines, faecal matter was present and was found lacerated. 8. In the opinion of the Autopsy Sur­geon, the death of the deceased was caused due to shock and haemorrhage. He has proved his post-mortem report as Ex Ka-7. 9. On the basis of charge-sheet (Ex Ka-9), Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur summoned the appellant and committed the case to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as ST No. 271 of 1981 (State of U.P. v. Vijay Pal). 10. Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur on 25.9.1981, charged the appel­lant for the offence under section 302 IPC. Since the appellant abjured the charge, therefore, the trial proceeded against him. 11. In order to cement the charge and establish appellant's guilt to the hilt, the prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses out oPwhom, witnesses, Ram Dhani (PW-1), Km. Dhanpatiya (PW-2) and Ram Kripal (PW-3) were fact witnesses. Rest were for­mal witnesses who included Dr J.S. Rai (PW-7) (Autopsy Doctor), Suresh Chandra, SI (PW-4), KP Singh (PW-5), Ishwar Deo Singh, Head Constable, (who registered the FIR and prepared GD Entry) (PW-6) and Mahaveer Singh (PW-8), whereas accused-appellant has not examined any witness in his defence. 12. The defence of the accused-appellant was that of denial and false im­plication in connivance between the police and the Informant. The Trial Court vide its impugned judgment and order after scru­tiny of evidence of the witnesses and other material on record, was satisfied that the accused had ample motive to commit the murder of the deceased and the charge was proved beyond doubt and, therefore, held the appellant guilty for the offence under section 302 IPC and convicted him to life imprisonment, which has resulted in the present appeal. 13. 13. Heard Sri RP Tripathi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and AGA on behalf of respondent-State. We have also gone through the evidence and other material placed on record. 14. Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised following contentions: • The prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, thus the appellant is entitled for acquittal; • The FIR of the incident was too prompt and it cannot be lodged at the concerned police station which was at a distance of about 9 Kms from the place of occurrence, within 45 minutes and hence no reliance could be placed thereupon; • There is no independent witness of the incident and almost all are re­lated witnesses and consequently their testimony cannot be relied upon; • There are certain infirmities in the deposition of the witnesses which goes to root of the matter and shakes the basic version of the prosecution; • The disclosure of the incident by the deceased before the police at the police station was the result of tutoring and prompting by Ram Dhani (PW-1) and, therefore, it cannot be his oral dying declara­tion and is not admissible under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and thus cannot be relied upon without corroboration; • The applicant had no motive to commit the murder of his own real uncle; • The prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant who is entitled for ac­quittal. 15. Refuting the harangued conten­tions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant retorted that all witnesses of fact have unerringly supported the prosecution case and there is nothing in their state­ments, which belies the prosecution ver­sion. These are the witnesses whose pres­ence is natural and probable and who will not falsely implicate accused-appellant. The testimony of these witnesses is of unim­peachable character. 16. The incident is of broad-day-light and the medical report is not at a variance with the prosecution version. The FIR was lodged with promptness on the basis of the deposition of the deceased which was re­corded by the Head Moharrir (PW-6), Indra Dev Singh at the police station soon after the incident which is in nature of dying declaration. There is no merit in the appeal as prosecution has successfully proved the appellant to be guilty of the murder. There is no merit in the appeal as prosecution has successfully proved the appellant to be guilty of the murder. The appeal is liable to be dismissed as per his submission. 17. For adjudicating the correctness of the submission made and judging the guilt or of the innocence of the accused, a syn-opsized discussion of material evidence is necessary. 18. The harbinger of prosecution evi­dence were Ram Dhani (PW-1), Km. Dhan-patiya (PW-2) and Ram Kripal (PW-3). From their deposition, the family pedigree of the witnesses and the accused comes out as mentioned below; Bhoora @Table@ 19. The perusal of the above pedigree of the family of the witnesses and the ac­cused goes to show that the eye-witness Ram Dhani and Ram Kripal as well as ac­cused Vijay Pal are the members of the same family. Indisputable the deceased Baij Nath was issueless and occupant of agricul­tural land and residential house. Initially he started living with Shiv Balak and had exe­cuted a sale-deed of two bighas of his agri­cultural land in his favour. Later on, he started living with Dwarika. Admittedly, the deceased executed a Will in favour of Vijay Pal and Babu Lal (both sons of Dwarika) in respect of his remaining im­movable properties. Later on, he felt inconvenient along with Dwarika, hence started living again with Shiv Balak and on the date of incident, he was living with him. It is also clear in the deposition of the prose­cution witnesses and the material placed on record (Ex Ka-11). He had executed a sale-deed of 18 Biswa of his agricultural land and his house situated over the abadi land in favour of Maha Dev (son of Shiv Balak) on 25.11.1980 despite the aforesaid Will, executed in favour of the sons of Dwarika. When it was so it was quite natural and probable for Dwarika or his sons, namely, Vijay Pal and Babu Lal to have got annoyed and might have warned the deceased not to transfer his properties through sale-deed in favour of others. In this way we find that the present accused-appellant had a strong motive to eliminate the deceased. 20. According to the eye-witnesses Ram Dhani (PW-1), Km. Dhanpatiya (PW-2) and Ram Kripal (PW-3), when the de­ceased was going towards field of village Pradhan to meet him, at about 2 p.m., the present accused-appellant fired at him from very close range causing fatal injuries. 20. According to the eye-witnesses Ram Dhani (PW-1), Km. Dhanpatiya (PW-2) and Ram Kripal (PW-3), when the de­ceased was going towards field of village Pradhan to meet him, at about 2 p.m., the present accused-appellant fired at him from very close range causing fatal injuries. It is evident that the present witnesses in­cluding Ram Swaroop (Pradhan) reached on the spot and after arranging a Kharkhariya (horse carriage), he was taken to the police station and thereafter he was taken through a bus where he made oral deposi­tion of the witnesses which was recorded by the Head Moharrir, Indra Dev Singh. The said deposition was treated to be the First Information Report under section 307 IPC. The aforesaid Head Moharrir pre­pared a Chiththi Majrubi and referred the deceased to the hospital for the treatment but he succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital. Hence the case was converted under section 302 IPC. The pe­rusal of the deposition goes to show that they have affirmed above facts which in­spired confidence despite some minor dis­crepancies regarding the mode of transpor­tation of the deceased from the place of incident to the police station. In the absence of any enmity of the witnesses with the ac­cused-appellant or any affinity with the deceased, provided an additional circum­stance for placing reliance upon their testi­mony. 21. It is not disputed that the infor­mant (Baij Nath) received firearm injuries on his person near the Lahi field on 1.2.1981, at about 2 pm while he was going to the field of Pradhan to meet to him and he was immediately carried to the police station where his statement was recorded by the Head Constable, at about 2.45 pm. Admittedly, the Head Constable, Ishwar Deo Singh (PW-6) too had no affinity with the deceased (Informant) or any enmity with the accused-appellant. Moreover, there is no material evidence which is in­dicative of the fact that the informant was very influential or of having dominating personality. If it is so, there cannot be any reason to discredit his testimony. It is also not disputed that the death of the deceased was caused due to shock and haemorrhage. The site plan prepared by the IO coupled with the recovery memo etc, further goes to show that the occurrence took place as suggested by the prosecution. If it is so, there cannot be any reason to discredit his testimony. It is also not disputed that the death of the deceased was caused due to shock and haemorrhage. The site plan prepared by the IO coupled with the recovery memo etc, further goes to show that the occurrence took place as suggested by the prosecution. Thus, it is clear from the oral evidence of the wit­nesses and other formal evidence that the present incident took place at the time, date and place as suggested by the prosecuting agency. Apart from the above evidence of the witnesses, the FIR (Ex Ka-1) was lodged without loss of any time i.e. within 45 minutes of the occurrence. This FIR is treated to be dying declaration by virtue of his death soon thereafter is possible and as such without any formal proof is admissi­ble. The deceased had disclosed the name of the appellant only holding guilty for the commission of the present crime. It is noteworthy that PW-1, Ram Dhani has de­posed that he and Pradhan had disclosed the name of the appellant to the deceased when he asked about the name of the as­sailant, as to who had shot him. This fact has not been supported by any of the other prosecution witnesses. Even the deceased had also not said a word about the disclo­sure of the name of the appellant by PW-1, Ram Dhani or any one else. Apparently, the deposition of PW-1, Ram Dhani is contrary to what has been stated deceased. If it is so, there is no other solid reason to ignore the version of the -FIR alleged to be lodged at the instance of the deceased. 22. We have cogitated over rival submissions and in that light have perused the entire record and our findings and conclusions are as follows: • On summation of evidence criti­cally on contentious issue, we find that two facts witnesses, PW-2 and PW-3 are the cousins of the appel­lant while PW-2, Km. Dhanpatiya, a child of tender age (a/a 11 years), was the independent witness, have fully supported the prosecution version. • They have supported each other on important aspects of the prosecu­tion allegations. • The defence suggestion that they were not present on the spot and have not seen the accused-appellant is hollow without any preceding circumstance and, there­fore, cannot be believed. • They have supported each other on important aspects of the prosecu­tion allegations. • The defence suggestion that they were not present on the spot and have not seen the accused-appellant is hollow without any preceding circumstance and, there­fore, cannot be believed. • These witnesses had no animus with the appellant to such an inci­dent as to ignore real culprit and falsely implicate him. 23. All the formal witnesses have given supporting evidence as has been re­ferred to above. Dr. J.S. Rai (PW-7), who had conducted the autopsy testified the facts found by him and had proved post­mortem examination report (Ex Ka-10). He was cross-examined but no material has been brought on record to make his testi­mony suspect and unbelievable. 24. Further time and date of the inci­dent was also not disputed by the defence and, therefore, we take note of those facts also to be proved beyond any pale of doubt. In the backdrop of the other mate­rial evidence, we also address ourselves to argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the FIR is, too, prompt to be believed. It is to be noted that the place of incident was 9 Kms from the police station, which is linked with pacca road and trans­port was all the time easily available. It is also not disputed that the pacca road was hardly 10 paces from the field of Dwarika which exist very close to the place of inci­dent. The witnesses have given a graphic account of his journey to the police station and is convincing and acceptable apart from minor discrepancy regarding mode of transportation of the injured, Baijnath to the police station which in fact an error be­cause of human nature. Indisputably, truth always suffers from infirmity when it is projected through human process. It is es­tablished law that over much importance cannot be given to minor discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the wit­nesses, therefore, cannot be annexed with undue importance. We have already dis­cussed that the case is of broad-day-light and the two witnesses were present on the spot, hence there was no question of mis­taken identity of the accused-appellant in this case. The injured was immediately taken to the police station without loss of any time where FIR was registered under section 307 IPC. We have already dis­cussed that the case is of broad-day-light and the two witnesses were present on the spot, hence there was no question of mis­taken identity of the accused-appellant in this case. The injured was immediately taken to the police station without loss of any time where FIR was registered under section 307 IPC. As per his statement re­corded by PW-6 who is an independent witness having no axe to grind against the applicant. The FIR was prompt one and there was no time for premeditation or em­bellishment because the eye-witnesses were present at the time of the occurrence and they had seen the accused-appellant committing the crime in question. The evi­dence of PW-6, Head Constable, who re­corded the FIR and prepared the chik and GD also lends strength to the spontaneity of the FIR which has corroborative value. A perusal of the FIR which is short, concise and to the point attaches genuineness in it. Trial Judge had rightly rejected the defence version. Inconsistent defence plea does not inspire any confidence and totality of proven facts surfaced appellant alone to be the perpetrator of murder. 25. So far as the next submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no independent witness of the inci­dent is concerned, only this will be suffice to say that merely because the witnesses are related with the deceased on this ground alone their testimony cannot be rejected as false. It is noteworthy that these witnesses are related with the appellant also and they having no motive or any kind of animosity with him having no reason to falsely implicate the appellant and spare the real assailant, thus their testimony can­not be rejected. 26. As regards the corroboration of dying declaration is concerned, it has been fully corroborated by the eye-witnesses and there appears to be no discrepancy in their deposition. However, if we ignore to accept the dying declaration, in that case also the testimony of the eye-witnesses alone is suf­ficient to warrant conviction against the appellant. However, the deceased was in a fit state of mind and had a clear opportu­nity to observe and identify the assailant. There is no material to show that this dying declaration was the result of product of imagination, tutoring or prompting. On the contrary, the same appears to have been made by the deceased voluntarily. However, the deceased was in a fit state of mind and had a clear opportu­nity to observe and identify the assailant. There is no material to show that this dying declaration was the result of product of imagination, tutoring or prompting. On the contrary, the same appears to have been made by the deceased voluntarily. It is, therefore, trustworthy and has credibility and thus the conviction of the appellant can be based upon it without any further cor-roboration. 27. On an over all consideration, the intrinsic merit of the evidence in the instant case, was clearly indicative of the guilt of the accused-appellant we find that the re­corded conviction of the appellant does not call for any interference by us and, there­fore, we affirm the Trial Court's judgment of conviction and sentence. 28. The appeal lacks merit. It is ac­cordingly dismissed. Vijay Pal, appellant is on bail. His bail is cancelled. The CJM Fatehpur shall cause the appellant Vijay Pal to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence. Appeal Dismissed.