JUDGMENT D.N. UPADHYAY, J. This Cr. Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 13.9.1996 and sentence dated 16.9.1996 passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Sessions Trial No. 67 of 1989 whereby appellant Kumar Sanjay @ Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Chhote @ Chhotu Singh has been held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that Krishna Ram (deceased) left home and went to the shop-cum-residence of Bishu Ram @ Bishwanath Ram within 10-15 minutes, 6-7 school going boys raising 'hulla' reached to the house of the informant and reported that Bishu Ram and Chotua Singh have fired at Krishna Ram at the shop of Bishu Ram and after having injury, Krishna is lying near the shop. The informant, who is the mother of the deceased ran to the place of occurrence and found her son dead having gun shot injury on his head. She had also noticed bunch of hair of Krishna Ram lying near the place of occurrence. Fardbayan of the informant Kaushalya Devi was recorded by the police on 16.8.1988 at about 10 a.m. Besides the above fact, she had also narrated that in the morning Bishu Ram @ Bishwanath Ram had been to her house and he wanted to meet Krishna Ram but Krishna Ram was sleeping at that time then he told the informant to send Krishna to his shop. At about 8 : 30 a.m. the informant told her son. Krishna Ram that Bishwanath Ram wanted to meet him and he has called him at his shop. Thereafter, Krishna Ram had his bath and went to meet Bishwanath Ram to his shop and within 10-15 minutes this incidence took place. On the basis of fardbayan of Kaushalya Devi, Daltonganj (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 267 of 1988 dated 16.8.1988 under Sections 302/34 and 27 of the Arms Act against Bishwanath Ram and Kumar Sanjay @ Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Chhote @ Chhotu Singh was registered. The police after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet only against accused Kumar Sanjay @ Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Chhote @ Chhotu Singh. Accordingly, the accused was put on trial and the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses whereas the accused has also examined two witnesses. 3. Dr. The police after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet only against accused Kumar Sanjay @ Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Chhote @ Chhotu Singh. Accordingly, the accused was put on trial and the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses whereas the accused has also examined two witnesses. 3. Dr. Shayam Bihari Mahto had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Krishna Ram on 16.8.1988 at about 1.30 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person :- Lacerated wound 1½” x 1/2" x cavity deep with inverted margin about 1" the right eyebrow having brain matter coming out (wound of entry). ii. Lacerated injury 3" x 2" x cavity deep with everted margin about 4" behind and above the left ear smearing with brain matter with hairs all round. Injuries were caused by firearm and the same were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause of death. 4. Bishwanath Ram (P.W. 2) has stated that on 16.8.1988 at about 9 a.m. accused Chhote @ Chhotu Singh alongwith his associate reached to his shop and they scuffled with Krishna Ram (deceased). In the meantime, Chhote @ Chhotu Singh took out pistol and opened fire causing injury on the head of Krishna Ram. After having injury, Krishna Ram fell down and died at the spot. He has further stated that he had called Krishna Ram for attending a meeting of their caste because he was the President and Krishna Ram (deceased) was the Secretary of said caste organization. In the morning, he had gone to the house of Krishna Ram to inform him but he was sleeping at that time, therefore, he told his mother to send Krishna Ram to his shop and as such Krishna Ram had come to his shop at about 9 a.m. After the incident, he informed the nearby people, who were present and went to the Police Station. He had also given his statement before the Magistrate. The appellant was identified by him in the Dock. In his cross examination, he has named the persons who are having their residence in the vicinity but he could not say whether they had witnessed the occurrence or not. He has been examined in detail with regard to the location of his shop and the locality. He admits that in course of going to the police station, he had informed Guput Babu about the incident. He has been examined in detail with regard to the location of his shop and the locality. He admits that in course of going to the police station, he had informed Guput Babu about the incident. He stayed at the police station for about 25-30 minutes and then returned back to the place of occurrence where the police also arrived. On the next date, he had given his statement before the Magistrate in the Court. 5. Kaushalya Devi (P.W. 3) is the informant and she happens to be the mother of the deceased. She has supported the Fardbayan and said that Bishwanath Ram had visited her house in the morning and wanted to meet Krishna but Krishna was sleeping at that time She informed Krishna when he woke up that Bishwanath Ram had asked him to come to his shop. Krishna Ram left home but, within 10 minutes she was informed that her son Krishna has been done to death near the shop of Bishwanath Ram. She rushed to the place where the police also arrived at and her Fardbayan was recorded. P.W. 4 Gorakh Ram is a formal witness and he had taken all the photographs of the deceased at the place of occurrence and the photographs have been marked as Exts.-2 to 2/5. P.W. 5 Sheo Shankar Ram has not supported the prosecution case and he has been declared hostile. P.W. 6 Tami Prasad Yadav was the Investigating Officer and he has supported the prosecution done by him. It was deposed that on 16.8.1988 fardbayan of Kaushalya Devi was recorded at the place of occurrence and the Fardbayan has been proved Ext.-3. On the basis of Fardbayan, formal F.I.R. was drawn, which is Ext.-4. He took charge of the investigation, inspected the place of occurrence and also prepared the inquest report Ext.-5 in presence of the witnesses. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. He has also seized bunch of hairs of the deceased fallen at the spot. Blood stained soil, one plastic bag containing some documents belonging to deceased were also seized. A pair of sleeper lying at a distance of 20 yards from the place of occurrence was noticed by this witness during P.O. inspection and those sleepers were also seized in presence of witnesses and the seizure list is Ext.-6/1. The contradictions taken from the witnesses were referred to this witness. A pair of sleeper lying at a distance of 20 yards from the place of occurrence was noticed by this witness during P.O. inspection and those sleepers were also seized in presence of witnesses and the seizure list is Ext.-6/1. The contradictions taken from the witnesses were referred to this witness. In his cross-examination, he admits that P.W. 2 Bishwanath Ram was also made accused by the informant but after recording his statement, he has been cited as charge - sheet witness. The statement of said Bishwanath Ram was also recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. on 17.8.1988. He had not assigned specific reason under what circumstances said Bishu Ram @ Bishwanath Ram was treated as an eyewitness instead of an accused, who was named in the F.I.R. 6. Bhikhari Ram (D.W. 1) has been examined to show that charge-sheet witness Rita Devi was alive but she could not be examined because she was under advance stage of pregnancy. Ladle Hassan (D.W. 2) is a formal witness, who has proved the endorsement made on the summon as Ext.-B/1. 7. Learned Counsel has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution has not brought on record motive behind the incident. The investigation is perfunctory and the I.O. has given full favour to another named accused Bishu Ram @ Bishwanath Ram and without assigning any reason treated that accused as an eye-witness. The occurrence took place at about 9 a.m. at the shop of Bishu Ram, which is situated at the side of road but no independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge has wrongly recorded the order of conviction relying upon the evidence of solitary eyewitness Bishwanath Ram who could not be considered wholly truthful and reliable. The informant in her fardbayan had raised allegation against Bishu Ram @ Bishwanath Ram (P.W. 2) and she has also said that he was not present near the dead body when she reached to the place of occurrence. Furthermore, the family members of Bishwanath Ram, who were admittedly residing in the very same house adjacent to the shop did not come to support the contention of P.W. 2. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves acquittal. 8. Furthermore, the family members of Bishwanath Ram, who were admittedly residing in the very same house adjacent to the shop did not come to support the contention of P.W. 2. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves acquittal. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the informant as well as State have opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellant has rightly been held guilty. He was convicted in another case under Section 307 I.P.C. and after his release from custody in this appeal he has committed another crime. There is no reason to disbelieve P.W. 2 and there is no impediment in recording the order of conviction on the evidence of solitary eyewitness, if he is trustworthy. 9. We have carefully examined the evidence and documents available on record. It is true that the entire prosecution story is based upon the evidence of P.W. 2 and the learned Sessions Judge has considered his evidence reliable and inspiring confidence. Since the order of conviction is recorded on the evidence of solitary eye-witness, we have to scrutinize the evidence with great care and caution. The evidence on record indicates that the deceased had visited the place of occurrence at the request made by P.W.2 and the place of occurrence is the shop-cum-residence of P.W. 2. He had asked the mother of the deceased to send Krishna Ram to his shop to attend a meeting of their caste organization. It is also on record that the occurrence took place at the shop of P.W. 2 within 15 minutes after the deceased left home. These admitted circumstances were sufficient for the informant to raise suspicion against P.W. 2 Bishwanath Ram and therefore, he was made accused in the F.I.R. In such a delicate and critical situation, it is important to carefully examine the conduct and evidence of P. W. 2 and also the investigation done. Bishu Ram P.W. 2 has described the manner of occurrence and he was shocked when he saw that Krishna Ram was shot at by the appellant in front of his shop. He did not disappear from the place rather he went to the• police station and after staying for half an hour, returned back to the place of occurrence, assisted and cooperated with the investigation. He did not disappear from the place rather he went to the• police station and after staying for half an hour, returned back to the place of occurrence, assisted and cooperated with the investigation. He was all along present at the place when the initial part of investigation was going on and his family members were also present in the house. The wife and children of P. W. 2 were examined by the Investigating Officer but for some reasons or the other they have not come before the court to give their evidences. P.W. 2 remained at the police station and on the next date, he appeared before the Magistrate and gave his statement in detail which was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. At no point of time either during investigation or during trial the informant had raised suspicion against P.W. 2 and she had also not expressed her dissatisfaction with the investigation done. All these aspect of the prosecution case suggest that it was a co-incidence that deceased was shot at, while he was sitting in front of the shop of P. W. 2 and that too when he was called by P.W. 2 to attend the meeting of their caste organization. In course of argument, a thought also came in our mind as to how the appellant knew the presence of his target at the shop of P.W. 2. It has come in evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3 & P.W. 6 that house of informant P.W. 3 and the house of appellant are situated in a close vicinity within 300 yards, therefore, it was possible that movement of the deceased could be easily noticed by the appellant if he was interested. Besides the above, it is difficult to bring on record the state of mind of a person who is having an evil design to commit crime and when and where he would target the prey. Therefore, if other evidences available on record is consistent to point out towards the guilt of accused, this issue will not come in the way to decide the case. 10. It was also submitted that the informant had assigned motive in her Fardbayan but that fact stood uncorroborated during trial. Therefore, if other evidences available on record is consistent to point out towards the guilt of accused, this issue will not come in the way to decide the case. 10. It was also submitted that the informant had assigned motive in her Fardbayan but that fact stood uncorroborated during trial. In this context, we have gone through the Fardbayan of P.W. 3 which is Ext.-3 in which she had stated that between her deceased son and the appellant Chhotaiya Singh a dispute with regard to the land had taken place about a month ago. Chhotaiya Singh had given threat to kill Krishna Ram therefore, motive behind the commission of murder was disclosed in the Fardbayan. Furthermore, in a case where direct evidence is available, which is unimpeachable and trustworthy, the motive if not properly proved, will not be sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case. 11. We also find the evidence of P.W. 2 worthy of credence and reliable because the manner of occurrence disclosed by this witness finds support from the post mortem report and seizure list. He has stated that two persons came to his shop while Krishna Ram was sitting there. Out of those two, he had identified Chhotaiya Singh, who scuffled with Krishna Ram and that Chhotaiya Singh aiming at the head of deceased opened fire. Due to gun shot injury caused on the head, brain matter also came out. The Investigating Officer had seized hairs of the deceased fallen at the place. All these facts corroborate the evidence of P.W. 2. It has not come on record that at the time of incident the people of locality assembled and they had witnessed the incident. The place of occurrence as described by the Investigating Officer indicates that only one house was situated adjacent to' the house of P.W. 2. There was open field after the road and a 'Parti' land at one side of the house of P.W. 2. It is also to be noted that the incident took place at about 9 a.m. or onwards and the Fardbayan was recorded at 10 a.m. In view of the above facts and the circumstances available on record, we did not find any reason to disbelieve P.W. 2 and therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge needs no interference. 12. 12. In the result the bail stands cancelled the appellant is directed to surrender before the convicting court/successor court within one month from the date of this judgment and if he fails to do so, the Court is empowered to take all coercive step to secure the attendance of the convict Kumar Sanjay @ Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Chhote @ Chhotu Singh. 13. This appeal is thus dismissed. I agree.