JUDGMENT : V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 966 of 2009. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 452 of IPC and also under section 3read with section 30 of the Arms Act. For the offence under section 302 of IPC the learned Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life. For the offence under section 452 of IPC the appellant was sentenced to SI for two years and for the offence under section 3 read with 30 of the Arms Act the appellant was sentenced to SI for six months. The learned Sessions Judge directed that all substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: The deceased in the present case is Ramchandra. The appellant and Ramchandra were cousins. The appellant had three brothers. One of the brothers was Gangaram PW 7. The appellant had dispute with his brother PW 7 Gangaram. The appellant was residing at distance of 15 ft. from the house of Gangaram. The appellant had licensed rifle and he used to threaten Gangaram and others at the point of rifle. The appellant had assaulted Gangaram and his wife due to this Gangaram had lodged a complaint at Bhor police station. Ramchandra used to accompany Gangaram when he went to police station. Due to this the appellant had grudge against Ramchandra. The appellant used to abuse and threaten Ramchandra on this count. About eight days prior to the incident the appellant had threatened Ramchandra. Ramchandra lodged complaint against the appellant on account of said threat. The incident occurred on 25.7.2009 at about 12 noon. At that time Ramchandra and PW 8 Anusaya, who was niece of Ramchandra were present in the house. Anusaya was residing with her Uncle Ramchandra since about 25 years as she had some differences with her husband. Anusaya used to cook for Ramchandra and help him. The appellant entered into the house of Ramchandra at about 12 noon, at that time Ramchandra was in the kitchen. The appellant shot Ramchandra from the door of kitchen and then ran away. PW 8 Anusaya witnessed the incident. Anusaya shouted whereupon people came rushing to house. Anusaya used to cook for Ramchandra and help him. The appellant entered into the house of Ramchandra at about 12 noon, at that time Ramchandra was in the kitchen. The appellant shot Ramchandra from the door of kitchen and then ran away. PW 8 Anusaya witnessed the incident. Anusaya shouted whereupon people came rushing to house. The persons who had gathered took Ramchandra to hospital. During treatment Ramchandra expired. PW 8 Anusaya informed about the incident to PW 4 Vitthal, who is the son of Ramchandra. PW 4 Vitthal lodged FIR Exhibit 33. Thereafter investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. In due course the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 2. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Section 302, 452 and 504 of the IPC. In addition, charge was also framed under section 3 read with section 25 and 30 of the Arms Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para 1 above, hence, this appeal. 3. We have heard learned Advocate for the appellant and learned APP for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the Appellant and there is no merit in the present Appeal. 4. The prosecution case is mainly founded on the evidence of two eye witnesses that is PW 8 Anusaya and PW 9 Sudam. PW 8 Anusaya was the niece of the deceased Ramchandra. As Anusaya had some differences with her husband she was residing with her Uncle i.e. the deceased Ramchandra. She was residing with him since 25 years prior to the incident. Anusaya used to cook for her Uncle Ramchandra and help him. Anusaya has stated that at the time of the incident she and Ramchandra were present in the house. As Anusaya had some differences with her husband she was residing with her Uncle i.e. the deceased Ramchandra. She was residing with him since 25 years prior to the incident. Anusaya used to cook for her Uncle Ramchandra and help him. Anusaya has stated that at the time of the incident she and Ramchandra were present in the house. Anusaya has further stated that at about 12 noon the appellant came in the house, he entered from front door of house. At that time Ramchandra was in the kitchen. The appellant shot Ramchandra from the door of kitchen. Thereafter the appellant went away. Anusaya raised hue and cry whereupon people rushed to the house. Anusaya has identified article 9 as the same gun with which the appellant shot Ramchandra. The evidence of Anusaya clearly shows that the appellant committed offence under section 302 and 452 of IPC. Her evidence also show that the appellant also committed offence under section 3 read with section 30 of the Arms Act as the gun was a licensed gun and it had been misused. 5. The next eye witness is PW 9 Sudam. The house of Sudam was at a distance of 15 ft. from the house of Ramchandra. At the time of the incident Sudam was working in his field which was in front of his house. Sudam has stated that at about 12.30 p.m. the appellant came there carrying rifle in his hand. The appellant was giving abuses at that time. The appellant then entered the house of Ramchandra, seeing this Sudam also went there. Sudam saw the appellant shooting Ramchandra. Then, the appellant went away. The appellant while going said that he had finished Ramchandra and now he will finish Gangaram. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of both the eye witnesses so as to cause us to disbelieve their testimony. 6. The prosecution has brought on record the motive for the appellant to commit the crime. The motive has been brought on record through evidence of PW 4 Vitthal, PW 7 Gangaram, PW 8 Anusaya, PW 9 Sudam and PW 10 Sonabai. PW 4 Vitthal has stated that his father Ramchandra was residing in village Mahude B.K. He has stated that the appellant as well as PW 7 Gangaram were his Uncles. Their houses were near the house of his father. PW 4 Vitthal has stated that his father Ramchandra was residing in village Mahude B.K. He has stated that the appellant as well as PW 7 Gangaram were his Uncles. Their houses were near the house of his father. His cousin Anusaya was looking after his father. She was staying with his father. The appellant - Rangoba was from his village and house of Rangoba was situated near his house. Further, Vitthal has stated that the appellant had licensed rifle. The appellant used to threaten the people in the village. About eight days prior to the incident, the appellant had threatened Ramchandra, who is father of Vitthal, hence they lodged complaint against the appellant. Ramchandra had good relations with PW 7 Gangaram, who was brother of the appellant. The appellant had abused and assaulted Gangaram and his wife Ranjana on 28.4.2009. Ramchandra went with Gangaram to police station to lodge the complaint. As Ramchandra was friend of Gangaram he was helping Gangaram. The people in the village used to come to Ramchandra and tell him to do something in relation to the appellant, as the appellant used to threaten people whereupon Ramchandra used to tell them that they should go to police station and lodge complaint against the appellant. Due to all this the appellant had grudge against Ramchandra. Vitthal has further stated that on 25.7.2009 he was informed on telephone by PW 8 Anusaya that the appellant had entered in the house and shot Ramchandra with rifle. 7. PW 7 Gangaram has also deposed about the motive. Gangaram has stated that he had three brothers. One of his brothers was Rangoba. The deceased Ramchandra was his cousin and Ramchandra was residing near his house. He and Ramchandra were friends and they were visiting each other's house. Ramchandra was helping Gangaram. Gangaram has stated that house of the appellant i.e. his brother Rangoba was at distance of 15 ft. from his house. The appellant had rifle with him. The appellant used to threaten Gangaram and others at the point of rifle. The appellant assaulted Gangaram and his wife, due to this Gangaram lodged complaint at Bhor police station. Gangaram was admitted in the hospital. The appellant was threatening Gangaram and his family members. Deceased Ramchandra used to accompany Gangaram when he went to police station. Due to this the appellant had grudge against Ramchandra. The appellant assaulted Gangaram and his wife, due to this Gangaram lodged complaint at Bhor police station. Gangaram was admitted in the hospital. The appellant was threatening Gangaram and his family members. Deceased Ramchandra used to accompany Gangaram when he went to police station. Due to this the appellant had grudge against Ramchandra. On the day of the incident Gangaram was in the field. On hearing shouts he came home. He saw Ramchandra was taken to hospital. Gangaram's wife told him that the appellant was searching for him and thereafter the appellant went in the forest. 8. PW 8 Anusaya has also stated above the motive. She was niece of deceased Ramchandra. She was residing in the house of Ramchandra. Anusaya has stated that there were disputes between the appellant and his brother Gangaram. Ramchandra was helping Gangaram in that dispute. Due to this the appellant was abusing Ramchandra and the appellant was annoyed with Ramchandra. PW 9 Sudam has also deposed about the motive. He has stated that there were many disputes between the appellant and his brother Gangaram. Gangaram and Ramchandra were friends. Ramchandra was helping Gangaram. Due to this the appellant was abusing Ramchandra. PW 10 Sonabai has also stated that there were disputes between the appellant and his brother Gangaram. Gangaram was on visiting terms with Ramchandra. The appellant was abusing and threatening Ramchandra. Thus, the evidence of five witnesses shows that the appellant had grudge against the deceased. Their evidence proves the motive for the appellant to commit the crime. 9. In addition to the above evidence, the prosecution has relied on evidence of PW 10 Sonabai to show that immediately after the incident, the appellant was seen running away with rifle in his hand. PW 10 Sonabai has stated that at about 12.30 p.m. she heard shouts and at that time she saw the appellant running away alongwith rifle and while running away he was saying that he had killed one and he has to kill another. She then went to the house of Ramchandra and found that Ramchandra was lying on the floor in pool of blood. She has identified the rifle Article 9 before the Court as the same article which was in hand of the appellant. She then went to the house of Ramchandra and found that Ramchandra was lying on the floor in pool of blood. She has identified the rifle Article 9 before the Court as the same article which was in hand of the appellant. In addition to PW 10 Sonabai, PW 8 Anusaya has also identified rifle Article 9 as same weapon which was in the hand of the appellant. 10. It is the prosecution case that the appellant shot Ramchandra with his rifle due to which Ramchandra had died. This is corroborated by the medical evidence. PW 5 Dr. Burande conducted post mortem on the dead body of Ramchandra. X-ray of the dead body was also taken out. On external examination Dr. Burande found the following injuries on the dead body of Ramchandra: (1) An irregular wound of entry on the posterior aspect of left shoulder 8 x 3 x 3 c.ms. bleeding was present through wound, the wound was surrounded by multiple small circular wounds over surrounding area, 3 c.ms. anterior to the wound of entry and 2 c.ms. posterior to the wound of entry, the wound was extended from left shoulder anteriorly upto rt. sub mandibular region and posteriorly upto left occipital region. Underlying soft tissues were severed with ante mortem blood clots. Multiple pellets found embedded in corresponding tissues. According to Dr. Burande the probable object which caused the injuries was fire arm and nature of injury was grievous. According to Dr. Burande they are all ante mortem injuries. 11. On internal examination Dr. Burande found following injuries:- (1) Body of sphenoid bone was fractured (2) Nasal cartilage was fractured (3) left extra dural and left sub dural haemorrhage was seen. Base of left parietal and left frontal lobe was lacerated and brain was looking pale. In the opinion of Dr. Burande the cause of death was due to traumatic and haemorrhagic shock as a result of fire arm injuries. Dr. Burande has opined that the injury caused to deceased is possible by rifle. Dr. Burande has stated that it is not true to say that the injuries were not on vital part or that on immediate medical aid person could have been saved. 12. C.A. report Exhibit 65/3 shows that the rifle was a single barrel breech loading 12 bore hammer shotgun in working order. Dr. Burande has stated that it is not true to say that the injuries were not on vital part or that on immediate medical aid person could have been saved. 12. C.A. report Exhibit 65/3 shows that the rifle was a single barrel breech loading 12 bore hammer shotgun in working order. Residue of fired ammunition-nitrite-was detected in the barrel washings of shotgun showing that shotgun was used for firing prior to its receipt in the laboratory. PW 5 Dr. Burande has stated that two pellets found embedded in left para vertebral muscles were sent to C.A. for examination. C.A. Report shows that deformed fired lead pellets found in the body of Ramchandra are those generally used in 12 shotgun cartridge. PW 8 Anusaya and PW 10 Sonabai have identified the rifle Article 9 before the Court as the same weapon which was in the hands of the appellant. Thus, the medical report and forensic report supports the case of the prosecution. 13. In addition to above evidence the prosecution is also relying on circumstance of recovery of rifle at the instance of the appellant. PW 2 Dashrath is the panch witness, who has deposed on this aspect. PW 2 Dasrath stated that on 29.7.2009 he was called to the police station. The appellant made a statement in his presence that he will show the place where he had hidden the rifle. The panchas, police and the appellant then sat in jeep, after travelling some distance, the appellant got down from the jeep. The appellant took them to Pangala forest. There were bushes in the forest. The appellant moved the bushes aside and took out gun from it. The appellant gave the gun to police. The gun was single barrel gun. The police seized the same. The length of rifle was 47 inches. The police found the name of the appellant engraved on the gun. On opening the gun they found one cartridge. PW 2 Dashrath has identified the gun before the Court as the very same gun which was recovered at the instance of the appellant. As stated earlier this gun was sent for forensic analysis alongwith two pellets found in the body of the deceased and it was found that the pellets found are those which are generally used in 12 shotgun cartridge which was recovered at the instance of the appellant. As stated earlier this gun was sent for forensic analysis alongwith two pellets found in the body of the deceased and it was found that the pellets found are those which are generally used in 12 shotgun cartridge which was recovered at the instance of the appellant. It was also found that the gun was in working order and was used just prior to its receipt in the laboratory. PW 2 Dashrath, PW 8 Anusaya and PW 10 Sonabai have all stated that the appellant was carrying the rifle Article 9 with which he had shot Ramchandra. 14. The appellant had a license for the rifle. Due to the fact that the appellant had shot Ramchandra with a licensed rifle, the offence under section 3 read with section 30 of the Arms Act is made out. 15. On going through the record we find that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed murder of Ramchandra by shooting him with a gun. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 16. We quantify legal fees to be paid by the High Court Legal services committee to the appointed Advocate Ms. Rohini Dandekar at Rs. 5,000/-. Office to communicate this order to the concerned prison authorities and to the appellant who is in jail.