(Delivered by Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan, J.) Accused-appellant Rampal has filed this present appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against judgement and order dated 30.09.1991 passed by Additional Session Judge, Hamirpur in S.T. No. 43 of 1990, State Vs. Rampal, under Section 302 I.P.C. and Crime No. 184 of 1989, P.S. Muskara, District Hamirpur; whereby learned Additional Session Judge has convicted accused-appellant Rampal for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him thereunder to imprisonment for life. Sri Lal Vijay Singh, appeared on behalf of accused-appellant and Sri N.K.S. Yadav, learned A.G.A. appeared for respondent-State. We have heard the parties and perused the records. According to F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01, story of prosecution is that on 09.11.1989 at about 9:00 p.m. within Village & P.S. Muskara, District Hamirpur, accused-appellant Rampal came on door of Shamsher, brother of complainant Jumman Khan and said to him that he used to make his complaint with police. Shamsher replied that he has not made his complaint with police. On this issue an altercation took place between them, whereupon having heard the noise complainant Jumman Khan and his wife Munni came out of their house and saw that altercation is going on between his brother Shamsher and accused-appellant Rampal. In the meantime, accused-appellant Rampal drew Katta (country made pistol) from his fate (waist) and asked Shamsher to face consequences of making complaint. Thereafter having seen the Katta, Shamsher raised alarm and ran towards east. Accused-appellant chased him, complainant Jumman Khan also ran behind them making light of torch and raising alarm. Hearing the noise witnesses Mohammad s/o Allarakkho and Mohar Khan, brother of complainant Jumman Khan rushed with torches challenging the accused-appellant. In the meantime, accused-appellant Rampal intercepted Shamsher in the field of Abdul Baswari and fired at him with Katta, Shamsher sustained injury of Katta (country made pistol) in his abdomen and fell down. Thereafter, accused-appellant Rampal crossed the road and ran away. According to F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01, accused-appellant Rampal was armed with Katta, therefore, none dared to catch or chase him. According to F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01, complainant Jumman Khan as well as witnesses Mohammad and Mohar Khan have seen the occurrence in the light of torches. Thereafter, accused-appellant Rampal crossed the road and ran away. According to F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01, accused-appellant Rampal was armed with Katta, therefore, none dared to catch or chase him. According to F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01, complainant Jumman Khan as well as witnesses Mohammad and Mohar Khan have seen the occurrence in the light of torches. After occurrence complainant Jumman Khan went along with his injured brother Shamsher to Police Station Muskara, District Hamirpur and presented F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 written by Rajaram s/o Ghuram in Police Station Muskara on the same day that is 09.11.1989 at 10:10 p.m., whereupon Crime No. 184 of 1989, under Section 307 I.P.C. was registered in Police Station Muskara, District Hamirpur against accused-appellant Rampal and injured Shamsher was sent by police for medical examination but injured Shamsher succumbed to injuries till he arrived Hospital. Information regarding death of Shamsher was sent by Hospital to Police Station Muskara, whereupon crime was converted into 302 I.P.C. Thereafter, inquest report of deceased Shamsher was prepared and after having completed necessary formalities his dead body was sent for post mortem in sealed cover. Thereafter, investigation was completed by police in accordance with law and after having completed investigation police submitted charge sheet against accused-appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., whereupon concerned Magistrate took cognizance and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Session for Trial of all accused. Thereafter Session Trial No. 43 of 1990, was registered in the Sessions Court of District Hamirpur. Learned Session Judge, Hamirpur framed charge against accused-appellant Rampal for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined PW1 complainant Jumman Khan, PW2 Mohammad, PW3 Mohar Khan, PW4 Dr. V.K. Gupta, PW5 I.O. Sri K.K. Dwivedi (S.I.) and closed his evidence. After prosecution evidence statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused-appellant stated that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. No evidence was adduced on behalf of accused-appellant in defence. Learned Additional Session Judge, Hamirpur heard the parties and passed impugned judgement and order dated 30.09.1991, whereby he has convicted and sentenced accused-appellant as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that accused-appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that out of three witnesses of fact examined by prosecution PW2 Mohammad has not supported version of prosecution. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that accused-appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that out of three witnesses of fact examined by prosecution PW2 Mohammad has not supported version of prosecution. Only PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan has supported prosecution version. But PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan are brothers of deceased and inimical to accused. Their statements are full of contradiction also. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that neither Investigating Officer has seen torches of complainant and witnesses nor said torches were produced before Court. Therefore, source of light is not proved. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that post mortem report as well as statement of PW4 Dr. V.K. Gupta shows that ante mortem fire arm injuries found on the dead body of deceased Shamsher may not be caused in one fire while F.I.R. and statements of witnesses show that only one fire was made by accused-appellant. Thus, version of F.I.R. as well as statements of witnesses are contradicted by post mortem report. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further contended that according to F.I.R. and statements of witnesses, accused-appellant caused injury to deceased after having chased him but post mortem report shows that all injuries of deceased were on frontal part of body. No injury was found on back portion of body. Therefore post mortem report is inconsistent with prosecution version. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that PW1 complainant Jumman Khan has stated that deceased Shamsher had worn pant which remained on his body in Police Station as well as in Hospital. But post mortem report shows that only shirt, banyayin and chaddi was found on the dead body of deceased Shamsher. Pant was not found on his dead body. Therefore, post mortem report is inconsistent with statement of PW1 complainant Jumman Khan on this point also. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that blood was not found on the place of occurrence therefore, alleged place of occurrence is doubtful. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that in view of above contradictions and discrepancies no reliance can be placed upon version of prosecution as well as witnesses of prosecution. Learned Trial Court has committed error in recording conviction of accused appellant. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant prayed that the appeal should be allowed and accused-appellant should be acquitted. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that in view of above contradictions and discrepancies no reliance can be placed upon version of prosecution as well as witnesses of prosecution. Learned Trial Court has committed error in recording conviction of accused appellant. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant prayed that the appeal should be allowed and accused-appellant should be acquitted. Learned A.G.A. contended that PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan are witnesses of locality and are natural witness. They have fully supported the story of prosecution and there is no material contradiction in their statements to disbelieve them. Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no contradiction between post mortem report and version of prosecution as well as statements of witnesses. Learned A.G.A. contended that evidence on record is sufficient to convict accused-appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and learned Trial Court has rightly convicted accused-appellant for the said offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Learned A.G.A. contended that the sentence awarded to accused-appellant is not excessive. Learned A.G.A. prayed that appeal should be dismissed. We have considered the submissions made by the parties. Out of five witnesses examined by prosecution PW1 complainant Jumman Khan, PW2 Mohammad and PW3 Mohar Khan are the witnesses of fact and occurrence. Out of which PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan has supported the story of prosecution in their statements on oath. PW1 complainant Jumman Khan has proved F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 also in his statement. PW2 Mohammad has turned hostile and has not supported the version of prosecution. He has stated that he has not seen the occurrence of murder of Shamsher. PW4 Dr. V.K. Gupta has stated in his statement on oath that on 10.11.1989 he was posted on the post of surgeon in the Male Hospital and on that day at 2:00 p.m. he conducted post mortem of deceased Shamsher aged 24 year s/o Chote Khan, Resident of Village Muskara, Police Station Muskara, District Hamirpur. The dead body of was brought by Constable 626 Satyendra Kumar and Constable 194 Ram Kumar and was identified by them. He has proved post mortem report of deceased Shamsher Exhibit Ka.02 and has stated that the death of deceased Shamsher may occur on 09.11.1989 at 10:30 p.m. and he has further stated that death might have taken place about 12 to 18 hour before post mortem. He has proved post mortem report of deceased Shamsher Exhibit Ka.02 and has stated that the death of deceased Shamsher may occur on 09.11.1989 at 10:30 p.m. and he has further stated that death might have taken place about 12 to 18 hour before post mortem. PW5 S.I. K.K. Dwivedi is the investigating officer, he has stated in his statement that from November, 1989 to January, 1990 he was posted as Incharge Sub-Inspector of Police Station Muskara, District Hamirpur. He has stated that on 09.11.1989 this crime relating to present appeal was registered in Police Station Muskara at 10:10 p.m. in his presence. Chik F.I.R. was written by Head Moharrir Chandrapal on the basis of F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 presented by complainant Jumman Khan. PW5 S.I. K.K. Dwivedi has proved chik F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.03 and G.D. relating registration of Crime Exhibit Ka.04 in his statement by identifying handwriting of Head Moharrir Chandrapal. PW5 S.I. K.K. Dwivedi has stated in his statement that he took investigation into his hand and started investigation, after sometime information was received that the injured Shamsher has died in hospital at 10:30 p.m. due to injuries sustained in the occurrence. Memo regarding said information was received, thereafter, at 10:45 p.m. on 09.11.1989 crime was converted into Section 302 I.P.C. and entry regarding conversion of crime was made in Rapat No. 32 of G.D. Dated 09.11.1989. He has proved said entry of G.D. as Exhibit Ka.05 in his statement. PW5 S.I. K.K. Dwivedi further stated in his statement that on 09.11.1989 after registration of case and after conversion of case into Section 302 I.P.C. he went to P.H.C. Muskara. He could not prepare inquest report in night due to insufficient arrangement of light. But, he recorded statement of complainant Jumman Khan under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. thereafter, on 10.11.1989 he made search of accused and prepared inquest report of deceased Shamsher. PW5 S.I. K.K. Dwivedi has proved inquest report Exhibit Ka.06, photonash Exhibit Ka.07 and chalannash Exhibit Ka.08 in accordance with law. He has stated that he sent the dead body in sealed cover for post mortem. PW5 S.I. K.K. Dwivedi has stated in his statement that he went to the place of occurrence and took statement of wife of complainant Jumman Khan and inspected the place of occurrence. He has stated that he sent the dead body in sealed cover for post mortem. PW5 S.I. K.K. Dwivedi has stated in his statement that he went to the place of occurrence and took statement of wife of complainant Jumman Khan and inspected the place of occurrence. He has proved site plan of occurrence Exhibit Ka.09 and has stated that he recovered two tikli of cartridges from the spot and prepared recovery memo Exhibit Ka.10. He has further stated that he recorded statement of Mohar Khan and made search of accused Rampal, thereafter, on 11.11.1989 he made entry of post mortem and panchnama in C.D. He has further stated that on 12.11.1989 he submitted report for proceeding under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against accused and thereafter, he made search of accused Rampal on 13.11.1989 and 14.11.1989. He has stated that accused Rampal surrendered before the Court on 15.11.1989, thereafter, on 30.11.1989 he took statement of accused Rampal in jail with permission of Court. PW5 S.I. K.K. Dwivedi has stated that after having completed investigation he submitted charge sheet Exhibit Ka.11. Now first for all we shall examine as to whether medical evidence is inconsistent with ocular evidence and version of F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01. Statement of PW4 Dr. V.K. Gupta as well as post mortem report Exhibit Ka.02 shows that five ante mortem injuries were found on dead body of deceased Shamsher Khan. Out of which four injuries were fire arm injuries and one injury was abrasion. Out of four fire arm injuries three injuries were wound of entry and one injury was wound of exit. There is nothing in the statement of PW4 Dr. V.K. Gupta or in post mortem report Exhibit Ka.02 to suggest that fire arm injuries found on dead body of deceased may not be caused in single fire. Defence did not dare to ascertain with PW4 Dr. V.K. Gupta through cross-examination as to whether fire arm injuries found on dead body of deceased may be caused in single shot or not. Description of fire arm injuries of deceased mentioned in post mortem report Exhibit Ka.02 as well as in statement of PW4 Dr. V.K. Gupta shows that these injuries were not having blackening tatooting or scorching. Therefore, it is apparent that fire has not been done with close range. Dimensions of all fire arm injuries of deceased are same and appears result of same fire. V.K. Gupta shows that these injuries were not having blackening tatooting or scorching. Therefore, it is apparent that fire has not been done with close range. Dimensions of all fire arm injuries of deceased are same and appears result of same fire. Dimensions of injuries shows that the cartridge used for fire was twelve bore which may cover a large area after dispersal. Thus, all the four fire arm injuries of deceased may be easily caused in one fire. Neither in F.I.R. nor in statements of PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan, it has been mentioned as to how many fires were made by accused-appellant Rampal. In F.I.R. as well as in statements of PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan, it has been mentioned that accused-appellant fired at Shamsher which caused injury in his abdomen, but defence has not dared to clarify with PW1 complainant Jumman Khan as well as PW3 Mohar Khan as to how many fire were made by accused-appellant Rampal and the description of occurrence mentioned in F.I.R. as well as in statement of PW1 complainant Jumman Khan shows that the altercation took place at house of deceased Shamsher and when accused-appellant draw Katta from his pheta (waist) Shamsher ran away, thereafter, accused-appellant Rampal chased him and intercepted him in the field of Abdul Baswari and fired at him. In such circumstances, more than one fire may be made by accused-appellant Rampal. Statement of PW4 Dr. V.K. Gupta as well as post mortem report of deceased Shamsher Exhibit Ka.02 shows that all the ante mortem injuries found on the dead body of deceased Shamsher are on frontal part. In F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 itself it has been clearly mentioned that after chasing Shamsher, accused-appellant Rampal intercepted him and thereafter, fired at him. Therefore, after having been intercepted by accused-appellant deceased must have turned towards accused. Therefore, on the ground of injuries found on frontal part of deceased Shamsher, no adverse inference may be drawn against prosecution. PW1 complainant Jumman Khan has stated in cross-examination that deceased Shamsher was wearing pant and shirt at the time of occurrence and when he suffered injuries he was wearing same dress. He was wearing same dress in Police Station and Hospital. PW1 complainant Jumman Khan has stated in cross-examination that deceased Shamsher was wearing pant and shirt at the time of occurrence and when he suffered injuries he was wearing same dress. He was wearing same dress in Police Station and Hospital. But statement of PW4 V.K. Gupta as well as post mortem report shows that only shirt, banyayin and chaddi were found on the dead body of deceased Shamsher. After having received injuries, injured Shamsher was brought to Police Station and thereafter to Hospital. In the meantime, pant of Shamsher might have been removed for natural calls. Therefore, prosecution version as well as statements of PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan may not be disbelieved on the ground that pant was not found on the dead body of deceased. In view of discussions made above, we are of the view that there is no contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence. Now we shall examine source of light. In F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 specific mention has been made that having heard noise complainant Jumman Khan and his wife Munni came out of their house and saw the altercation between Shamsher and accused-appellant Rampal in the light of electricity. In F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 it has also been mentioned that when accused-appellant Rampal chased Shamsher, complainant Jumman Khan also ran behind them making light of torch. It has also been mentioned in F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 that PW3 Mohar Khan, brother of complainant Jumman Khan also came from the grove making light of torch. PW1 complainant Jumman Khan has stated in his statement on oath that there was light of electricity near his house. He has also stated that he had torch also. He has further stated in his statement that his brother Mohar Khan and witness Mohammad had also troches. PW3 Mohar Khan has also stated in his statement that he rushed to place of occurrence with torch but Investigating Officer has not inspected torches of PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and said witnesses. He has not prepared any memo of torches. PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan have not produced their alleged torches before Court. Therefore, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove that complainant Jumman Khan and witnesses have torches with them at the time of occurrence. He has not prepared any memo of torches. PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan have not produced their alleged torches before Court. Therefore, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove that complainant Jumman Khan and witnesses have torches with them at the time of occurrence. But perusal of site plan Exhibit Ka.09 shows that Investigating Officer has shown electric bulb at the place shown with Letter 'E' in site plan Exhibit Ka.09 in the corner of deceased Shamsher's house. Thus, site plan Exhibit Ka.09 corroborates the version of F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 as well as statement of PW1 complainant Jumman Khan that there was light of electricity near the houses of complainant Jumman Khan and deceased Shamsher Khan at the time of occurrence. According to site plan Exhibit Ka.09, the place where the accused-appellant Rampal fired at deceased Shamsher is about 145 steps away from the house of deceased Shamsher. Light of electric bulb may easily reach 145 steps. Besides this, accused-appellant Rampal as well as PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan are resident of same Village and are known to each other. Therefore, known persons may easily be identified in darkness also by their voice, movement, etc. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that prosecution has proved source of light and prosecution case may not be discarded on the ground of light. Now we shall examine as to whether place of occurrence is doubtful on the ground of no recovery of blood from spot. Admittedly, no blood have been recovered from the place of occurrence by Investigating Officer. PW1 complainant Jumman Khan has stated in his statement on oath that after occurrence, he carried his injured brother to Police Station and thereafter, he carried him to Hospital. Thus, it is apparent that soon after occurrence the deceased was removed from the place of occurrence. PW1 complainant Jumman Khan has specifically mentioned in his statement on oath that no blood was fallen on earth, blood was soaked by his clothes. In view of immediate removal of injured from the place of occurrence and above statement of PW1 complainant Jumman Khan, we are of the view that no adverse inference may be drawn against prosecution for no recovery of blood from the place of occurrence. In view of immediate removal of injured from the place of occurrence and above statement of PW1 complainant Jumman Khan, we are of the view that no adverse inference may be drawn against prosecution for no recovery of blood from the place of occurrence. Therefore, place of occurrence may not be disbelieved for no recovery of blood. Now we shall examine as to whether PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan are trustworthy witnesses and their testimonies may be relied upon to convict accused-appellant In the Case of Brahm Swaroop and another Vs. State of U.P. A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 280, Hon'ble Apex Court held that "merely because the witnesses were closed relatives to the deceased that cannot be ground to discard their evidence." In the case of Vithal Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 1 SCC (Crl.) 91, Hon'ble Apex Court held that "testimony of mother of deceased should not be discarded on the ground that she is an interested witness." In the case of Ranjit Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 255, Hon'ble Apex Court held that "undoubtedly, all the eye witnesses including injured witnesses are closely related to the deceased. Thus, in such a fact situation, the law requires the Court to examine their evidence with care and caution. Such close relatives and injured witnesses would definitely not shield the real culprits of the crime and name somebody else because of enmity." In view of above pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is apparent that testimonies of witnesses may not be discarded only on the ground of relationship. PW1 complainant Jumman Khan has stated in his statement that his house as well as house of deceased Shamsher is same but doors are separate. In site plan Exhibit Ka.09, Investigating Officer PW5 S.I. K.K. Dwivedi has also shown the house of complainant Jumman Khan and Shamsher adjacent to each other. It is apparent from F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 as well as statement of PW1 complainant Jumman Khan that beginning of occurrence took place from the house of deceased Shamsher. Therefore, PW1 complainant Jumman Khan is a local and natural witness of occurrence. In F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 specific mention has been made that brother of complainant Mohar Khan came on spot from the grove. Therefore, PW1 complainant Jumman Khan is a local and natural witness of occurrence. In F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 specific mention has been made that brother of complainant Mohar Khan came on spot from the grove. PW1 complainant Jumman Khan has stated in cross-examination at Page 5 (Page 13 of Paper Book) that during day of occurrence his brother Mohar Khan was living in the grove of guava for keeping watch. He had made a hut in grove where he was living. PW3 Mohar Khan has also stated in cross-examination at Page 3 (Page 21 of Paper Book) that at the time of occurrence he was in his hut and his hut is adjacent to khachhi, he rushed to the spot. In site plan Exhibit Ka.09 Investigating Officer PW5 S.I. K.K. Dwivedi has shown the place with letter 'C' from where PW3 Mohar Khan has seen the occurrence. Investigating Officer has shown the arrival of PW3 Mohar Khan from grove in site plan Exhibit Ka.09. Thus it is apparent from F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 as well as site plan Exhibit Ka.09 and statements of PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan that at the time of occurrence PW3 Mohar Khan was in the grove and he came to the place of occurrence from the grove. In view of discussion made above, presence of PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan at the time of occurrence appears highly reliable. PW1 complainant Jumman Khan has fully supported on oath the story of prosecution narrated in F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01. PW3 Mohar Khan has stated in his statement that it was 9:00 p.m. of night he was in bagiya. He heard the noise of Shamsher and Jumman Khan, he rushed to the spot with torch. In the meantime accused Rampal fired at Shamsher in the field of Abdul Bashwari Wale which caused injury to Shamsher in abdomen and Shamsher fell down in the said field. Thereafter, accused Rampal crossed the road and ran away. We have gone through the whole statement of PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan, we are unable to find any material contradiction in their statements regarding occurrence to disbelieve them. In the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Thereafter, accused Rampal crossed the road and ran away. We have gone through the whole statement of PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan, we are unable to find any material contradiction in their statements regarding occurrence to disbelieve them. In the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri 2012 (IV) SCC 124 , Hon'ble Apex Court held that "minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statement of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false, sense of observation differs from person to person." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 48, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "every honest and truthful witness may differ in some details unrelated to main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals." In the case of Faquira Vs. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 915, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "minor discrepancy guarantees that witnsses are not tutored." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others 2010 Cr.L.J. 3889 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master (Supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "the basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole." In view of above pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that testimonies of witnesses may not be discarded on the ground of minor contradiction or discrepancy. Statement of PW4 Dr. V.K. Gupta as well as post mortem report of deceased Shamsher shows that post mortem of deceased Shamsher was conducted on 10.11.1989 at 2:00 p.m. by PW4 Dr. V.K. Gupta. PW4 Dr. V.K. Gupta has stated in his statement that death of deceased Shamsher had taken place about 12 to 18 hours before post mortem. Thus, time of death of deceased Shamsher is corroborated by post mortem report and statement of Doctor. Statement of PW4 Dr. V.K. Gupta. PW4 Dr. V.K. Gupta has stated in his statement that death of deceased Shamsher had taken place about 12 to 18 hours before post mortem. Thus, time of death of deceased Shamsher is corroborated by post mortem report and statement of Doctor. Statement of PW4 Dr. V.K. Gupta as well as post mortem report of deceased Shamsher Exhibit Ka.02 shows that five ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body of deceased Shamsher. Out of which injury nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were fire arm injuries and injury no. 5 was an abrasion. The deceased Shamsher was caused injury with fire arm is corroborated by his post mortem report Exhibit Ka.02 as well as statement of PW4 Dr. V.K. Gupta. Statements of PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan and version of F.I.R. are corroborated by site plan Exhibit Ka.09 as well as statement of Investigating Officer also. F.I.R. is very prompt. F.I.R. has been lodged at 10:10 p.m. within 1:10 hour of occurrence. PW1 Jumman Khan is complainant and PW3 Mohar Khan is a named witness of F.I.R. Promtness of F.I.R. Rules out all possibility of concoction and increases reliability of prosecution version as well as testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Accused Rampal has stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that witnesses has given evidence against him due to enmity but defence has failed to show any enmity between accused-Rampal and witnesses PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan, brother of complainant Jumman Khan either by cross-examination or by documentary evidence. Therefore, there is no sufficient ground to infer that PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan have given evidence against accused Rampal due to enmity. Accused Rampal has stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that in the grove of lakhpat gamble was played. He has further stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that at the instigation of gambler he has been falsely implicated because gamblers have enmity with him. But no evidence has been adduced by defence in support of his statement made in Section 313 Cr.P.C. In view of discussion made above, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground for false implication of accused-appellant as well as for giving false evidence by witnesses against accused-appellant. In the case of Brahm Swaroop and and other Vs. In the case of Brahm Swaroop and and other Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2011 Supreme Court 280, Hon'ble Apex Court held that "if the evidence of the eye-witnesses is trustworthy and believed by the Court, the question of motive becomes totally irrelevant." In view of this pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court the motive of occurrence appears to be irrelevant as the witnesses examined by prosecution are eye witnesses of occurrence. However, immediate cause of occurrence has been mentioned in F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.01 and has been proved by PW1 complainant Jumman Khan. After having gone through entire evidence on record as well as facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that PW1 complainant Jumman Khan and PW3 Mohar Khan are trustworthy witnesses and there is no reasonable ground to disbelieve them. In view of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of Narpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1977 Cr.L.J. 642 SC, no adverse inference may be drawn for non-examination of witnesses. PW4 Dr. V.K. Gupta has stated in his statement on oath that ante mortem injury has been found on the dead body of deceased was sufficient to cause death. After having gone through the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as whole evidence on record, we are of the view that evidence on record is sufficient to hold accused-appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Perusal of impugned judgement passed by Trial Court shows that Trial Court has gone through the whole evidence on record as well as entire facts and circumstances of the case. Trial Court has discussed all relevant points in detail. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, Trial Court has rightly placed reliance upon evidence adduced by prosecution and has rightly convicted accused-appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The sentences awarded by Trial Court does not appear excessive and no appeal has been filed by State for enhancement of sentence. There is no justification for interference in the impugned judgement and order of Trial Court. In view of conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. Accused-appellant is on bail. There is no justification for interference in the impugned judgement and order of Trial Court. In view of conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. Accused-appellant is on bail. He shall surrender before the Trial Court within 30 days from the date of this judgement for serving sentence, failing which, Trial Court shall ensure his arrest and shall send him to Jail for serving sentence awarded to him. Office is directed to send copy of this judgment and order to Trial Court for compliance. Send back records of Trial Court immediately. ——————